So you're not going to argue X, because he's not "open minded" enough and he is arrogant, but then say that you're much better than me. Yeah, I have a list for you:

1: You're arrogant

2: Not open-minded enough, I want you to believe me right off the bat like you want with X

3: X is much better and more fun to talk to

4: You felt eager enough to argue The Lord, but not X, so hypocritical

Edited 6/9/2016 00:10:15

luls conservative calls me a troll but doesn't refute anything gg.
Complains about Juq's arrogance, has this on his bio luls: I'm a Libertarian who is probably one of the most cultured people WarLight.


@Richard Sharpe
What does experience matter? The system is wacked. Look where the status quo and experience have got us - more corruption, 18 trillion in debt, involved all around the world, ISIS and Islam everywhere, .5% GDP growth. Experience is good, but all of Clinton's is bad - Iraq, Libya are her biggest foreign policy involvements, and look at how that went. Why do people want more of the same?

Edited 6/9/2016 00:40:25

Islam everywhere

It's called separation of church and state. The government should have zero care or role in religious matters, period. It's a core tenet of our republic and government.

"So you're not going to argue X, because he's not "open minded" enough and he is arrogant, but then say that you're much better than me. Yeah, I have a list for you:"

I choose not to debate him this one time because I'm busy debating you. I thought this would give you a warm happy feeling lol. Where did I say I was better? Please name a place. I can be arrogant but it's not my general disposition. Most people will tell you that I admitt when I'm wrong.



"
1: You're arrogant

2: Not open-minded enough, I want you to believe me right off the bat like you want with X "

^ Dude, you literary just copied me XD. I pride myself on open mindedness, it's kinda my thing. Although, your right I should take your ideas more seriously if I want to be truly open minded, it's just hard.


" 3: X is much better and more fun to talk to "

^ Well yeah, if I was his bitch I would enjoy his company too lol.


" 4: You felt eager enough to argue The Lord, but not X, so hypocritical "

Your confusing Being a hypocrite with just having enough energy. I named my reasons for not wanting to debate Juq based on the past. I have very little experience with Lord so I have no reason not to debate him. Therefore, since Lord and Juq are different people with different views and I have different experience with, it's not hypocrisy. If I refused to debate Juq and then started a new debate with Koala that would be very hypocritical because I have the same problem with both of them. That's hypocritical. Ok, gosh, I'm going back to the days of explaining everything to you. I was hoping to avoid that dam it!

^ ( Btw, since your having trouble identifying arrogance, that last part was arrogant. I was just telling you so next time when your typing, you'll know what to use instead of me explaining something again. In the end, it just saves time for me )

Edited 6/9/2016 00:48:30

Look I'll be serious for a second. Here's my problem with you. I don't think your that arrogant ( well, a little ) it's more like I just find you rude. You kinda diss anyone off the bat who doesn't agree with you. Ever notice I only start going personal when someone else fires the cannon? Which still doesn't make it right. I honestly think you and Juq are very smart people , but I don't respect you. I disrespect you because you both act in ways I don't condone. Now of course I make the same mistakes, but I try not to.

Stay on topic people...

Who'll be more harmful to peace, Trump or Clinton?

The one who takes office of president, although I would prefer Clinton (barely).

Darn it Paugers, stop trying to convince me to support Clinton. You love her and everything, since she's a democrat, in support of the KKK, and a traitor to the US like you, but I'm a different kind of traitor.

Why do you guys even bother having political discussions here, given how many trolls and arrogant pr***s run rampant?

Politics is one of the main issues you avoid for a reasonable discussion. I have seen exactly one political "discussion" not turn into a mud slinging contest like here.

If you want a real conversation, this is not the place for it - unless by a "conversation" or "debate" you mean that you want to find other people who agree with you, and to smash to smithereens all who disagree. Because you are oh so clearly superior and anyone who disagrees is a gibbering fool who does not understand how the world works, let alone kindergarten.

Edited 6/9/2016 04:26:49

I don't think I've ever used my freedom of speech* to argue with Conservative.

*provided and protected by the State™

Not provided or protected by the state. These rights are rights, not privileges or services like "free" healthcare or "free" college.

Freedom of speech is indeed a privilege that comes with the modern democratic state. In an Anarcho-Capitalist society, you have freedom of speech as in the constitution of the Soviet Union, but you don't have freedom from consequences, like the big guy next to you killing you after you offended him with your speech.

It's very cheap of you to say that freedom of speech is a right but not tell how you guarantee that right if somebody tries to take it away. Freedom of speech is an entitlement just as much "free" healthcare is free.

Also I don't understand why you dislike taxpayer-sponsored healthcare and education so much. It just doesn't make sense, from a pragmatic point of view, to leave those without money to die of the common cold and without the ability to read and write. You were alarmed that 14% of US citizens cannot read. How high do you think that number will go if there is nobody to force you to learn and give you the necessary support?

Edited 6/9/2016 06:15:14

If a bloke wants to kill you for offending him, point a gun at him and tell him to screw off. And no he's not going to get a bigger gun, no ones going to invest in stuff to make it easier to kill after an argument.

Freedom of speech isn't an entitlement, no one can provide it to you or give it to you.

Also I don't understand why you dislike taxpayer-sponsored healthcare and education so much. It just doesn't make sense, from a pragmatic point of view, to leave those without money to die of the common cold and without the ability to read and write

Currently, no one is going to die of the common cold, nor the flu. If they have a dangerous disease, 99 times out of 100, they'll be able to afford treatment. And the government isn't needed to teach how to read and write, folk were more literate in America before public schooling than after.

You were alarmed that 14% of US citizens cannot read. How high do you think that number will go if there is nobody to force you to learn and give you the necessary support?

Probably lower. Literacy dropped in Massachusetts from 97% to 90% over the course of about a hundred years because of public schooling. And the support you need to teach is a book and a literate person, you don't need extortion funded camps.

If a bloke wants to kill you for offending him, point a gun at him and tell him to screw off. And no he's not going to get a bigger gun, no ones going to invest in stuff to make it easier to kill after an argument.

What if he doesn't give me a warning? If he's rich, he will probably be able to buy enough support so he can get away with murder.

If they have a dangerous disease, 99 times out of 100, they'll be able to afford treatment.

Where did you get that number from? Stefan Molyneux' AnCap infomercial? Sounds extremely deluded.

folk were more literate in America before public schooling than after.

Source? I'm not a big fan of formal education, but this sounds highly unlikely.

@The hysterical koala
I'm just here to troll

nope, changed my mind, won't participate in this

Edited 6/9/2016 16:49:02

^ Finally, a smart communist ;)

In response to the OP, as this has clearly gotten derailed
Here's my stance: Trump will start wwIII, he's literally claimed he is willing to nuke the middle East and Europe.

Clinton is probably going to start some stupid anti-terrorist war in the Middle East, which is going to waste huge amounts of money.

End Result: I pick clinton cause I want to survive for the next 4 years.

Edited 6/9/2016 19:36:52

he's literally claimed he is going to nuke the middle East and Europe.

Hmmmm...someone doesn't have a clear handle on what "literally" means now, does he?

Sorry, grammar error, I meant willing instead of going.

You can't seriously believe a) that he would nuke Europe (I could maybe sorta see the ME, but Europe? WTF?) and b) that he isn't using this as a negotiating position? Seriously, why would a sane, nonviolent person like Trump resort to nukes? He wouldn't. He just uses this to go down from?. "Oh, we can't nuke them? Fine, I'll settle with ground troops."

See how that works? It's the same thing with all his positions - he starts high, so if he has to compromise, he is still satisfied. Anyone who thinks he will actually implement every policy he puts out is willfully stupid.