BF2S Forums "Dear American Liberals" a letter from a law student.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

ya know, valley, the bottom of the mountain that I reside obviously.

How are things down in the valley, can quite tell from way up here

... I'm not sure if that's your attempt at humour or something?

Anywho, i live on a hill.

Right-O, so going by your previous statement 'liberals can't be prosperous', show me exactly how the three people i've named don't contradict that.

k go

Oh  isee where you are going now, ok

Never said they could not be prosperous, so before we begin, lets start by you showing me where I said that, ya know, so we don't get off on the wrong foot.

1, learn what ' ' these mean. Paraphasing, look it up in a booky type thing.

And i got that from this choice extract;

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Discussion? About how you think that having the slightest left-wing ideologies automatically precludes you from doing anything successful in life?

Bullshit.

Yup like that, so either disagree and argue or move along.

I've emphasised the important bits for you.

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

... I'm not sure if that's your attempt at humour or something?

Anywho, i live on a hill.

Right-O, so going by your previous statement 'liberals can't be prosperous', show me exactly how the three people i've named don't contradict that.

k go

Oh  isee where you are going now, ok

Never said they could not be prosperous, so before we begin, lets start by you showing me where I said that, ya know, so we don't get off on the wrong foot.

1, learn what ' ' these mean. Paraphasing, look it up in a booky type thing.

And i got that from this choice extract;

lowing wrote:

Spark wrote:

Discussion? About how you think that having the slightest left-wing ideologies automatically precludes you from doing anything successful in life?

Bullshit.

Yup like that, so either disagree and argue or move along.

I've emphasised the important bits for you.

Try sarcasm, or maybe even a comment so stupid that it was not worth any real acknolwledgment or defending against

I do believe lowing just led himself into a trap.

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

Never said they could not be prosperous, so before we begin, lets start by you showing me where I said that, ya know, so we don't get off on the wrong foot.

lowing wrote:

liberal take what is in their interests, and the conservatives take what is in theirs, which country do you think will survive and prosper? DO you honestly think a welfare state will survive, without the achievers?

There you go. In your own words, according to you, there are no achievers among liberals.

Not the same thing, and taken out of context from the question at hand.

I was asking if a nation full of takers will out prosper a nation full of doers. Those listed are doers, however they are liberal in talk only not in action.


I did not say liberals could not be successful in fact they earned their wealth through the very shrewd and evil, greedy, business practices, laws and opportunity only afforded the "lucky" and "fortunate", that you all despise, not very liberal. This makes them liberal in talk and not so much in practice. They did not amass their wealth by working for the collective and to evenly distribute their wealth. They are in business to make money, not to buy you a house or pay for your education healthcare, retirement etc... They provide the jobs for you to achieve those goals yourself. Not very liberal. SO again you wanna live in a nation of achievers or the welfare state?

No, he was being sarcastic, obviously.

Hey Obama is pretty successful for a Liberal.

Is he liberal in words only lowing, or action also?

AussieReaper wrote:

Hey Obama is pretty successful for a Liberal.

Is he liberal in words only lowing, or action also?

Again, do you think Obama massed his wealth through liberal ideology?  By "sharing", or "being fair"? Do you relly think that?

PS - Still waiting for you to dispute my three examples.

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Hey Obama is pretty successful for a Liberal.

Is he liberal in words only lowing, or action also?

Again, do you think Obama massed his wealth through liberal ideology?  By "sharing", or "being fair"? Do you relly think that?

Shocking that liberals are able to still earn money, I know.

But haven't you said that University is a breeding ground for liberals teachers to brainwash students?

Maybe that's how it happened.

DonFck wrote:

lowing wrote:

AussieReaper wrote:

Hey Obama is pretty successful for a Liberal.

Is he liberal in words only lowing, or action also?

Again, do you think Obama massed his wealth through liberal ideology?  By "sharing", or "being fair"? Do you relly think that?

I doubt that he would have been elected president if he had done much that goes against left-wing ideologies.

He was elected president because

1. he was black

2. he was made out to be a God who was going to save the world and pay off all of our personal debt.

The only thing liberal about this is, he was elected through a fantasyland campaign, if the truth were told or believed, he would not be president as a liberal

3. His adversary was a senile old git?
4. Over 50% of the people had lost trust in Republicans.
5. The election wasn't rigged this time.

lowing wrote:

FatherTed wrote:

lowing wrote:

already did, they are liberal in bullshit only re-read above

So all the charity work, green donations, spreading the wealth ideas are just bullshit.

Not good enough, actually disprove me.

conservatives give to charity more than liberals look it up, so by that conservatives are spreading the wealth as well, yet you hate that ideology.

No, you hate the idea of spreading the wealth.

DonFck wrote:

3. His adversary was a senile old git?
4. Over 50% of the people had lost trust in Republicans.
5. The election wasn't rigged this time.

3. he had the most experience was well known for bi-partisanship

4. Agreed, I am one although I still viewed them as the lesser of 2 evils

5. The election was not rigged, the 87 million recounts that the democrats insisted on kinds proved that. No matter how they recounted they still lost.