Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Brumar89 who wrote (209992)	12/6/2006 1:50:03 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

No, I meant to say liberalism erodes character. That's my personal opinion. You were better off agreeing Iktomi on that particular point. Let's go back to the part of the study that you pointed to.... "Religious liberals give nearly as much as religious conservatives, Mr. Brooks found. And secular conservatives are even less generous than secular liberals." Clearly the distinction Brooks makes is religious vs. secular. If you really believe it's liberalism, than you disagree with Brooks. But that's not what you said. You said: "Funny that anyone should find this stuff surprising. Liberalism really does erode character. " jttmab

To: Brumar89 who wrote (209992)	12/6/2006 2:33:47 PM
From: epicure	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

Why would you think I care what you think about my character? That seems rather strange. If you do think I care, of course, you are intentionally trying to hurt me. If you don't think I care, then you are posting nasty personal insults for some other reason. I wonder what kind of character you think that sort of behavior shows? I am not interested in talking about your character or lack thereof, but find it fascinating you think you have enough information to examine mine. Truly, your nasty posts, as always, are fabulously revealing. Thanks for continually being nasty in your posts to me- it's nice to know some things never change. The criticism of your departure from logic was not gratuitous, for that would mean it was not based on fact, or cause. Perhaps a quick trip to the dictionary to look up the word gratuitous is in order for you? You took some quoted statements, and then drew illogical conclusions from them, based on the passages you yourself bolded. How much more illogical can one get? I understand that this might be annoying to you, but the fact that you were illogical is your fault, not mine. It was my fault for pointing it out, however. And I accept complete and total blame for pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in your post. I realize more nasty posts aimed at me personally are likely to follow since I disagree with the logic of your posts. I accept that you probably don't have anything of more substance to offer, which, imo, proves the poverty of your position. PS- the idea that god driven chairty is "bribery" to God, is not an idea of my origination- it's a very very old idea, which you have simply just never encountered before, more's the pity for you. It is a relatively common idea that intelligent people, on both sides of the issue, can examine without rancor. It is, in fact, an interesting idea, if one is curious. While one might not agree with the idea, it is quite odd to issue a fiat that it is unequivocally off base. Seems you are unduly hostile to ideas you do not agree with, or understand, or both. Perhaps when you talk of malicious bigots, you are, in fact projecting? I merely said "If you look at..." You, of course, have the TRUTH. I don't think you realize how truly unintentionally humorous your posts are to me. Thanks for that.