"Well thanks for that fine illustration of your education. Your educators have done a fine job turning you into exactly the kind of sheep they prefer."
That's such a non-response. How typical.
First, you claimed that America was more "free" back when we could legally own slaves, indenture servants and press-gang sailors at gun-point, and were banned from owning gold and buying booze.
Then you have the nerve to attack MY education as if pointing out your failings was somehow a sign of intellectual weakness.
You are little more than a disruptor, and you certainly don't have the mental accumen for any rational debate.
To have that level of mental accumen, you'd first have to start responding to the points made by your opponents (something that is no doubt too far above your head for you to manage for any significant length of time).
I said:
"Well thanks for that fine illustration of your education. Your educators have done a fine job turning you into exactly the kind of sheep they prefer." To which you responded: That's such a non-response. How typical.
...
Then you have the nerve to attack MY education
Well, no, I was not attacking your education. There are no attack words in my response. I was simply responding to the several times you alluded to my education, and especially to this sentence of yours which I quoted:
You simply can not(sic) survive in today's modern world with that poor of an education...
In which sentence you seem to be commenting on my education, and happen to make two errors while doing it. I presumed it was an illustration of your education, and said so. Sorry you are so easily offended.
As for:
You are little more than a disruptor, and you certainly don't have the mental accumen for any rational debate.
Then why do you debate with me?
To have that level of mental accumen, you'd first have to start responding to the points made by your opponents...
I do, and as soon as you make a point, I will respong to yours too.
Hank