Replies

No, you are not the brightest light, in fact it may even be generous to consider you a dim bulb. You have made no logical argument to support a position you have only inadequately stated. You instead assume that you are intellectually superior to everyone here and probably 90% of the world’s population. You then discount the positions of others based on the "fact" that they are mentally inadequate to hold an opinion. This makes you feel good and victorious. You have no useful skills so you invent a reality where its all someone else’s fault. Human nature.

When given rock solid proof supporting the opposing position you simply state "My beef is not with you". Shouldn’t we expect much more of someone who touts them self as a college instructor?

I’ve found that the people who rage at the misuse of Shakespeare are the ones who tend to overuse his prose. They also tend to believe that no one who disagrees with them are mentally qualified to even think about Shakespeare much less write it down. Oh, that we could have endowed Shakespeare with eternal life. The wonderful tragic plays he could have written on the subject of socialism.

What this all boils down to is that your mind is not capable of the higher thought process that is mandatory to understand where boortz is headed with his article. Therefore you wrap your mind around much smaller pre-packaged theories like socialism. Don’t feel bad though, your economic/social belief structure also substitutes as a religion. You see, you get two for the low price of one.

Please disprove the following comment.

Socialism does not create wealth, it consumes it.

My proof of the above statement can be seen through history and current conditions. (ex. Sweden or country in Europe)

No, you are not the brightest light, in fact it may even be generous to consider you a dim bulb. You have made no logical argument to support a position you have only inadequately stated. You instead assume that you are intellectually superior to everyone here and probably 90% of the world’s population. You then discount the positions of others based on the "fact" that they are mentally inadequate to hold an opinion. This makes you feel good and victorious. You have no useful skills so you invent a reality where its all someone else’s fault. Human nature.

I never said anything about "everyone here," but if the shoe fits, wear it. I responded to different people. Some were morons, and some were bright. You remind me of some guys who ride really loud motorcycles, as if they sought to emphasize, that they are not among the brightest lights.

When given rock solid proof supporting the opposing position you simply state "My beef is not with you". Shouldn’t we expect much more of someone who touts them self as a college instructor?

The person you refer to was not debating me, and did not even try to offer "rock solid proof" in support of the morons I was arguing with, just as he is of no help to you. Hence, I had no beef with the writer, nor he with me, and we continue to get along just fine, thank you.

I’ve found that the people who rage at the misuse of Shakespeare are the ones who tend to overuse his prose. They also tend to believe that no one who disagrees with them are mentally qualified to even think about Shakespeare much less write it down. Oh, that we could have endowed Shakespeare with eternal life. The wonderful tragic plays he could have written on the subject of socialism.

Show where I have "abused Shakespeare." (While we're at it, I didn't rage at the semi-literates who misused Shakespeare.) Oh, I get it -- you just make it up, as you go.

What this all boils down to is that your mind is not capable of the higher thought process that is mandatory to understand where boortz is headed with his article. Therefore you wrap your mind around much smaller pre-packaged theories like socialism. Don’t feel bad though, your economic/social belief structure also substitutes as a religion. You see, you get two for the low price of one.

Please disprove the following comment.

Socialism does not create wealth, it consumes it.

My proof of the above statement can be seen through history and current conditions. (ex. Sweden or country in Europe)

Your post has nothing to do with me. You project your rage and inadequacies onto me. Get a life, or some Prozac, or a lover. In any event, "higher thought processes" are not an option for you.

You managed to drop Neal Boortz's and Shakespeare's names into the same post; hopefully, that will get you through the night. Your entire post is the equivalent of yelling, "Yo mama!" There's no "there" there.

Well, you have a keyboard and an Internet hookup, but they are all you have.

One night, I decided to shout back at some drunken louts. I do that about once a year. Were I to make a habit of it, I too would be a moron. So, you may flame away, if you like, but I will ignore you. Because I have a life, and a lover, and don't need Prozac.

" Socialism does not create wealth, it consumes it. "

Excellent. My version of that? SOCIALISM ALWAYS FAILS.