Wealth inequality in the USA.

A forum not related to waterfowl for discussing the more controversial and hot topic issues in our world from immigration, politics, the war, etc..

Moderators: Smackaduck, MM

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 10:37 am

Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: If you get to the truly creative artists, it's a broad spectrum. The rabid left have run the thinking out of everything they control. Creative thinking is not conducive to the mindless following of the extremists on the left that dominate commercial entertainment and politics.

That explains why Colbert and Stewart are such bland, enervating, puppets of ennui when promoting the company line, while Fox News and Limbaugh are so subtle and clever in their creative ability to subtly make their points with such concepts as irony, satire, humor, and entertainment value. You know, communication more suited to a thinking person than an insipid, voracious sponge waiting breathlessly for any suggestion of agreement with their own, personal concepts of how unfair society and government are while vociferously denying the vary concept of fairness. I think I'm starting to get it.

Limbaugh is not an artist nor claims to be. So why would I bother with this? I already told that truly creative artists come from across the spectrum. :fingerhead:

I even said there are thinking liberals. They just aren't in the political leadership or the radical left.

boney fingers wrote:Smart politicians (Obama is not dumb) know these programs have never worked, but continue to push for them based on the power it gives them over the people.
It works exceptionally well for them.

Huge positive change in the number of poor would be political suicide for the party of the poor. Good thing politicians are honest people that only have the good of others at heart :sarcmark:

blackduckdog2 wrote:Care to back that up? A lifetime in and around the arts has shown me different

So are you saying there are not conservative that are creative artists? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

My wife is an artist with a bachelor's of fine arts and all of that. I'm not unfamiliar. When I hung around her fellow artists in college, I kept my mouth shut around the nutjobs so my wife would not be harassed by the intolerant nutjobs. If you are trying to make a living, there is no value in letting your political philosophy be known.

The most celebrity modern Republican President was the president of the screen actors guild :yes:

And there is a whole genre of music where being conservative is not a threat to your career and shockingly there are a lot openly conservative country musicians. :yes:

Open you mind and the conservatives will lead you to the promised land.
Image

But for now, school's out.

Image
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL


Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Oct 14, 2013 11:11 am

boney fingers wrote:Smart politicians (Obama is not dumb) know these programs have never worked, but continue to push for them based on the power it gives them over the people.

SpinnerMan wrote: It works exceptionally well for them.

Huge positive change in the number of poor would be political suicide for the party of the poor. Good thing politicians are honest people that only have the good of others at heart :sarcmark:


Apparently you have noticed a tendency of people to have disdain for those who have attempted to assist them in their struggles out of the lowest rungs of society.


SpinnerMan wrote: The most celebrity modern Republican President was the president of the screen actors guild :yes:

Good point! He was a Union member whose success via the union led him to his role as president of the Union, Then, when he was was "relieved" of those duties, GE offered him huge sums of money to become a union-bashing, conservative, corporate representative. Then again, I am not sure that an "actor" that can be upstaged by a chimpanzee in his most well-known role can be considered as an "artist". But perhaps he earned that title due to his skill as an "artful dodger".
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10739
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:00 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:Then again, I am not sure that an "actor" that can be upstaged by a chimpanzee in his most well-known role can be considered as an "artist".
That is the exact response I was looking for. What is an artist? Just because you make a living in an entertainment field, does it make you an artist? It certainly doesn't make you a truly created artist. And what little I know about Reagan's acting career is that he was not an artist, but he was a fairly successful entertainer given that he made a pretty good living at it which is the measure of an entertainer. There is no measure of what an artist is. It is purely subjective.

I knew that would be fun after BDD2's silly post :tongue:

But back to more serious issues.

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Big government and free market are oxymorons. You and Jim live in an economic fantasyland.

The economic fantasy is in your own mind, and those like you, who believe that we should have zero controls whatsoever, because people will just play nice in the market, and everything will be all hunky-dory.
I'd like to think you're capable of catching the ironic straw-man implications there, but that's not exactly your strength, so I'll spell it out. I want exactly as much government as is necessary, no more and no less. Typical conservative...demonize the opposition, then project radical views onto them so the inadequacies of your own arguments won't be quite so glaring

Stop beating that foolish strawman. There are not two choices. Either big government consuming about 40% of GDP and zero control. It's clear why you went into art. What else were you going to do?

"because people will just play nice in the market" - The assumption is that people will not play nice in the market (collusion is a crime and should remain so).

Your views are not just radical, they are radically foolish.

But we completely agree that we need "as much government as is necessary, no more and no less," but it is your absurd definition of necessary that leads to a federal, state, and local government that combined spends around $20,000 for every single man, woman, and child living in the U.S. legally and illegally as not being absurdly more than what is necessary.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:06 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote: If you get to the truly creative artists, it's a broad spectrum. The rabid left have run the thinking out of everything they control. Creative thinking is not conducive to the mindless following of the extremists on the left that dominate commercial entertainment and politics.

That explains why Colbert and Stewart are such bland, enervating, puppets of ennui when promoting the company line, while Fox News and Limbaugh are so subtle and clever in their creative ability to subtly make their points with such concepts as irony, satire, humor, and entertainment value. You know, communication more suited to a thinking person than an insipid, voracious sponge waiting breathlessly for any suggestion of agreement with their own, personal concepts of how unfair society and government are while vociferously denying the vary concept of fairness. I think I'm starting to get it.

Limbaugh is not an artist nor claims to be. So why would I bother with this? I already told that truly creative artists come from across the spectrum. :fingerhead:

I even said there are thinking liberals. They just aren't in the political leadership or the radical left.

boney fingers wrote:Smart politicians (Obama is not dumb) know these programs have never worked, but continue to push for them based on the power it gives them over the people.
It works exceptionally well for them.

Huge positive change in the number of poor would be political suicide for the party of the poor. Good thing politicians are honest people that only have the good of others at heart :sarcmark:

blackduckdog2 wrote:Care to back that up? A lifetime in and around the arts has shown me different

So are you saying there are not conservative that are creative artists? :lol3: :lol3: :lol3:

My wife is an artist with a bachelor's of fine arts and all of that. I'm not unfamiliar. When I hung around her fellow artists in college, I kept my mouth shut around the nutjobs so my wife would not be harassed by the intolerant nutjobs. If you are trying to make a living, there is no value in letting your political philosophy be known.

The most celebrity modern Republican President was the president of the screen actors guild :yes:

And there is a whole genre of music where being conservative is not a threat to your career and shockingly there are a lot openly conservative country musicians. :yes:

Open you mind and the conservatives will lead you to the promised land.
Image

But for now, school's out.

Image

You find this to be a compelling argument on the disparity of liberals to conservatives in the arts, yet you insist I'M the one who's statistically challenged? Yikes!! :eek: :eek:
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:11 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:Then again, I am not sure that an "actor" that can be upstaged by a chimpanzee in his most well-known role can be considered as an "artist".
That is the exact response I was looking for. What is an artist? Just because you make a living in an entertainment field, does it make you an artist? It certainly doesn't make you a truly created artist. And what little I know about Reagan's acting career is that he was not an artist, but he was a fairly successful entertainer given that he made a pretty good living at it which is the measure of an entertainer. There is no measure of what an artist is. It is purely subjective.

I knew that would be fun after BDD2's silly post :tongue:

But back to more serious issues.

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:Big government and free market are oxymorons. You and Jim live in an economic fantasyland.

The economic fantasy is in your own mind, and those like you, who believe that we should have zero controls whatsoever, because people will just play nice in the market, and everything will be all hunky-dory.
I'd like to think you're capable of catching the ironic straw-man implications there, but that's not exactly your strength, so I'll spell it out. I want exactly as much government as is necessary, no more and no less. Typical conservative...demonize the opposition, then project radical views onto them so the inadequacies of your own arguments won't be quite so glaring

Stop beating that foolish strawman. There are not two choices. Either big government consuming about 40% of GDP and zero control. It's clear why you went into art. What else were you going to do?

"because people will just play nice in the market" - The assumption is that people will not play nice in the market (collusion is a crime and should remain so).

Your views are not just radical, they are radically foolish.

But we completely agree that we need "as much government as is necessary, no more and no less," but it is your absurd definition of necessary that leads to a federal, state, and local government that combined spends around $20,000 for every single man, woman, and child living in the U.S. legally and illegally as not being absurdly more than what is necessary.

I should have known you wouldn't pick up on the straw man irony, even after I all but pointed it out to you. Yeah, I get that you don't want ZERO controls. That was the straw man part, which I threw in there as a direct response to your insistence that I wanted BIG government. Those tactics are a stonebitch, aren't they?
And as to what else could I have done besides go into the arts.......well, I actually made very little wearing any of the arts hats I donned over the years. But I did awfully well at running a fix-it outfit. And even better at selling it. So keep your smarmy insults as to my abilities in your pants, huh?
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:16 pm

And if you can't do something REALLY good with that "abilities in your pants" set-up I just handed you, well, damn Spinner.........I'm just gonna lose ALL respect
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:21 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:You find this to be a compelling argument on the disparity of liberals to conservatives in the arts, yet you insist I'M the one who's statistically challenged? Yikes!! :eek: :eek:

You give me a definition of an artist, and a truly creative artist, and I'll do the homework.

But yes, I have no doubt that there are far more broke liberals that call themselves artists than conservatives that do that same thing. Being out of touch with reality is part and parcel of being a liberal these days. So yes, there are vastly more liberals that thought they were truly creative, but in reality were just truly unskilled. Failure fits my stereotype of a liberal quite well.

blackduckdog2 wrote: which I threw in there as a direct response to your insistence that I wanted BIG government.

Federal, state, and local combined, do we have big government right now? What would the relative size (spending, power, money whatever measure) until we have or cease having a big government? I think we could easily reduce the size by 50% and still have a pretty big government.

blackduckdog2 wrote:Those tactics are a stonebitch, aren't they?
Here is your flaw. I am pathologically unable to care what you think of me. You on the other hand are bothered by my insults.

This is why you need to try to prove yourself and worry about what's in my pants.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:29 pm

meh.........I expected better, really
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:41 pm

You find this to be a compelling argument on the disparity of liberals to conservatives in the arts, yet you insist I'M the one who's statistically challenged? Yikes!! :eek: :eek:[/quote]
Well, jeez, BDD2. He didn't even use Ted Nugent. That would have irreparably rended the arms of the balance beam! :lol3:
Last edited by Glimmerjim on Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:24 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10739
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Mon Oct 14, 2013 12:50 pm

So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:02 pm

assateague wrote:So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?

BOOM!!!
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:23 pm

assateague wrote:So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?

And watch your hubcaps around Mexicans. See....life's not so darned profound.
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10739
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:24 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:meh.........I expected better, really

Sorry to disappoint. I'm crushed :sad:

If it was not for all those starving liberal artists, how much would the wealth inequality be reduced? :huh:

More proof wealth inequality is the liberals fault.
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby clampdaddy » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:32 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?

And watch your hubcaps around Mexicans. See....life's not so darned profound.

:lol3: It's too bad that some people get all wound up over stereotypes because nine times out of ten they're funny as hell.
User avatar
clampdaddy
hunter
 
Posts: 3616
Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 9:23 pm
Location: Where spoonies go to die

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:34 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
assateague wrote:So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?

BOOM!!!

Well yeah...........except for Bird
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:36 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:meh.........I expected better, really

Sorry to disappoint. I'm crushed :sad:

If it was not for all those starving liberal artists, how much would the wealth inequality be reduced? :huh:

More proof wealth inequality is the liberals fault.

More proof you don't know what you don't know. But we knew that
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:40 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?

And watch your hubcaps around Mexicans. See....life's not so darned profound.

:lol3: It's too bad that some people get all wound up over stereotypes because nine times out of ten they're funny as hell.



And true. People act as if they were pulled out of a hat somewhere. Those damn things exist for a reason.


WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby Glimmerjim » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:45 pm

clampdaddy wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?

And watch your hubcaps around Mexicans. See....life's not so darned profound.

:lol3: It's too bad that some people get all wound up over stereotypes because nine times out of ten they're funny as hell.

Ain't it the truth! :thumbsup:
Glimmerjim
hunter
 
Posts: 10739
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 10:41 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 1:56 pm

assateague wrote:
clampdaddy wrote:
Glimmerjim wrote:
assateague wrote:So liberals are better artists and black folks are better athletes. That's what you're saying, right?

And watch your hubcaps around Mexicans. See....life's not so darned profound.

:lol3: It's too bad that some people get all wound up over stereotypes because nine times out of ten they're funny as hell.



And true. People act as if they were pulled out of a hat somewhere. Those damn things exist for a reason.



When the stereotypes reflect the full spectrum of who and what a group are about, good and bad........I got no issue. It's only when they're all used in a negative way to proactively degrade a group that I have a problem. So a lot of how I react when they're used depends upon what I perceive to be the user's motivation
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby SpinnerMan » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:05 pm

blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:meh.........I expected better, really

Sorry to disappoint. I'm crushed :sad:

If it was not for all those starving liberal artists, how much would the wealth inequality be reduced? :huh:

More proof wealth inequality is the liberals fault.

More proof you don't know what you don't know. But we knew that

More proof you have nothing to offer. Sorry, but tell me what an artist is and we will have a meaningful discussion.

Is Miley Cyrus an artist? Is any of the musicians that do nothing but play other people's work an artist? Playing an instrument is a skill. Singing is a skill. Acting is a skill. Now, if your definition of artist is inclusive of entertainers without any creativity, then I am sure there are many more liberals than conservatives. Just like there are far more conservatives than liberals in engineering and other hard sciences. There is a huge selection bias. However, I don't count the performers as artists any more than I count the skilled labor that creates a piece of architecture, stitches the clothes, or in any way brings to fruition the creation of the artist. Shakespeare was the artist. The performers are not.

If you can be an artist by your definition without being creative, then I won't disagree. However, if you lean toward my definition of the truly creative, these people are rare and they don't fit well into any stereotype.

BTW, how big does the government need to be to be big?
A politician thinks of the next election; a statesman of the next generation. A politician looks for the success of his party; a statesman for that of the country. The statesman wished to steer, while the politician was satisfied to drift.
User avatar
SpinnerMan
hunter
 
Posts: 15918
Joined: Mon Dec 12, 2005 11:24 am
Location: Joliet, IL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:14 pm

SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:
SpinnerMan wrote:
blackduckdog2 wrote:meh.........I expected better, really

Sorry to disappoint. I'm crushed :sad:

If it was not for all those starving liberal artists, how much would the wealth inequality be reduced? :huh:

More proof wealth inequality is the liberals fault.

More proof you don't know what you don't know. But we knew that

More proof you have nothing to offer. Sorry, but tell me what an artist is and we will have a meaningful discussion.

Is Miley Cyrus an artist? Is any of the musicians that do nothing but play other people's work an artist? Playing an instrument is a skill. Singing is a skill. Acting is a skill. Now, if your definition of artist is inclusive of entertainers without any creativity, then I am sure there are many more liberals than conservatives. Just like there are far more conservatives than liberals in engineering and other hard sciences. There is a huge selection bias. However, I don't count the performers as artists any more than I count the skilled labor that creates a piece of architecture, stitches the clothes, or in any way brings to fruition the creation of the artist. Shakespeare was the artist. The performers are not.

If you can be an artist by your definition without being creative, then I won't disagree. However, if you lean toward my definition of the truly creative, these people are rare and they don't fit well into any stereotype.

BTW, how big does the government need to be to be big?

Wow.......I didn't think you didn't know THAT much, though. What an uncreative hack that Sir Laurence Olivier was, huh? Give it up Spinner. You're on very ignorant ground and your hubris will not allow you a safe retreat.
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:21 pm

Then surely you can answer the simple question:


What is an artist? I'm kind of curious to hear this one myself.
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby blackduckdog2 » Mon Oct 14, 2013 2:39 pm

assateague wrote:Then surely you can answer the simple question:


What is an artist? I'm kind of curious to hear this one myself.
I could expound on the matter, sure. And Spinner could try and nail down exactly what is a scientist too, but the fact is we'd both of necessity get quickly into the area where say, this artist is MORE of an artist than that artist, and this scientist is really LESS scientific than that one, and while the whole point would be interesting and stimulating subject matter for an open minded conversation, I've been around too long on the DHC CIF to think that's what I got going here. What I'm saying is that while such a discussion might be something to argue over, to the undoubted entertainment and enlightenment of all participants and observers, it's nothing to score points with, and Spinner's kind of in full-on scorekeeping mode here. Besides that, the right-out-of-hand notion that actors are not creatives tells me the "debate" is a long ways from being joined in any meaningful way. Ambition should be made of sterner stuff (which is not what the bard had in mind when he wrote it, but I'm being creative here)
"We have met the enemy, and he is us."
Walt Kelly, via Slow's avatar. Look it up
User avatar
blackduckdog2
hunter
 
Posts: 6288
Joined: Tue Nov 25, 2008 11:02 am

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby cartervj » Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:01 pm

Glimmerjim wrote:You find this to be a compelling argument on the disparity of liberals to conservatives in the arts, yet you insist I'M the one who's statistically challenged? Yikes!! :eek: :eek:

Well, jeez, BDD2. He didn't even use Ted Nugent. That would have irreparably rended the arms of the balance beam! :lol3:



I'll give a John Lennon a closet Reagan fan :lol3:
Last edited by cartervj on Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.
“Nothing makes me more certain of the victory of our ideas than our success in the universities” – Adolf H, 1930
User avatar
cartervj
hunter
 
Posts: 7255
Joined: Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:01 pm
Location: NW AL

Re: Wealth inequality in the USA.

Postby assateague » Mon Oct 14, 2013 4:02 pm

Well, if you're going to say "the majority of artists are liberals", you really should be able to clarify what you mean by "artist". Otherwise, why should anyone give any weight to your argument?
WOLVERINES

Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Let a man vote to give himself a fish and he eats until society collapses.
User avatar
assateague
Emu hunter extraordinaire
 
Posts: 21277
Joined: Tue Oct 06, 2009 12:25 pm
Location: Eastern Shore, People's Republic of Maryland

PreviousNext

Return to Controversial Issues Forum

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Hawk87 and 7 guests

cron