Stay in your bubble dude... those evil progressives are everywhere. You're better off just staying away from it... the cult might infect you... I hear that sh*t is contagious....

If they just flip you on one issue, you're a progressive for life.

That's why I've stopped trying to have a discussion with RayRay.

Gl with that... either you think exactly like RayRay or you're a progressive.

they must be twins...they look so much alike, it's confusing....and poppycock...

Huh? I thought you didn't believe in logic?

If you don't get what I'm telling you, then there really is nothing more to say.

I get what you're trying to say, and I'm telling you, it's bad logic.

You're also confusing relativity and quantum mechanics as sytems that logic does not apply... thus you're repeatedly stating that I have no "belief" in logic. Which makes me logically conclude that you do not understand what a logical system is... and that really explains a lot.

^ my bad. Having looked again you're exact words were:

Ok, ... you lost me...

So I thought maybe I could find you since I lost you.
But I can quote you where you were refusing to believe in logic. Then when you wanted me to continue without hearing your confession of faith in universal unchanging logic you said Isomething like - "ok just assume I believe in your logic"
So again my bad I guess it's bad logic on my part to think you don't believe in logic.

Here, read this (lol)



That was in response to that... THIS IS BULLET POINT SOUP THAT INCOHERENTLY MAKES BASELESS CLAIMS.

Here's what I mean by bullet point soup.



See, I re-ordered the sentences in an arbitrary fashion, and the whole paragraph basically reads the same. There is absolutely no logic there, none, zilch, zero.

When I say you lost me... it was not a compliment... definitely not a compliment... I should have said "LMFAO, WTF WAS THAT SH*T". That would have been more accurate.

* Faith is not without reason ... false Definition of faith: strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.

* Faith is not above reason, or contrary to reason... false (see last bullet)

* In fact faith is demanded by reason... false (see last 2 bullets)

* Everyone starts from faith, but not all admit it... false, most start with: ooops... I have something to tell you.

* they don’t have a reason for trusting reason false... this one doesn't even merit a response... it's just stupid

* they have a ‘blind faith’ in reason... Fail again, go back to the first bullet and re-read the definition of faith.

Sounds to me like the feeling one gets when of the religious freaks speaks or writes something. I call it Dwd syndrome.

Well, there you go, you've defined a large part of the progressive doctrine by your own words. The progressive doesn't believe that history is instructive, that "some old dude's opinion" is not gong to be supportive of analysing current events. If a progressive ever mentions history, its usually an distortion of past events, they steer away from even mentioning progressive thinkers of a bygone era, after all it might prove embarrassing to invoke some of those old crackpots.

The self important modern progressive believes that history begins with them and their opinion is the only thing that matters. It's pretty convenient when you want to regurgitate old failed ideas and present them as something new and shiny to those soft indoctrinated minds that are easily seduced. How else could so many progressive minded people be so seduced by failed socialistic policies? How else could these same people not be repulsed by the stated authoritarian bans and mandate policies of the Biden/Harris ticket? Shall I go on? Maybe straight down to the lowest rung of progressive hell these days? The rioting, destroying, burning, assaulting and killing Marxist Orcs perhaps? (I'm sorry to inform you, but you won't find a traditional conservative, libertarian or even a Christian among them, but you already realize that deep inside don't you?)

It's real convenient to claim that no one has repudiated the secular religion of Progressivism or even properly defined it when you pooh-pooh anybody in the past or present that has ever done so. It's progressive magic, ignore them, don't read or listen to what they've ever said and it's as if they never existed!

I hate it when you're right

I know I've hit the nail on the head when all bgz and Victor squeak out in reply is that I've put up a "big wall of gibberish".

Sigh. More nonsense.
History is instructive. Quotes of the opinions of past political commentators/journalists are not. They are no more insightful than the political commentators/journalists we have now. And I wouldn't accept a quote from one of them as evidence of anything.
History is dates, numbers, locations, facts. It is not someone's opinion. Let's look at who you've quoted so far:
Michael Crichton - an author
Frederic Bastiat - an 1800s economist
Walter Williams - an economist
Paul Gottfried - an author
H.L. Menken - an early 1900's journalist
Jim Ostrowski - some random modern day author who appears to be an idiot

You've used opinion quotes from these people... not listed facts. You are trying to support your opinions by saying "look at other people who believe the same thing I do!"

That's simple nonsense. consensus of opinion does not equal right. It just means more than one person might be wrong. There is just about any dumb idea you can think of that you can find some person who's got a quote that supports it.

I'll be impressed if you quote scientists, when they are saying something scientific. For instance, if you had quotes like "It has been found experimentally, that the ratio of the amounts of adenine to thymine, and the ratio of guanine to cytosine, are always very close to unity for deoxyribose nucleic acid." -Watson&Crick

isn't it a brand of soup?

cuz I'm gud wif wirds