Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Gentoo Forums
Quick Search: in
Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic
View unanswered posts
View posts from last 24 hours

Goto page 1, 2  Next  
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Muso
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1030
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 10:55 pm    Post subject: Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic Reply with quote

Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.

Still annoyed that in the US & Canada, they keep referring to the progressives and leftists as "liberals".
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2020 is the year of the Linux Desktop!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1609
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Oh, that's hilarious. That's the study they were quoting for about year after it came out. It got mainstream coverage. I remember them talking about it on NBC. I remember them citing it multiple times on MSNBC.

So the very people who published the study are now saying they made a data analysis error that flip-flopped the results: it's the lefties who are psychotic. How rich.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1261
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2019 11:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well going by the political leaning of your typical mass shooter, I'm inclined to agree.

And then because the left completely sucks at deductive reasoning, I have to sit here and get told that guns are the problem.
_________________
Git has obsoleted SVN.
10mm Auto has obsoleted 45 ACP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Ashie
n00b
n00b


Joined: 09 Apr 2016
Posts: 54

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:10 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There have been researches published that show that people who dont have Facebook account are imminent potential mass shooters, with all outcoming recommendations
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1404

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 11:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bones McCracker wrote:
So the very people who published the study are now saying they made a data analysis error that flip-flopped the results: it's the lefties who are psychotic. How rich.
An experience everyone has knowing the outcom of drugs:
The Woodstock generation likes the psychogenic pills, mushrooms and weeds. While the conservative patriots keep on poisoning their own neural network with alcohol. Reducing it by the millions everytime. How to become psychotic without? Everyone knows.

The introducing sentence of the article
Quote:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
is fake news written out of the dust of the missing neurone.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1261
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ashie wrote:
There have been researches published that show that people who dont have Facebook account are imminent potential mass shooters, with all outcoming recommendations

Oh wow, I actually didn't know that. It would seem that I've been neglecting my mass shooting obligations.

Never fear, I'll handle the situation! I'll storm into the local grocery store, pick a spot, and open fire in random directions.

* BANG BANG BANG *

"Behold, I bring madness unto you defenseless shoppers! Be afraid as you experience my wrath!"

* BANG BANG BANG *

Then I'll disappear and reappear coming out of the next aisle, drawing my weapon to where I was previously standing.

"Halt, there, you fiend! You shall not harm these people! I shall return fire upon thee!"

* BANG BANG BANG *

...

^ Something like that?
_________________
Git has obsoleted SVN.
10mm Auto has obsoleted 45 ACP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:

The introducing sentence of the article
Quote:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
is fake news written out of the dust of the missing neurone.

Of course the left is anti-freedom. Who wants to limit speech? Who wants to limit free assembly? Where one shops? All lefty policies.
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1404

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
ulenrich wrote:

The introducing sentence of the article
Quote:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
is fake news written out of the dust of the missing neurone.

Of course the left is anti-freedom. Who wants to limit speech? Who wants to limit free assembly? Where one shops? All lefty policies.
The research in question did not link liberals with authoritarians. Nor did it link liberals with any wish to censor your shopping list. It is just a hardwired connection in the neuronal network of the author dictating liberal = authoritarian. A behavorial reflex amplified in his team.

@Muso
please presuppose any hard-wired presumption the reader of your links needs for understanding.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
Old School wrote:
ulenrich wrote:

The introducing sentence of the article
Quote:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
is fake news written out of the dust of the missing neurone.

Of course the left is anti-freedom. Who wants to limit speech? Who wants to limit free assembly? Where one shops? All lefty policies.
The research in question did not link liberals with authoritarians. Nor did it link liberals with any wish to censor your shopping list. It is just a hardwired connection in the neuronal network of the author dictating liberal = authoritarian. A behavorial reflex amplified in his team.


Yeah, right. Nice try. I could give example after example. :lol:
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1404

PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2019 9:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
Nice try. I could give example after example. :lol:
But we talk about this article:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
It has an unrelated title to the topic discussed in it.
Why is it?
Or is the topic of this thread misleading:
Science says liberals, not conservatives, are psychotic
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1030
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
@Muso
please presuppose any hard-wired presumption the reader of your links needs for understanding.


The progressives and leftists are not liberals. True liberals believe in things like free speech and judging people based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In the US, the progressives started calling themselves liberals after their own progressive ideals were found to be way too unappetizing for most Americans (eugenics etc). So, in the USA, people usually refer to progressives and leftists as liberals, when they are the least liberal, most authoritarian people around.
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2020 is the year of the Linux Desktop!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1261
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:
ulenrich wrote:
@Muso
please presuppose any hard-wired presumption the reader of your links needs for understanding.


The progressives and leftists are not liberals. True liberals believe in things like free speech and judging people based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In the US, the progressives started calling themselves liberals after their own progressive ideals were found to be way too unappetizing for most Americans (eugenics etc). So, in the USA, people usually refer to progressives and leftists as liberals, when they are the least liberal, most authoritarian people around.

You know, I've never actually understood the difference.
_________________
Git has obsoleted SVN.
10mm Auto has obsoleted 45 ACP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Muso
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 22 Oct 2002
Posts: 1030
Location: The Holy city of Honolulu

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 1:55 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

wswartzendruber wrote:
Muso wrote:
ulenrich wrote:
@Muso
please presuppose any hard-wired presumption the reader of your links needs for understanding.


The progressives and leftists are not liberals. True liberals believe in things like free speech and judging people based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In the US, the progressives started calling themselves liberals after their own progressive ideals were found to be way too unappetizing for most Americans (eugenics etc). So, in the USA, people usually refer to progressives and leftists as liberals, when they are the least liberal, most authoritarian people around.

You know, I've never actually understood the difference.


The founding fathers were liberals. Classic liberalism is vastly different from what most Americans and Canadians call "liberal".
_________________
"You can lead a horticulture but you can't make her think" ~ Dorothy Parker
2020 is the year of the Linux Desktop!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
wswartzendruber
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 23 Mar 2004
Posts: 1261
Location: Idaho, USA

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 2:47 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Muso wrote:

wswartzendruber wrote:

Muso wrote:

ulenrich wrote:

please presuppose any hard-wired presumption the reader of your links needs for understanding.



The progressives and leftists are not liberals. True liberals believe in things like free speech and judging people based upon the content of their character, not the color of their skin. In the US, the progressives started calling themselves liberals after their own progressive ideals were found to be way too unappetizing for most Americans (eugenics etc). So, in the USA, people usually refer to progressives and leftists as liberals, when they are the least liberal, most authoritarian people around.


You know, I've never actually understood the difference.



The founding fathers were liberals. Classic liberalism is vastly different from what most Americans and Canadians call "liberal".


Would it be fair to say that liberalism is simply the pursuit of a new direction?

MODEDIT: So sorry, I seem to have pushed the wrong button. I hope I have adequately restored this post. --The Doctor
_________________
Git has obsoleted SVN.
10mm Auto has obsoleted 45 ACP.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

No. Liberalism is the world view that individual liberty should be maximized and only infringed as necessary so that no person may become a tyrant. The Bill of Rights is a liberal document that embodies the principles very nicely.

1) Right to exchange information and the right to hold any views
2) Right to defend oneself
3) Right to one's own home and property.
4) Right to due process
5) Right to a fair trial by a jury of peers.
6) Right to a trial and not indefinite arrest without charge
7) Right to the common law judicial system
8) No excessive, cruel, or unusual punishment
9) Other rights are reserved by the people (Okay, this one is as vague as all get out.)
10) Power automatically goes to the lowest level possible, small government.

A new direction that requires people to use strange pronouns for people violates 1) so is not liberal, for example. Liberalism is about the individual so any group rights is also antithetical to the liberal world view.

We are called conservatives now, but we are generally center right.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pjp
Administrator
Administrator


Joined: 16 Apr 2002
Posts: 18256

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
9) Other rights are reserved by the people (Okay, this one is as vague as all get out.)
Vague only in the sense that it is not practical to list every possible right that may exist. If something is not specifically listed, it is presumed to be a right. Compared to a government which limits rights of the people to as few as possible. Unfortunately I'm not recalling specific terminology.
_________________
Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 4:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

pjp wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
9) Other rights are reserved by the people (Okay, this one is as vague as all get out.)
Vague only in the sense that it is not practical to list every possible right that may exist. If something is not specifically listed, it is presumed to be a right. Compared to a government which limits rights of the people to as few as possible. Unfortunately I'm not recalling specific terminology.
I hate vague legal terminology because some idiot can come along and interpret that to mean every trans woman is entitled to a date even though I am not attracted.

I get what they where trying to do, but they didn't account for activist judges who like to invent new rights at the expense of others. For example, affirmative action.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
richk449
Guru
Guru


Joined: 24 Oct 2003
Posts: 345

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
ulenrich wrote:
Old School wrote:
ulenrich wrote:

The introducing sentence of the article
Quote:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
is fake news written out of the dust of the missing neurone.

Of course the left is anti-freedom. Who wants to limit speech? Who wants to limit free assembly? Where one shops? All lefty policies.
The research in question did not link liberals with authoritarians. Nor did it link liberals with any wish to censor your shopping list. It is just a hardwired connection in the neuronal network of the author dictating liberal = authoritarian. A behavorial reflex amplified in his team.


Yeah, right. Nice try. I could give example after example. :lol:

That article says that "liberals" have chosen not to eat at Olive Garden, and encouraged others not to either. How is that censorship or authoritarian?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1404

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why liberalism isn't any more:
1) Right to exchange information and the right to hold any views
2) Right to defend oneself
3) Right to one's own home and property.
4) Right to due process
5) Right to a fair trial by a jury of peers.
6) Right to a trial and not indefinite arrest without charge
7) Right to the common law judicial system
8 No excessive, cruel, or unusual punishment
9) Other rights are reserved by the people (Okay, this one is as vague as all get out.)
10) Power automatically goes to the lowest level possible, small government.
11) Liberalism is about the individual so any group rights is also antithetical to the liberal world view.

With 11) added as additional point, you can show why there cannot exist a full liberal society today:
The corporations are groups of people which hold their business secrets to keep the business model running.

That is why liberals didn't want to allow corporations in society. Later on this was a fight against a central bank, faught a hundred years longer.

The most important information in society are the secrets in corporations about their business in the economy, because these secrets are used to exploit the people unjustly. You cannot maintain a liberal society over time without 1) and 11) . Without one of both you'd loose the other.
Liberalism cannot exist in our time. Libertarians try hard to keep up the idea but with additional anarchistic means.
_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Old School
Apprentice
Apprentice


Joined: 20 Nov 2004
Posts: 245
Location: West Bank of the Coast Fork

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

richk449 wrote:
That article says that "liberals" have chosen not to eat at Olive Garden, and encouraged others not to either. How is that censorship or authoritarian?

Because it goes beyond just a disagreement on policy. The radical authoritarian left (AOC branch of the Party) have a religious belief in their moral superiority and their authority to identify and squash evil. If one disagrees with these Maoists then one is ostracized from good company, means of income taken, and silenced for the good of society.
_________________
The Future Ain't What It Used To Be

Christmas Lights Are Like Jeffrey Epstein, They Don't Hang Themselves.

The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it.
George Orwell
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 5:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Not even close. There is no issue with business at all. The right to exchange information (ie, freedom of the press and the right to assemble) does not preclude people choosing to keep secrets. Indeed, the right to one's own property would include intellectual property.
Quote:
That is why liberals didn't want to allow corporations in society.
Negative. Those are progressives. Communists, by another name. Clearly, you don't grasp what liberalism is.

Allow me to put it another way. Classical liberals are center to center right. They are for business, small government as possible, lowest taxes possible, military, law and order, etc.

Group rights would something like giving black applicants priority into colleges because of their skin color. These are absolutely antithetical to the liberal world view and required by the progressive one. It has nothing to do with businesses forming corporations. Something that has existed long before the USA for good reason.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ulenrich
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 10 Oct 2010
Posts: 1404

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 6:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Doctor wrote:
Not even close. There is no issue with business at all. The right to exchange information (ie, freedom of the press and the right to assemble) does not preclude people choosing to keep secrets. Indeed, the right to one's own property would include intellectual property.
Quote:
That is why liberals didn't want to allow corporations in society.
Negative. Those are progressives. Communists, by another name. Clearly, you don't grasp what liberalism is.


Read the fucking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law#History
Quote:
At the Declaration of Independence, corporations had been unlawful without explicit authorization in a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Since the world's first stock market crash (the South Sea Bubble of 1720) corporations were perceived as dangerous. This was because, as the economist Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (1776), directors managed "other people's money" and this conflict of interest meant directors were prone to "negligence and profusion". Corporations were only thought to be legitimate in specific industries (such as insurance or banking) that could not be managed efficiently through partnerships.[2] After the US Constitution was ratified in 1788, corporations were still distrusted, and were tied into debate about interstate exercise of sovereign power. The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 by the US Congress to raise money for the government and create a common currency (alongside a federal excise tax and the US Mint). It had private investors (not government owned), but faced opposition from southern politicians who feared federal power overtaking state power. So, the First Bank's charter was written to expire in 20 years. State governments could and did also incorporate corporations through special legislation. In 1811, New York became the first state to have a simple public registration procedure to start corporations (not specific permission from the legislature) for manufacturing business.[3] It also allowed investors to have limited liability, so that if the enterprise went bankrupt investors would lose their investment, but not any extra debts that had been run up to creditors. An early US Supreme Court case, Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward,[4] went so far as to say that once a corporation was established a state legislature (in this case, New Hampshire) could not amend it. States quickly reacted by reserving the right to regulate future dealings by corporations.[5] Generally speaking, corporations were treated as "legal persons" with separate legal personality from its shareholders, directors or employees. Corporations were the subject of legal rights and duties: they could make contracts, hold property or commission torts,[6] but there was no necessary requirement to treat a corporation as favorably as a real person.
Over the late 19th century, more and more states allowed free incorporation of businesses with a simple registration procedure

_________________
the thread ain't easily find an end
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1609
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Old School wrote:
ulenrich wrote:

The introducing sentence of the article
Quote:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
is fake news written out of the dust of the missing neurone.

Of course the left is anti-freedom. Who wants to limit speech? Who wants to limit free assembly? Where one shops? All lefty policies.

Who wants to take away your money and tell you how to spend it?

Keep in mind "Liberal" here in USA does not mean same thing as in Europe. In USA, it is the conservatives who are classical liberals.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bones McCracker
Veteran
Veteran


Joined: 14 Mar 2006
Posts: 1609
Location: U.S.A.

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

[quote="ulenrich"]
Old School wrote:
ulenrich wrote:

The introducing sentence of the article
Quote:
Turns out liberals are the real authoritarians.
is fake news written out of the dust of the missing neurone.

Of course the left is anti-freedom. Who wants to limit speech? Who wants to limit free assembly? Where one shops? All lefty policies.
The research in question did not link liberals with authoritarians./quote]
Yes it did. You didn't read it.
_________________
patrix_neo wrote:
The human thought: I cannot win.
The ratbrain in me : I can only go forward and that's it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
The Doctor
Moderator
Moderator


Joined: 27 Jul 2010
Posts: 2600

PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2019 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ulenrich wrote:
The Doctor wrote:
Not even close. There is no issue with business at all. The right to exchange information (ie, freedom of the press and the right to assemble) does not preclude people choosing to keep secrets. Indeed, the right to one's own property would include intellectual property.
Quote:
That is why liberals didn't want to allow corporations in society.
Negative. Those are progressives. Communists, by another name. Clearly, you don't grasp what liberalism is.


Read the fucking https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_corporate_law#History
Quote:
At the Declaration of Independence, corporations had been unlawful without explicit authorization in a Royal Charter or an Act of Parliament of the United Kingdom. Since the world's first stock market crash (the South Sea Bubble of 1720) corporations were perceived as dangerous. This was because, as the economist Adam Smith wrote in The Wealth of Nations (1776), directors managed "other people's money" and this conflict of interest meant directors were prone to "negligence and profusion". Corporations were only thought to be legitimate in specific industries (such as insurance or banking) that could not be managed efficiently through partnerships.[2] After the US Constitution was ratified in 1788, corporations were still distrusted, and were tied into debate about interstate exercise of sovereign power. The First Bank of the United States was chartered in 1791 by the US Congress to raise money for the government and create a common currency (alongside a federal excise tax and the US Mint). It had private investors (not government owned), but faced opposition from southern politicians who feared federal power overtaking state power. So, the First Bank's charter was written to expire in 20 years. State governments could and did also incorporate corporations through special legislation. In 1811, New York became the first state to have a simple public registration procedure to start corporations (not specific permission from the legislature) for manufacturing business.[3] It also allowed investors to have limited liability, so that if the enterprise went bankrupt investors would lose their investment, but not any extra debts that had been run up to creditors. An early US Supreme Court case, Trustees of Dartmouth College v Woodward,[4] went so far as to say that once a corporation was established a state legislature (in this case, New Hampshire) could not amend it. States quickly reacted by reserving the right to regulate future dealings by corporations.[5] Generally speaking, corporations were treated as "legal persons" with separate legal personality from its shareholders, directors or employees. Corporations were the subject of legal rights and duties: they could make contracts, hold property or commission torts,[6] but there was no necessary requirement to treat a corporation as favorably as a real person.
Over the late 19th century, more and more states allowed free incorporation of businesses with a simple registration procedure
Seriously?

Liberals have no problem with businesses at all. What you just pulled up is a legal entity of a corporation. As that was a relatively new concept at the time it simply was just that: new. Not the same thing as being opposed in principle at all. Every founding father was a businessman who owned and operated some type of business. All of them where highly successful. The only difference between a privately owned business and a corporation is effectively the tax structure and liability. Private businesses have always had trade secrets.

So the point stands. Classical liberals do not want to abolish businesses or corporations. The people running around now demanding that they are shutdown are progressives, not classical liberals.
_________________
First things first, but not necessarily in that order.

Apologies if I take a while to respond. I'm currently working on the dematerialization circuit for my blue box.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic    Gentoo Forums Forum Index Off the Wall All times are GMT
Goto page 1, 2  Next
Page 1 of 2

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum