Considering the tectonic movements in the world today, I am ever so optimistic about Paul’s writing career – I see, in the future, a career in a slowly but surely emerging field for him.

It’s the end of the world as we know it. And I feel fine.

Even tho I was alerted to you being ignored by practically and nearly virtually everyone, I will pour my bleeding ”liberal” heart here, and give you some more attention. You’re welcome.

raindrop, i was referring at paul’s lame attempts.

Could you elaborate WHY his attempts are lame? And by elaborate should not be understood as: you’re racist, na na na na.

are you going all tyra on us and thinking that the world revolves around you?

Actually, I would go all SUN on you (YOU as in singular, if I have to remind you again of your weak attempts to gather votes against me via voices in your head and no real people) if you had the balls to actually tackle what I said re: the topic, as opposed to showing me your vast knowledge of talk shows.

the “truth” is subjective raindrop.

If the truth were subjective, Paul, for example, would have the right to his subjective opinion. However, what Paul said was not subjective, much less subjective opinion. It was truth as empirical evidence should be understood from scientific point of view.
Example:
If there’s 10 million people who live in a social structure which has no place in civilized world (rape, murder, slavery, all around mayhem), and when these 10 million people are clearly and obviously not able to sustain the basic law of nature: feeding themselves, a deductive logic would imply, as it has been empirically observed and proved, thus treated as truth, that 11 million people would only climb higher on a ladder of hunger. A nature of law applies in animals: if a female knows there’s not enough food this season, she will not breed as she knows she will not be able to feed her offspring. A basic law of nature, which everyone but blacks mustered, in fact, were born with.

A simple math question: if 10 million are not able to feed themselves, how will 11 million be able. And how do we get from 10 million people not able to feed themselves to 11 million? Well, by fucking without a condom. Is this subjective? And how will those 10 million, not able to feed themselves, be able to fuck without a condom, in order to get to 11 million? Well, by eating food racist whites send them.

This could go on for quite some time, until there’s NO food to be sent anymore. Then what? 20 million fucking with no condom blacks starve to death. Is this subjective as well or just a matter of a simple logic, supported by decades long pattern?

Animals do not fuck when there’s no prospect of feeding their offspring. Not subjective, but a simple law of nature.
Do you have a logical, empirical, factual objective to this?

you speculate that i’m a “quasi liberal” and then complain about speculation regarding your wingnut nature? classic.

I do not speculate you’re a quasi liberal. I comment on your quasi liberalism. If you really and truly understood what liberalism is, you would not be one, and you’re not. Thus, you’re a quasi liberal. A first sign of a quasi liberal is attacking those, who are politically incorrect and the attack comes in a nature of ”you’re racist” at anyone, who speaks against the hypocritical, double standards propaganda.
You know what is classic about me? My liberalism: a classic liberalism. With a good dosage of libertarianism, sprinkled with technocratism. Now you’re really confused, uh? No trace of wingnutism there. Too bad for ya.

it is quite wingnutty to make up “standards” that you never intend to apply to yourself.

See, the problem is that you do not know what I NEVER apply to myself. The problem is that you did not understood my standards in the first place.
What’s nutty is labeling someone as a wingnut due to not understanding their message, due to their message being the opposite of the propaganda you adhere to because fellow quasi liberals tell you in their ”world person in the world” segments.
Not only I elaborated on my views, and those, who operate with substantial knowledge understand that, I also made it very clear I do not differentiate, for example, between Republicans and Democrats. But hey, what’s that little nugget for ya?

re: freedom of speech, the constitution only prohibits the government from infringing. you may want to have someone explain the constitution to you.

Nah, I’m good. The founding fathers didn’t encompass in free speech the witch hunt for some Paul Shirley for speaking the truth.
How’s Constitution working in real life? Any new beer summits in the White House program?

regarding my typing, you’ll all have to get over it. sorry. however, i think that the writers who are publishing on their site should use proper spelling/grammar. not too much to ask.

Do you think it would be too much to ask from you to actually tackle the topic at hand as opposed to showcasing you can hold a candle to any quasi liberal with your Al Sharpton paroles?

Point taken, Raindrop.

I must say though… having gone back and looked at your last five posts, I couldn’t help but notice that each one has gotten shorter and shorter. You’re learning!

Hmmm… I guess you’re right. After an elaborate longer (depends on a point of view of a reader) first post, I’ve learned that those, who do not possess cognitive ability to learn, will not, whether I write a short-hand one sentence, or 200 long sentences.
Just kidding. Sorta. What you perceive as shorter posts are surely not shorter for the reasons you believe them to be. The next time I decide to comment on Paul’s blog, I will most certainly post what will seem as a book to you. Good thing for that scrolling thingy, uh?

I even read your medium-sized one from Feb. 24 @ 1:16, as it managed to fit on my computer screen in its entirety.

I’m so happy for you. Let me know when is a good time to recommend you a Dr. Seuss book.

Seems as long as you’re not trying to break down each and every argument made by someone (pragmatism) who is otherwise ignored by practically everyone on this site, your posts are actually readable. I stand corrected?

Oops! I did it again! I broke down each AND every argument. Can’t help it. I have a debate style format in my genes. I even force it on those, who believe my participation in a debate should consist of nodding and agreeing. And being quiet.

As for pragmatism being ignored here: I’m pretty new around these parts. I didn’t know we’re all too busy watching O’Reilly (gosh, I hope this cynicism doesn’t fly above everyone’s head).
But it’s all cool. My arguments were ignored as well; maybe because they were cynical rhetorical questions. Maybe.

Now, back to scrolling lessons. This is what this blog entry is all about, right?

I must say though… having gone back and looked at your last five posts, I couldn’t help but notice that each one has gotten shorter and shorter. You’re learning!

I even read your medium-sized one from Feb. 24 @ 1:16, as it managed to fit on my computer screen in its entirety. Seems as long as you’re not trying to break down each and every argument made by someone (pragmatism) who is otherwise ignored by practically everyone on this site, your posts are actually readable. I stand corrected?