Utopia Talk / Politics / Koch Bros vs Cato libertarians

CrownRoyal Member	Tue Mar 06 06:38:00 March 6, 2012 Cato Institute Is Caught in a Rift Over Its Direction By ERIC LICHTBLAU WASHINGTON — From its perch in a spacious brand-new headquarters blocks from the White House, the Cato Institute has built on its reputation as a venerable libertarian research center unafraid to cross party lines. Now, however, a rift with one of its founding members — the billionaire conservative Charles Koch — is threatening the institute’s identity and independence, its leaders say, and is exposing fault lines over Mr. Koch’s aggressive and well-financed brand of Republican politics. The rift has its roots, Cato officials said, in a long-simmering feud over efforts by Mr. Koch and his brother David Koch to install their own people on the institute’s 16-member board and to establish a more direct pipeline between Cato and the family’s Republican political outlets, including groups that Democrats complain have mounted a multimillion-dollar assault on President Obama. Tensions reached a new level with a lawsuit filed last week by the Kochs against Cato over its governing structure. “We can’t be perceived as a mouthpiece of special interests,” Robert A. Levy, chairman of Cato’s board, said in an interview. “The Cato Institute as we know it would be destroyed.” At a tense meeting in November at Dulles Airport outside Washington, David Koch and two family emissaries laid out what they described as the “intellectual ammunition” they envisioned that Cato could provide by supplying its brand-name research and scholars to Koch-financed political advocacy groups, according to Mr. Levy. The one Koch-financed group mentioned by name at the meeting was Americans for Prosperity, which played a major role in the Republicans’ 2010 takeover of the House and is now preparing for the November election. Structured as a nonprofit, the group does not have to disclose its donors. It has backed Tea Party groups, organized rallies and paid for negative advertisements, drawing criticism from campaign finance watchdogs and Democrats over the flow of secret money to political causes. Charles Koch, chief executive of Koch Industries, a chemical and refining company in Kansas, said he had no intention of taking over the institute. “We support Cato and its work,” Mr. Koch said in a statement. “We are not acting in a partisan manner, we seek no ‘takeover,’ and this is not a hostile action.” But Mr. Levy said he balked at tightening ties between Cato and the Kochs’ advocacy groups, expressing concern that the brothers might try to select Cato’s research topics and the timing of its studies. Any perception of political influence could compromise Cato’s nonprofit status and stain its credibility, he said in an interview. Over the years, Cato has successfully injected libertarian views into Washington policy and political debates, and given them mainstream respectability. While leaders at Cato said the dispute has been years in the making, it broke into the open last week after the Koch brothers brought a lawsuit in federal court in Kansas against the institute. The lawsuit, first reported by Politico, seeks to establish control of the four-person “shareholder group” that governs Cato. Charles and David Koch hold two of the four “shareholder” seats, but the lawsuit seeks to establish control of a third seat, vacated by the death of another founder. The dispute goes deeper than mere seats on a board, Cato administrators argued. “This is an effort by the Kochs to turn the Cato Institute into some sort of auxiliary for the G.O.P.,” said Edward H. Crane, who is president of Cato and co-founded it with Charles Koch. “What he is doing now is detrimental to Cato, it’s detrimental to Koch Industries, it’s detrimental to the libertarian movement.” Tensions between such research organizations and the donors who finance them are nothing new in Washington. But the public nature of the spat and the big names involved — Cato is one of the country’s most widely cited research organizations, while the Koch brothers are perhaps the biggest benefactors of the conservative movement — has caused considerable buzz in Washington and on the Internet. While its focus on libertarianism and individual liberties has often aligned the Cato Institute with conservatives on issues like gun rights and financial regulation, it has also staked out a number of positions closely tied to liberals. It generally supports same-sex marriage and guest immigrant-worker programs, for instance, while opposing the Patriot Act’s sweeping counterterrorism powers, aggressive use of American military intervention, and the criminalization of drugs. Mr. Levy, the board chairman, said the dispute was already chipping away at the center’s reputation for independence as it seeks to raise money. Unlike many nonprofit research institutions, Cato does not have an endowment but continually raises money for its operations, with a budget last year of about $23 million. It is now in the midst of a major capital drive. “We already have major contributors who will say we are not contributing another dollar until we are sure that the Kochs are not calling the shots,” Mr. Levy said. “It is a fund-raising nightmare.” http://www...independence.html?pagewanted=1
CrownRoyal Member	Tue Mar 06 06:40:05 It might be tough for Rod to pick a side here. He will be torn between his loyalty to everything republican and his adherence to everything republican.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 08:53:39 Dems are licking their lips at the self destruction of the nut party
Aeros Member	Tue Mar 06 09:02:57 I too will be curious to see what will replace the Republican Party.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 09:20:53 The last throes as the USA gets dragged with kicking and screaming wealthy elites into the modern western world.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 09:22:40 the religious nuts have no place in western govt. Hopefully though, the gop will turn into a sane conservative party. Not healthy for one party to completely dominate politics
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 09:28:43 lol...if things continue trending like they are right now, Obama will get recorded in history as a great statesman. The one big problem that could fuck him up is if israel attack iran. I guess thats one reason the gop want that war.
patom Member	Tue Mar 06 10:19:56 I'm waiting for Koch industries to threaten to shut all their plants in the US and move them to China, if they don't get their way.
ehcks Member	Tue Mar 06 10:20:36 "Hopefully though, the gop will turn into a sane conservative party." Even without the religious fundamentalism, sanity isn't usually a trait of politicians.
ehcks Member	Tue Mar 06 10:26:01 Usually it's just an act. I used to think Huntsman was sane. He lost my pity vote in a spectacular display of insanity.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 10:26:09 "I'm waiting for Koch industries to threaten to shut all their plants in the US and move them to China, if they don't get their way." yeah, I can see that, with the follow up blackmail campaign of all the hotrod serfs ordered to scream: Obama is forcing all the job creators out of the USA!!!
patom Member	Tue Mar 06 10:29:44 What would be funny is if Limbaugh picks up Koch Industries as a major sponsor.
So what Member	Tue Mar 06 10:49:58 Damn that Obama for not being involved in this.
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 11:34:24 Cato tends toward paleo-libertarianism. The Koch brothers do not. The Koch brothers are picking up a large chunk of Cato's tab and are asking for changes. If Cato wishes to continue to push paleo libertarian clap trap they are perfectly free to do so but they may well have to do it without the Koch brothers money. The country is 65% relious as far as those who take their religion seriously. More than 2/3rds of those are social conservatives not all of whom are Christian by any stretch of the imagination. Please tell me how you win a national election as a conservative party and throw those people under the bus? That ladies and gentlemen is the reality in the US. Conservatives comot win with out the religious folk.
Valishin Member	Tue Mar 06 11:57:47 You focus on individual freedoms and point out hypocracy in wanting your own individual freedom but not allowing others the same respect. I am not saying it will be easy, our society has become very comfortable with individuals being openly hypocritical. Also, without the dependency on the religious right that opens up a significant pull from the left who also want the government out of their personal business as well as independents who have a hard time finding a happy home because of the extremes on both sides. I am not saying it would be easy especially in the areas of money and organization because those who favor liberty without the authoritarian aspect of the religious right tend to be younger and not able to fund expensive campaigns as easily or be as dedicated to making it too the polls as the older generation who tend to more heavily favor the religous right. I applaud Cato for standing their ground.
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 12:05:12 Not going to happen Val. There ismply aren't enough people who are both socially liberal and fiscally conservative. There never have been and there almost certainly never will be. According to PEW that 65% number hasn't changed in decades. The best you are going to get is a three party system 30% religious conservative 15 - 20% all other conservatives and the rest some shade of leftist twerp.
Valishin Member	Tue Mar 06 12:10:03 I have found that the more moderate religious conservatives who aren't blinded by their religion are able to acknowledge and consider the possibility that they can hold their religion without forcing their morality on others. Once you point out the problems in their logic. And almost to the man/woman they will acknowledge that it is more important that we are a free society than one defined by religion. That's the start you need.
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 12:29:20 Val some one is always forcing their religious views or lack there of on some one else. That is the problem with having an all enconpassing federal government. Without Roe v. Wade consensus would have been reached on the abortion issue decades ago. Much like there would no longer be an issue of race without affirmative action.
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Mar 06 12:41:49 `The country is 65% relious as far as those who take their religion seriously. More than 2/3rds of those are social conservatives not all of whom are Christian by any stretch of the imagination. Please tell me how you win a national election as a conservative party and throw those people under the bus? That ladies and gentlemen is the reality in the US. Conservatives comot win with out the religious folk. ' You can pull the numbers you want out of your ass but the religious assholes are a great minority. Most people don't take religion seriously, and a healthy minority openly mock everyone who adheres to its principles.
Cloud Strife Member	Tue Mar 06 12:43:27 It's also funny how pushing the `lack of religious views' on someone is synomynous with `keep your religion out of science, health care, etc.'.
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 12:54:16 Argue With Pew Research not me Cloud. What is reality in the Halls of the Academy is not reality anywhere else cloud. One of the biggest problems all human beings have is that we wish to assume for what ever reason that our own set of friends and acquaintances mirrors the world when in fact they almost never do.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 12:56:54 But you arent having that problem right this second, huh
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 12:58:15 "What is reality in the Halls of the Academy is not reality anywhere else cloud." this from a santa clausian. christ youre so fucking dumb, it makes the skin crawl
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 13:01:39 Gads your level of bigotry nearly scares me willie boy. But you arent having that problem right this second, huh Why do you think I'm citing a pew REsearch poll that been done for the last 20 odd years half wit?
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 14:25:27 you, the racist, sexist, bigoted, aristocrat-elitist, imperialistic, white supremacy little cunt, how the fuck dare you? the fucking neck lmao
mexicantornado Member	Tue Mar 06 14:27:36 As a conservative who generally votes GOP, I don't care about any of this.
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 14:33:51 Willie boy I don't give a tinkers damn where you come what color or sex you are or about anything other than the shape of your ideas and your ideas which are flat out monstrous and bigoted in the extreme
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 14:37:58 you lying little fuck. how about them negroes causing all the probs in the USA, huh
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 14:40:04 "you, the racist, sexist, bigoted, aristocrat-elitist, imperialistic, white supremacy" why thank you for the compliment, tardfish. Its funny how tardfish opposes everything that world actually is. No wonder he hides in fuzzy studies.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 14:41:35 285...right where you belong when you run away from questions sam lol
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 14:44:04 How about the hundreds of times youve said scandinavia has less violent crime etc because they dont have any of them negroes in europe, lying fuck? how about them filthy moosluhms, eh lying racist fuck?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Mar 06 14:46:22 tardfish is a racist. he refuses obvious facts based on the color of ones skin. rofl. What a fucking primitive retard.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 15:27:46 what standard does pew use? the reasonable standard i recall for poland's 89% catholic claim was "go to a catholic church at least once a month."
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 15:31:22 What I have said dumb fuck and what would be obvious to anyone with half a brain is that more ethnically homogenous populations will have less crime simply because of that fact. I've also pointed to about a dozen other factors. Ethnically almost all Scandinavian and most other European ones as well, are by US standards, essentially ethnically pure, especially so outside of major cities. The US on the other hand is the most ethnically diverse country in the world. Islam is a religion not a race or an ethnic group Tardfish and one with a fairly violent history from it's very beginning. One who denies this fact may as well bury his head in the sand while loudly yelling the sun rise in the West. Fact's are neither racist nor religously bigoted they are just facts to be made of as you will. Ignoring them however is stupid.
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 15:35:05 " Ethnically almost all Scandinavian and most other European ones as well, are by US standards, essentially ethnically pure, especially so outside of major cities." . . amerrricun exceptionalism. wtf would we be the standard?
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 15:35:08 You nasty, little sanctimonious racist piece of shit, you make my skin crawl
earthpig GTFO HOer	Tue Mar 06 15:37:19 i also like how ethnicity and race are conflated.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 15:47:57 Africans arent pure, though. Because theyre black. And pure, what is a 'pure race'? its somehow a 'better' race. Although being pure or not pure race has nothing to do with it, its all about the culture. Right, you nasty little white supremacist thug?
Garyd Member	Tue Mar 06 15:57:39 The only one conflating ehtnicity and race is Willie boy. I said ethnicity I meant ethinicity. We would have more Crime than Eruope if there were No people of other races here because we have Croats, Magyars, Sicilians, Italians Serbians, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Dutchmen, Welsh, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Turks, Armenians, Greeks, and each brought with him his own set of various tribal alliances and what not once remove along with all his other baggage when he arrived on the shore. The fact that we haven't ahd a dozen civil wars by now never ceases to amaze me. Oh and that's just the short list.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 16:05:36 "ethnicity I meant ethinicity" Well, if you meant ethinicty, why did you say ethnicity? You DO have more violent crime than europe, you racist little shit, and what the hell are you saying here? that europe doesnt have Croats, Magyars, Sicilians, Italians Serbians, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Dutchmen, Welsh, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Turks, Armenians, Greeks? WTf are you trying to say in illegible, garbled retardese? A couple of world wars, remember them, you fucking moron? Or are you saying that white races dont war each other as much??? WUT? And are you saying that white races dont war each other as much, but its got nothing to do with race, its all about the culture? Why are you fucking talking about 'pure races'? WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU SAYING, YOU RETARD?
WilliamTheBastard Member	Tue Mar 06 16:06:44 the fucking lunatic apparently thinks Europe doesnt have Croats, Magyars, Sicilians, Italians Serbians, Norwegians, Danes, Germans, Frenchmen, Englishmen, Dutchmen, Welsh, Scotsmen, Irishmen, Turks, Armenians, Greeks
Valishin Member	Tue Mar 06 23:56:29 Are his reading skills really that bad that he didn't understand such a simplistic point. That's truely sad. Ok let me see if I can break it down in smaller words for you. What he said was that even if we only had "white" races that we would still have a wide mix of ethnicities and as such would still have more violance than say our european couterparts because of the conflicts that occur as those ethnicities deal with other because of their cultural differences. His claim is that european nations don't have this problem because even though they have these groups each nation is more heavily dominated by a single ethnicity. I would argue this might be true in most cases but there are a couple exceptions, France comes to mind. They have a lot of diversity, but have the intersting dynamic of self enforced issolation among their various ethnic groups.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Wed Mar 07 02:03:14 ^ Another closet white power fucking moron. Why are they all, without exception, the most illiterate posters on the board?
INDIA RULZ USA SUCKS Member	Wed Mar 07 04:00:04 GARYD = "The US on the other hand is the most ethnically diverse country in the world." = RETARD http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiculturalism#India "India is racially, culturally, linguistically, ethnically and religiously the most diverse country in the world."
WilliamTheBastard Member	Wed Mar 07 05:22:07 "I have hardly any stereotypes about other people and cultures" - valishin
Valishin Member	Wed Mar 07 09:23:06 If your going to quote someone then you actual quote the text you don't change the meaning entirely. I will let you go find the real text if you want to attempt to look less like a complete idiot.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Wed Mar 07 10:47:50 Its called paraphrasing with a dahs of irony, and you could neither hold nor let anyone go if you were armless and handless, you dumb bigot filled to the brim with stereotypes
WilliamTheBastard Member	Wed Mar 07 10:50:31 Actually, theres hardly any irony added, on checking. Thats almost literally what you said. Being dumb though, I suppose you think its rhetorically possible to have hardly any stereotypes - except when it comes to other people and cultures.
Garyd Member	Wed Mar 07 19:11:44 Willie you aren't even in the ball park. You are the one kowtowing to stereo types not I or val. Every last one of those ethnic groups is compsed entierly of human beings. Hamn beings carry with them all sorts of cultural bagage both good and bad regardless of their culture. And sometimes when those cultures rub up against each other bad things happen. While the US might not be as culturally diverse as India, depending of course, upon how fine a point you wish to put on the idea of diversity, it is certainly more culturally diverse than Norway or Germany. And Willie boy insted of hurling baseless insults and the usual leftist canards why don't you actually try to disprove what I said.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Wed Mar 07 20:33:22 garyd Member Jul 5th, 2008 7:56 PM But the French especially their government always lies ask Green Peace. Oh Im not racist - grrduh
CrownRoyal Member	Thu Mar 08 07:03:34 Why Do the Kochs Want to Kill the Cato Institute?: Ezra Klein It seems the effort by billionaires Charles and David Koch to take control of the libertarian Cato Institute is going poorly. “We are not acting in a partisan manner, we seek no ‘takeover’ and this is not a hostile action,” Charles Koch told Bloomberg News. When you are denying partisanship, takeover ambitions and hostile intentions in one sentence, you probably need to rethink your PR strategy. The Koch brothers have long supported Cato, which they helped found in Washington in 1977. Recently, however, they have come to consider their creation politically unreliable. In a meeting with Robert Levy, the chairman of Cato’s board of directors, they expressed their intention to remake Cato into a party organ that would aid their campaign to unseat President Barack Obama. To do so, however, they need control of the board. They intend to get it by suing the widow of William Niskanen, a recently deceased board member, for control of Niskanen’s shares. Whether they can pull off this coup is for the courts to decide. (Alison Frankel has a good rundown of the relevant legal issues here.) But the bigger question is: Why in the world would they want to? In 2006, the first page of Cato’s annual report included an admiring quote from, well, me. “The libertarian Cato Institute is the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life,” I wrote. I am not exactly a libertarian. I’m a technocrat. I believe in the government’s ability, and occasionally its responsibility, to help solve problems that the market can’t or won’t resolve on its own. I find much of Cato’s hard-line libertarianism -- to the point of purging Will Wilkinson and Brink Lindsey, libertarians who explored making common cause with liberals on select issues -- naive, callous and occasionally absurd. And yet, it’s among a handful of think tanks whose work I regularly read and trust. Trusting Cato That’s because Cato is, well, “the foremost advocate for small-government principles in American life.” It advocates those principles when Democrats are in power, and when Republicans are in power. When I read Cato’s take on a policy question, I can trust that it is informed by more than partisan convenience. The same can’t be said for other think tanks in town. The Heritage Foundation, for instance, is a conservative think tank that professes to pursue goals similar to Cato’s. Where Cato’s motto is “individual liberty, free markets, and peace,” Heritage’s mission is the advancement of “conservative public policies based on the principles of free enterprise, limited government, individual freedom, traditional American values, and a strong national defense.” In practice, however, whatever the Republican Party wants, so does Heritage. In 1989, Heritage helped develop the idea of universal health care delivered by the private sector through an individual mandate. In the early 1990s, it helped Senate Republicans build that concept into a legislative alternative to President Bill Clinton’s proposed reforms. In the early 2000s, Heritage worked with then-Governor Mitt Romney to implement the plan in Massachusetts. Then, when Obama won office and Democrats adopted Heritage’s idea, Heritage promptly fell into step with the Republican Party and turned ferociously against it. Similarly, when Representative Paul Ryan was developing his budget and needed a friendly think tank to run the numbers, he turned to the Heritage Foundation. And boy, they made those numbers sprint. Heritage’s analysis showed Ryan’s budget driving down unemployment to 2.8 percent. When the mockery that ensued proved too much for the think tank to bear, it quietly replaced the analysis with another that didn’t include unemployment predictions . Informed Thinking On policy, I probably agree more frequently with the Heritage Foundation than with Cato. But I can’t trust Heritage. I trust Cato. I don’t agree with its health-care expert, Michael Cannon, who considers universal coverage an absurd and deleterious goal. But I take his analysis seriously, and his critiques have informed my thinking. I’m certainly more skeptical of single-payer programs than I would have been without having read his arguments. Similarly, I never considered myself particularly concerned with executive power, but in his book “The Cult of the Presidency,” Cato Vice President Gene Healy convinced me that “we begin by looking to the president as the solution to all our problems, and we end up believing he’s the source of all our problems,” contributing directly to Washington’s dysfunction. That has grown into a recurring theme in my writing. This column, for example, bears Healy’s imprint right at the top. (I pause here to note that Cato is literally giving away Healy’s book, and you should absolutely accept the offer.) I never had very strong views on intellectual property, but Cato’s Julian Sanchez -- who is also a friend -- has convinced me that our intellectual-property system has become a protection racket for incumbent firms and is an impediment to innovation. The list could go on, but the point is this: The Koch brothers’ fortune is estimated at more than $60 billion, a couple thousand times Cato’s annual operating budget. The brothers have started a large number of advocacy organizations, many of which spend their time -- and the Kochs’ money -- trying to influence the next election. They could start another such group, one dedicated to providing campaign-season ammunition, without noticing the expense. The puzzle is that the Kochs ever started this campaign in the first place. It’s easy enough to see what they hoped to achieve: They would quietly take control of Cato and then leverage its credibility to help elect a Republican. Unfortunately for them, the cries from inside Cato made the “quietly” part impossible. But it would have been impossible in any case: Cato’s credibility is derived from its independence; it wouldn’t last long separated from it. What the Kochs have in Cato is an advocacy organization that matters in the years between elections, even when the Koch brothers’ preferred candidate doesn’t win, even to people who don’t share the brothers’ ideology. Cato is an organization that can have more than a marginal impact on elections. It can have a significant impact on policy and governance. That’s a level of influence even the Kochs can’t buy. When two of the right wing’s most influential funders don’t recognize that, it should cheer liberals immensely." http://www...cato-institute-ezra-klein.html
miltonfriedman Member	Thu Mar 08 20:00:21 true story. Valitard once said if you are against gold farming done by the Chinese, it is like asking NBA to prohibit tall players from playing.
Garyd Member	Fri Mar 09 01:58:04 But the French especially their government always lies ask Green Peace. Exactly how is that Racism??? As I recall the 'especially their' wasn't there.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Fri Mar 09 02:05:56 saying the french always lie isnt racism? you are beyond retarded
Valishin Member	Fri Mar 09 02:19:22 French is a nationality not a race. You could accuse him of being a cultralist. You can even go so far as to call him prejudice since he is prejudging in this instance. However based on your willingness to make stuff up and claim it as true often by changing the words used and thus ignoring original meaning of the source, as illustrated by several of your recent posts then I have my doubts you will recognize the difference.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Fri Mar 09 02:26:44 fucking moron. "We've got all this hatred of that group of people and we've finally worked out that 'racism' is a term that has become filled with negative connotations, what to do, what to do. Oh I just had a really smart idea! Lets think of another stereotypical characteristic that they all share in that group, but which only addresses their ethnicity under the guise of something else common to the whole group! Nobody will notice how I just hid my hateful stereotype of a people behing a very slightly different label, because theyre dumb and Im smart! Also, I have hardly any stereotypes! - valishin the morally gutless slave to hateful stereotypes
WilliamTheBastard Member	Fri Mar 09 02:28:18 race, you moron, is as artificially constructed a stereotype as nationality, the exact same method of dividing people into types and stereotypes, them and us.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 09 02:38:19 "Race is not real" -tardfish, who thinks niggers can have white kids.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 09 02:38:38 you can run away now tardfish
Valishin Member	Fri Mar 09 02:40:55 I never said you couldn't call him out, I am just correcting your word usage. You would think someone who claims your field of study would know that words have meaning and appropate usage is critical for effective communication. As an observer to this it appears that you are simply upset because he won't use the emotion filled term that you want him to use, and you are being corrected when attempted to substitute the less accurate term that comes with its own predefined emotional attachment on his behalf. What is happening here is that you don't want to have to go through of effort of illustrating why what he is doing should be viewed negatively so instead you want to try to assign a word to the situation that is inaccurate but comes with so much negative history and emotion that you hope this alone will win your point for you without any effort on your part. Which is sad, because his statement as an absolutely is inappropate and as such, you could have been on the winning side of an arguement for the first time.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Fri Mar 09 02:41:34 2 dark haired people wont have a blonde child! that makes them a different race, almost a different species, theyre genetically not 'us,' they're genetically 'them'! Now that theyre 'them,' we can load all the other hateful stereotypes that belong to the 'them' category! Science says so! - sam adams, the poster everyone laughs at when he says he's smart and a scientist
WilliamTheBastard Member	Fri Mar 09 02:44:14 valishin, stfu trying to play expert at stuff you are completely retarded about, you snotted nosed little neo-racist dumbass. Thanks
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 09 03:24:22 "i don't believe in genetics, evolution, or race" -tardfish, who is more ignorant of science than a bible thumping palin fan.
garyd Member	Fri Mar 09 06:50:44 Tardfish has his own religion and it has about as much to do with science and reality as the socks I wore yesterday have to do with the mean average temperature on Pluto during the winter.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Fri Mar 09 08:37:10 285 again...lol
Valishin Member	Fri Mar 09 09:02:47 I will stop correcting you when you start being accurate. By the way, the next phrase you might want to study since word selection seems to be a problem for you: argumentum ad hominem.
WilliamTheBastard Member	Fri Mar 09 10:02:47 Im sorry valishin, your post didnt make it through my blockIntelligenceLowerThan75IQApp
Sam Adams Member	Fri Mar 09 11:42:31 notice how tardfish stopped trying to debate, started his lame insults, and basically ran away again after being proved wrong.
	show deleted posts

Your Name:
Your Password:
Your Message: