kraychik

Either they have less valuable science degrees (economics, where they can do analysis for a bank for a moderate salary) or they don't know how to look for work.

Absolutely, cybercoma is unable to look critically at OECD ratings and realise that they don't take into consideration important variables you just mentioned. Take a look at a university catalogue today and compare it to one from the fifties. Look at all the nonsense we now offer (all a function of increasing government "investment" in education): women's studies, international development, conflict resolution, African studies, social justice, etc. And we wonder why we're importing professionals with real technical skills. Writing skills are overrated, anyways. We don't need a nation of wordsmiths.

Gingrich said it beautifully, "The 'Palestinians' are an invented people". He was absolutely right.

"Trickle down economics" is a nonsense term coined by Bush Sr. in a desperate attempt to defeat Reagan. It's a pop culture term used by the ignorant in order to misrepresent free markets. The irony is, of course, that the socialism you believe in is the true "trickle down economics". Romney seemed to coin a new term during the debate, "trickle down government".

Banks were forced to lend to people with substandard creditworthiness, all justified on the false premise of racist/bigoted lending practises from lenders. This is how leftists (including Obama, who participated in a lawsuit brought against lenders with false accusations of racial discrimination) described "red-lining". Of course, the risk was absorbed by the public who guaranteed the repayment of these loans to the banks via Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. This is the core of the subprime housing crisis, no matter how many times you and your ilk try to deny it.

So you think Obama's "$5 trillion dollar tax cut lie" (which Stephanie Cutter already admitted was a lie) which Obama harped on about for three segments isn't going to be a problem for Obama? Obama's lies were swatted down left and right by Romney. Furthermore, the entire term "fact check" is another nonsensical leftist term, anyways. You know what we used to call "fact checkers"? The media. Unfortunately, the media is so despised that they've rebranded themselves as "fact checkers" in an attempt to make themselves more credible. We've seen the same rebranding from communists to socialists to leftists to liberals to progressives. This strategy does fools socialists like cybercoma, however who quote Politifact.com, because, if it's got the word fact in its title, then it must be true! It even won the Pulitzer Prize, which we all know is a completely apolitical award. "Fact checking" is just more spin. Enjoy voting for Obama on November 6.

I don't hide my values, but I am not a partisan. Had Obama won the debate, in one way or another, I would not have said otherwise. Of course it's an excuse, and it's straight from the Obama reelection campaign which tried to keep expectations low by stating in the days leading up to the debate that Obama is extremely busy with his presidential responsibilities (i.e. fundraising with Hollywood celebrities) and unable to prepare as Romney could. It's a pathetic excuse to deflect from Obama's incompetence which was on full display during the debate. He's not the quite the same man when he isn't alone on stage with prepared remarks, is he?

The "consensus" from objective media outlets like the New York Times, the Washington Post, CNN, Politico, and CBS? I guess you're still living in a world where you trust most of the media's analysis of events.

So you're not just a socialist, but you're also a racist? I can't say I'm surprised. As we get closer to November 6, it seems more likely that Obama will not be reelected. Consider that the first debate was the worst performance we've ever seen in a televised presidential debate, and that the subsequent polling showed Romney receiving the largest post-debate bump ever. Hopefully, it only gets worse for Obama from here on out. We'll know soon enough.

Everything you've said is true, but you must bear in mind that you're engaging a communist. Moonlight Graham isn't even trying to hide it, he's openly stating that Marx's theories "may be proven right someday". How much honesty or objectivity can you expect from such a person?

I studied these things at an academic level before "politics" entered your "hobby section" with Wikipedia being your be all and end all of education. I guess "left-wing libertarianism" doesn't evoke a sense of cognitive dissonance in the politically ignorant.

Marxism is as much a means of analysis as "critical race theory" or Scientology. It's a nonsensical analysis of history and prediction of the future masquerading as scientific. The ideology has taken over societies, as well. The fact that this confounds you really says a lot about the quality of discourse on MLW. I guess the former Soviet Union, Cuba. North Korea, Vietnam, and China don't enter your awareness. Right, because ideologies can't take over societies. More wisdom from the person who thinks the Muslim Brotherhood isn't an Islamist organisation.

Of course Marx's writings were prescriptive. You're really parsing words here by pointing out that he viewed a "classless society" as inevitable, and that somehow this isn't prescriptive. In his own delusional mind, Marx saw the illness of society and knew the cure.

So because there's a Wikipedia entry for it, you believe that it isn't a contradiction in terms? If I look for it, I'm sure I can find a link explaining free market communism. I've explained in detail how libertarianism is simply a rebranding of classical liberalism, and is by definition a right-wing set of values on the traditional left-right paradigm. Again, it's pointless having conversations with leftists like you who constantly try to redefine everything. All you do is put on full display your obliviousness of basic political terminology.

Why did you post a link that doesn't provide any substantiation for your manufactured claim? Moreover, who cares what the percentage is? Is there a critical mass of late-term abortions that you think must be reached before prohibitions are placed on this practice that most Canadian finds oppose and probably find immoral and disgusting? If it's wrong it's wrong, regardless of wheat percentage of total performed abortions it composes.

I agree.

Ok, so here is the linked PDF file, direct me to where you found the distribution of abortions by weeks of pregnancy. It's not there.

The Free Gaza movement is obviously a bunch of evil Jew-hating filth. The only problem is that they have her on record being explicit about her views. Not sure if you saw the videos from the terrorists on the boat doing a group Islamic prayer asking Allah for protection in their upcoming "confrontation with the Jews". It's straight out of that Quran quote you posted in the other thread expressing Islam's hatred and contempt for Christians, Jews, and other infidels.

Well, we can't disagree with leftist politicians, now can we?! It's sad how leftists like you always play follow-the-leader. It's not like there are other former presidents, generals, and other prominent politicians and historians who completely reject that narrative and destroy it.

I love how you just manufacture these statistics.

Hate to break it to you, but you are not a centrist in the Canadian context. Don't let me burst your bubble of delusion, though. Leftists love viewing themselves as pragmatic centrists. It's typical although perhaps you think you're unique and an original thinker.

Well, it's obvious you're oblivious when it comes to American politics. Good for you for admitting it openly.

Exactly, your point of departure for this discussion is your religion of leftism.

Wow, another socialist who hates Jews. I totally didn't see that coming...

It depends where the Islamist is. Not all Muslim-majority countries have the same history with Islamism. Like bleeding heart, you don't realise that the values of conservatism vary depending on the time and place in which the conservative lives. Also like bleeding heart, you don't realise what the left and the right actually mean in basic terms. Put simply, the left wants more centralisation of control over the economy and the right wants less. Considering that Islamism is overtly hostile to many essential and basic components of free markets (for example, lending money and charging interest), Islamism is on-board with the broader left when it comes to economics. As far as the other sphere of freedom (the social sphere), Islamism prescribes detailed and extremely intrusive restrictions on the conduct of the individual, which again puts it the category of the left, which is all about eroding individual freedom to comply with state demands. Leftist states aren't egalitarian, that is just how they market themselves to vulnerable people like you via demagogues. As far as the attack in individual liberty, there is no comparison to be made between attacks from the right and attacks from the left. The left is all about crushing the individual under the guise of advancing the interests of the collective, and the right is the only thing standing in its way while willing lemmings like you are begging to be controlled. You're also parroting blatant lies, which you sincerely believe: since when do social conservatives want to control contraception? Since Obama started repeating that law in the past couple of years with the nonsensical "war on women"? There's also no such thing as "women's rights", although leftists like you love thinking in terms of non-existent "group rights".