" Liberalness ... a mental disorder "

You are correct, KK8

Thanks for sharing!

James Cessna

When it comes to liberals and their arrogant mindset, this part is especially true.

"Now even liberals are trying to put their finger on what is wrong with President Barack Obama. Does he lack leadership abilities or competence? Is he arrogant and out of touch with America? Is he a pleaser first and foremost, rather than someone who cares about getting the job done? Does he not understand how the economy works? “‘Yes, we can!’ has devolved into ‘Hey, we might,’” Maureen Dowd wrote in The New York Times." Most of us just wish he would stay at his work station long enough to come up with a credible and workable plan to solve our lingering economic problems.




Mr. President, 408,000 more Americas are out of work this week than last week and our core inflation rate has unexpectedly risen to 2.0%. Why are you going on vacation? Please, please stay in Washington and work on our economy!

 

No it wasn't.

State capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/state+capitalism

Before actually but since the History of William Bradford America never been a State Capitalism society.

I understand things are different down under but look up generally means research everywhere else.


Yes, a system characterized by free markets and private property, however the former concept has varied interpretations of application.

Everything here is wrong because it has already been established that state capitalism is where the production is done by the state. If capitalism is done differently anywhere else then it's not capitalism.

 

I miss Bill Buckley and his friendly way of putting liberals in their place when he hosted Crossfire. But if ever there was an equal to Mr. Buckley in representing the right Conservative message and ideology....it has to be Sir Charles Krauthammer. I would just like to see him pitted against any of the various lib talking heads with a one-on-one debate like they had on Crossfire. He would make mincemeat out of any of them, and without breaking a sweat.

 

we have a comedian on board!


Great. Still doesn't show how the Soviet Union was always intended to be a Capitalist country.[/QUOTE]

What are you talking about? Who said anything about the USSR being intended to be capitalist? Not me.

Same reason Marx was voted greatest thinker of the millennium on a BBC global online poll?

You are about the only person in the world who thinks this. I already gave you the dictionary definition

You are, you're very trying.

He was a Stalinist. That is not Marxist.

You wanna try actually learning some sh!t here.

Because Marx was right.

Not much. Marxism just has some specific terminology.

What time period? 1945? It wasnt quite that bad.

Listen, these politicians can say whatever they want. If they were so similar, why did the KMT massacre the communists so frequently?

I suppose you believe Hitler was a socialist as well?

You haven't been listening. It was only really tried in Russia in terms of a party leading a revolution with the aim of socialism. Put it this way, the Comintern had no wish to see any socialist revolutions. Most were supposed to deliver capitalism, as I have explained over and over.

 

I dont know if any historian agrees with your assessment. I have quoted multiple sources, including Mao himself. You just ignore half of it and misunderstand the other half.

according to wiki 3/4 of the economy is state and 1/4 private. In America its about 60% private.

Admittedly there isnt a huge amount in Somalia. This is obviously because of the civil war.

Stop it, you're killing me with the accidental irony.

According to you no country is capitalist except America.

PMSL!

 

It is almost laughable how you righties blame everything on the liberals. Bill Clinton left the White house in 2000 with a balanced budget. 8 years of George Bush and the economy was in shambles. So I guess that makes you guys the experts on the economy. I must be missing something here???

 

I love the way you guys always bring up the name of George Bush, as if he somehow represents the views and policies of most conservatives.

Guess what, "other guy", George Bush was in no way shape or fashion a true "conservative" George Bush, with his "big government" solutions and bailout of the banking industry was just as much a far-Left liberal as Barack Obama is today!



Here are two liberal elitist. After three years, they have become quite identical in their policies and their differences have become very minor! They ignore Congress when it comes to their war policies and they both think they can spend their way back into national economic prosperity. Obama, like Bush, has increased the power of the NSA, he has broadened the scope of warrantless wiretapping of Americans and both have done nothing to scale back and limit the abuses of the Patriot Act. Obama is clearly the greatest authoritarian and one of the phoniest and most insincere presidents we have ever had.

 

you are very correct, Libhater.

Miclelle Malkin is also very good at exposing the liberal agenda for its unrealistic promises and the broken message it really is!

Check this out!

"Unveiled at the radical leftist Center for American Progress in January, John Kerry and Company's pipe dream would somehow leverage $10 billion in unidentified public funds into $640 billion in government loans and loan guarantees for union-exclusive construction and bogus green jobs projects."

 

Poor analysis. I'm not a liberal.

 

Yes, Reagan increased the size of government, both literally and politically.

If you take that definition then state-capitalism IS state-socialism, but I disagree. State capitalism is better defined by the description below the one you posted:
state capitalism - an economic system that is primarily capitalistic but there is some degree of government ownership of the means of production

ROFL How did Bradford change things into a capitalist society? Sorry, no America has been a state-capitalist country since its creation - in 1776. If it were functioning as a purely capitalist society, you guys would still be selling furs and basic materials and be significantly deprived of virtually any manufacturing base - reliant completely on British imports.

Dont kid yourself. You made a fool of yourself. Australia is in better condition than the US.

That hasnt been established at all. You are referring to a dictionary definition that is extremely loose and weak in its description. I am referring to analysts and actual economists.

Sure, but that doesn't change the fact the US has been a state-capitalist society since its inception and HAS NOT CHANGED since then.

 

LOL You are clueless and totally incorrect. Conservatives have LOVED Big government since John Adams. Reagan, the pin up boy of conservatives, was enthusiastically supportive of expanding the government, both on people's personal lives and the economy.

Check this out!

REAGAN CALLS FOR DRINKING AGE OF 21

He changed the drinking age from 18 to 21 - what a disgrace!

 

Military. What else you got.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. That is what the definition of state capitalism is. If you have the problem with the definition, take it up with Merriam-Webster.

You're going to have to go back 20 post. I'm not explaining the story again.

America has never been a state capitalist country.

Why? Because you don't use the term 'look up'? Yeah, that makes you better in your world. Makes the rest of the world sane on the other hand.

You want me to use the dictionary.com definition? It uses the same definition all around:

State-Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/state-capitalism?qsrc=2446

I would use a Wikipedia definition but I never consider Wikipedia as a valid source of information. Aside from that most economist pretty much agrees with that definition, or else it wouldn't have been used on peer reviewed popular online dictionaries.

You don't know what the term state capitalism is. The United States as never been a state capitalist country.

 

Economy and civil society.

Yes it does.

I dont care about Merriam-Webster. I am using the Austrian school's use of the term.
http://mises.org/daily/1559
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard33.html

Find me the page or post number and I'll read it. This will be interesting.

Yes it has. It has never had a free market, and only by the early 19th century had universally formed property rights.

What do you mean by "look up"?

Sure, see my above sources. The term is not absolute, much like capitalism. The key feature if state intervention, but to assert it so ardently as you have is far closer to state-socialism than state-capitalism and in that sense the term is useless if you look at it that way.

Yes I do, you just cant think outside the box of your own fantasy it seems. Let me put it this way. Since the US has NEVER had a free-market, how do you describe it? It has a partially free market with formal property rights, but has been missing a cornerstone feature of capitalism since the country's inception. How do you describe the system?

It has ALWAYS been a state-capitalist society.

 

You are correct on all accounts, MissJonelyn.

It is obvious your opponent has a very poor understanding of economics and recent history.

MissJonelyn: 8

MegadethFan: 0

 

Increasing the economy? How does that make it a state capitalist country? That is generally a good thing.

And the Civil Society? What does that have to do with the overall government?

No it doesn't, as it turns out the whole does not revolve around you. And you don't know what state capitalism is so I don't see why your opinion would matter.

These are not definitions, these are just analysis. Definitions have to reflect real word examples. It doesn't matter if you interpret things differently.

http://www.politicalforum.com/polit...beralness-mental-disorder-14.html#post4380697

It has always been a free market country. And property rights were developed since the beginning of the 18th century. It just wasn't set in stone until the late 18th century. You don't know what you're taking about.

I already told you.

Capitalism is absolute. Production has to be privately owned and there must be a guarantee of property rights/rule of law. There is only one definition. State capitalism has barely been tried in world history but everyone can agree that the definition is clear.

State Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism

I don't even know why I'm entertaining this nonsense.

Nothing in private sector government is state controlled and government doesn't product capital. It has never been a state capital or state socialism.

No one defines the US as a State Capitalist country in the real world.

It has always had a free market.

Another person I have to disqualify from being taken seriously.

 

Like where?

Such as?

LOL All you can do is hide behind others and claim victory. Weak. You couldnt even refute my rebuttal of your points. Looks like-

MegadethFan: 3
James Cessna: 0

MegadethFan: 8
MissJonelyn: 0

 

Jesus Christ. You are saying state intervention in the economy is a good thing now? Yes, state intervention to the extent Reagan and EVERY other president pursued such policies has made the US a state-capitalist system. If you want examples I can list some.

EVERYTHING. Government is an institution monitoring every facet of our lives. You clearly arent a libertarian, just another hypocritical conservative who thinks social totalitarianism is fine as long as the economy is "free" which you clearly dont understand either.

Yes it does.

Never said it did. Is that a self conscious revelation?

Yes I do know what state-capitalism is and I have provided extensive sources to back it up.

Yes, this is a definition. Through analysis one defines the term, as I have already done.

LOL Of course it does. Language is fluid not absolute.

ROFL That was better than what I expected. Not only does your analysis show a clearly dumbed down interpretation of history but also reveals your shoddy understanding of this topic. Capitalism, as we have already determined, is defined by a system of private property AND free markets. Assuming (which is incorrect) that your interpretation of the Governor of Plymouth as having being a man who created private property rights independent of state control, you have yet to show where a free market existed, which it didnt and NEVER HAS. As I wrote earlier, if there were a free market, you'd be totally under developed. America has employed EXTREME protectionism since its creation - which is what created its manufacturing base.

No it hasnt. See above. Protectionism is not an attribute of a free market.

You just proved my point, well partly. Private property rights (I'm also talking about capital in legal theory) were 'set in stone' as your describe, until the early 19th century when settlers to the West gained acknowledgment legally.

Tell me again.

LOL I dont even think you know what capitalism is any more. You say its absolute yet clearly have no idea what the current state of the US economy is or has been.

Which there has been. However the intrusion of the state creates a state-capitalist system.

Wrong. Its been developing since Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.

Perhaps see this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism
"The term State capitalism has various different meanings..."

I disagree with this definition.

You dont have to have entire state control to have a state-capitalist system. State-capitalism is also present where the free market is manipulated - like through protectionism as I described, or through government assistance, or nationalization.

Yes they do. Read the Rothbard articles or any other Austrians. Go around this very website and you'll find others that agree with me.

Define a free market. Protectionism and government intervention is NOT free.

Read some history and some economics.

 

You never explained what Reagan did to the Economy? I just assumed that he made it better from Carter.

I doubt you could actually name anything, you would have actually said something credible by now.

Hm, do tell. You've explained nothing of substance so far.

Straw man, your understanding of the economy is very lucid at best and doesn't follow any real word examples.

No, It does not matter if you disagree with the definition.

You seem to think that it matters if you disagree with the definition. It does not matter, State Capitalism does not coincide with your delusions.

Opinions.

Except no one agrees with your analysis as it has already been defined. If you have defined it different you are incorrect.

No one is stopping you from interpreting it differently. You have a fundamental right to be as dumb as you want to be. The definition of State Capitalism still stands as is.

It was dumbed down for the purpose of people like you.

It was developed at that time period first. Property Rights was never tried before that point in history. Before that time period, you had feudal lords and nobles which could take property without recourse.

You are referring to Lassiez faire.

In what way did I prove your point? I didn't say anything remotely close to any of you said? Private Property rights was set in stone in the late 18th century.

Go back to earlier post. You have hands and fingers. It's not that far back.

I do know what the current state of the economy is. The production is still privately owned. There is government intervention, but that's not what makes it a state capitalist economy as it is clearly defined:

State Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital

State Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital

It hasn't been tried anywhere else in the world until the 1700s.

As Wikipedia is never considered a credible source of information.

It doesn't matter if you disagree. That's what the definition is.

State Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital

State Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

And I can make the argument that you don't have to have a pure free market for it to be free. If you want pure free market you are advocating lasseiz faire, which I would agree that the US has never been. But your definition is twisted.

And I can show you economist which agrees with me. We can play this refute sources game until these thread closes. The facts are the general terms coincide more with my definition more than any Wikipedia definition you can come up with.

Free Market: market economy based on supply and demand with little or no government control.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/f/freemarket.asp#ixzz1X2gOiDKn

Classic ignorant response when someone has nothing left. What else you got?

 

[/QUOTE]

No I just like seeing people unhappy.

Yes you did. You said that the States in USSR were suppose to be Capitalist States and not Stalinist states, but that obviously never happened.

Who cares about the BBC? It's just Government Run News Source hackery.

You gave me a definition from a Marxian dictionary. Marxian theory allows for that term. I can't find that term anywhere else in the word.

No I'm not >_>

I really don't see the difference, aside from the fact that they had their own versions of how they followed Marxian theory. In the end, their goals were the same and their goals had the same outcomes.

About what exactly? What has Marx ever been right about?

Pretty much anything evolving Capitalism he had a different terminology for. Not to say that it's confusing but it doesn't follow real world examples.

There was no other forms of a private sector in China other than Handcrafts and Farming. Oh and maybe a little commerce but that was about it.

Why are you asking me? You have all the answers.

Wasn't he? Either he was or Mien Kumpf was completely misleading.

Why are you so hung on the idea because it wasn't fully implemented the way Marx wanted that it wasn't really tried?

 

Indeed it was better than Carter, but interestingly he pursued primarily the same policies. Well he tripled the nation's debt, increased the number of public ally employed people and also increased taxes overall by the end of his terms. There's also the fact work hours increased, along with productivity, yet wages stagnated and the like but those are not answers to your question.

You spoke too soon, again, it would seem.

Are you seriously asserting "government" is only those public institutions that engage with the economy and NOT social rights? Seriously?

See above. You're getting whipped.

Yes, it does.

Yes, it does matter and yes it does coincide.

No different to what you have provided.

Yes they do - Rothbard for one., Do you even know who he is?

Again check my sources. You can see the term has been applied differently by others. If you cant accept this, it just shows how myopic you are and frankly I dont care.

Which definition? There are clearly many. Here's another:
http://www.marxists.de/statecap/binns/statecap.htm
What you obviously dont understand is the premise of the concept - state-capitalism is a capitalist system with state intervention/control of varying degrees. This is the basic premise of the term.

No it was just dumb.

Developed, sure. Created and formulated as we know it today, no.

Correct, and even then it was still a social contract. Not until Locke did property rights become formulated as an individualistic notion of law.

OMG. Are you seriously saying lassiez faire includes protectionism and state intervention???? I am going to laugh my guts out if you do.

To a degree, but then you'd have to ignore other rights aroudn it such as to form companies and also the legal issue of capital.

I dont care much for ignorant posts, so unless you want to tell me again, I frankly dont care.

And how would you define it?

Let me put it this way. How would the economy be different if there was, say, no protectionism? What would you call it instead of 'capitalism' as you describe it now?

LOL State-capitalism has been the function of the US economy since its inception. Protectionism being a chief example of this fact. A free market MUST EXIST for a society to be called capitalist. Since a free market has NEVER EXISTED in its ENTIRETY, capitalism has not existed.

Sure, so use the 20 or so sources at the end that corroborate wikipedia's claims.

Here's a definition most suitable:
Definition of STATE CAPITALISM
: an economic system in which private capitalism is modified by a varying degree of government ownership and control.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/state capitalism
My point still stands as a definition of the term. Face it.

Hooray! You are finally starting to understand my point. Correct, a capitalist system does not require totally unfettered market systems, but there exists virtually no state in the world (there are some exceptions, such as Australia which comes close) that have 'limited' government control or intrusive programs within the economy. The US has always had an intrusive/controlling government by way of the economy. Again, protectionism a key example.

Point is there are clearly multiple applications of the term.

Wrong. The facts are the general term coincides with the Merrium-Webster definition I gave. Government intrusion does not have to dominate, it just has to significant enough for the economy to not be termed lasseiz-faire.

EXACTLY! The US has had MASSIVE government control and intrusion in its economy since its founding. Protectionism a key example. If it were minimal, of course I'd say it was a free market - but it isnt, and virtually EVERY economist in the world agrees with this point. Now you might say, well we could debate for ever and a day what is too much, which is correct, however there are some policies that are major interventions and forms of control - protectionism being one. Protectionism is an American past time. Reagan doubled post-world war two trade barriers during his time in office. Adam Smith, Dave Ricardo and all the rest of the early theorists of capitalism noted protectionism as a key violation of free market principles. Hence the fact the US employs such means is clearly enough grounds for to say the US is not a purely capitalist country but something different. Now what should I define it as? Well clearly not socialist since there are property rights and there is a market system, if somewhat limited. Hence the only term left if state-capitalist. Do you see the logical use of the term now? Unless you have another term, I'm sticking with it. You could call it corporatist, which would be fair, but that again is a manifestation of state-capitalism. America, like most of the world, cant be called capitalist until it has the key features of capitalism, namely private property and a free market - the latter lagging in its entire (or maximal) implementation.

No, I am being serious, you really need to revise your understanding of history and economics. You seem like your drowning in rhetoric and high-school knowledge of the concepts discussed.

 

I said Stalin wanted other countries outside the USSR to be capitalist. I did not say he wanted the USSR to be capitalist. Is that what you are getting confused about? It was too late in Russia, and besides, if he had allowed capitalist restoration in 1928-37, he probably would have lost his poser and position, and maybe even his life.

The people who voted were not government run.

No, Stalin's goal were the opposite of Marx's, as I have been explaining throughout this thread. Of course most of his followers believed they were were working towards socialism, but they were doing the opposite.

Globalisation, huge capitalist recessions, revolution, the impossibility of socialism in one country, the impossibility of socialism in a backward country, if you paid attention and actually tried to understand this subject instead of point scoring and defending the views of your little right wing website (what was it again?) you would have an idea. The degeneration of the Russian revolution happened because it was a backward country and was isolated, entirely in keeping with Marxist theory. They were relying on Germany, but two revolutions there were crushed, as was the Hungarian one. Even as early as 1923, Stalin was busy sabotaging the German revolution.

Total nonsense, all Marx did was write about the real events he was observing, with a few predictions which mostly came true.

Yes I do.

Hitler wrote and said a lot of stuff he didnt really mean or understand. He later said he regretted the name National Socialist. In 1927 he wrote a secret pamphlet for industrialists explaining that "the anti-capitalist measures included in the original twenty-five points of the NSDAP programme would not be implemented if he gained power."

To get into power he rounded up socialists and was backed by the capitalists. Once in power he rounded up all the rest of the socialists and put them in concentration camps, early in 1933. He then crushed the trade unions etc. During the 30s, when most countries were nationalising stuff to try to survive the Great Depression, the Nazis were privatising. Hitler was a big fan of Henry Ford. American capitalists increased their investment in Germany by 50% during the 1930s. They backed the Nazis and the Nazis backed them. General Motors grew to become one of the biggest employers in Germany during the 30s. Henry Ford and the boss of General Motors were both given the Third Reich's top award by Hitler.

What I am saying is that after the mid 1920s, Stalin dominated the Comintern, obviously, and his theories of Two Stages (capitalism first, socialism a long time later) dominated all CPs around the world. So the agenda for all CPs was a bourgeois revolution, not a proletarian one, capitalism not socialism. This was supposed to be the agenda. This agenda failed. They slid over to a bureaucratic planned economy similar to the USSR because capitalism was impossible, and socialism was impossible. But they were not even trying to implement socialism. Stalin's main concern was to prevent any socialist revolutions because they would inevitably give the Russian masses the idea, the confidence, to overthrow the Stalinist dictatorship and implement genuine democratic socialism. This nearly happened a few times during his life and shortly after.

This was why, think about it, at the same time George Orwell said that the Communists sabotaged the revolution in Spain, Stalin was killing thousands of Trotskyists in Russia.

 

Here's a definition of capitalism from the FT

Please respect FT.com's ts&cs and copyright policy which allow you to: share links; copy content for personal use; & redistribute limited extracts. Email ftsales.support@ft.com to buy additional rights or use this link to reference the article - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e92328a-35b4-11de-a997-00144feabdc0.html#ixzz1X4LUojHe

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/6e92328a-...82e-11dd-aae8-000077b07658.html#axzz1X46EyogC

to read the last bit you have to register, you can register for free and read something like 3 articles per day.

It is part of the series they did called The Future of Capitalism

http://www.ft.com/indepth/capitalism-future

 

which doesn't refute anything I have said.

but knowledge is. unless you have a closed mind.

arrogant ignorance invites negative comments.

comprehension problem?

obviously, your ideology means that you are unable to differentiate between terms that have vastly different meanings.

this is not that unusual with knee jerk extremists.

 

None of which has anything to do with increasing government intrusion in the private sector and none of which actually involves protectionism. Taxes are a different issue entirely.

Nope, you feel short from the mark, again.

You haven't given on example before the 1990 - 2000 in which government has intruded in the Private sector.

I can give you a few, but everyone will still consider America a Free Market Economy.

People who give themselves points in a debate also get disqualified from being taken seriously.

If you think it does. I have a least 5 real word example terms to your 1 made up by wikipedia.

State Capitalism: an economic system in which much of the capital, industry, etc. is controlled by the state

State Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the central government controls most of the capital, industry, natural resources, etc.

State Capitalism: a form of capitalism in which the state owns or controls most of the means of production and other capital: often very similar to state socialism

No it doesn't, as I've already demonstrated that you don't matter in the slightest.

I have provided peer reviewed definitions from actual word/economic dictionaries.

Do you know who Milton Freedman is?

If that's the case it really doesn't matter if you disagree with my definitions or not. You haven't reflected anything that shows that America has always been a state capitalist.

Maxian Dictionary only reflects Maxian theory.

Well like I said, it really doesn't matter what you think.

Who cares when it was formulated? All it matters was when it was first tried. That is the point I'm trying to convey.

Again, when it was tried first is the overall point.

I guess I have to dumb things down. A free market is a market with little or no state intervention. A Pure Free Market would be Lassiez Faire. You're pretty much saying that America has never been Lassiez Faire. You're terms are pretty much backwards.

It factors in everything from the founding era of that time.

Then why do you keep asking about it?

I would define it is a corporatist economy.

Capitalism is merely a system of individual rights including property rights, where property is privately owned. Capitalism requires De jure Private Property Rights and Rule of Law. A free market is the result of capitalism, not the cause.

Wrong.

Failures to give examples doesn't make you correct.

The only thing capitalism needs to exist is a guarantee of private property rights and rule of law. This insures that a free market can be a free market.

There are no sources regarding the overall definition. Just mere opinion. Only truly ignorant people rely on Wikipedia terms.

One definition to my five. Good for you.

Wrong again. There has only been a hand number of points where protectionism was applied. I'm not sure you know what protectionism is now.

Majority of which applies to my definition.

Say what you want, but that's only one term which coincide with your definition. Even the Oxford Dictionary agrees with my assessment:

State Capitalism: a political system in which the state has control of production and the use of capital.

http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/state+capitalism?region=us

So that would be what? Six to your one definition?

Wrong again. There has been massive government regulation recently, but not since it's founding.

Majority of economist believe America has always been free trade country.

You've been spouting that one example for three post now. You don't have any else do you?

I'm being serious too. You're pretty much a joke. No one subscribes to your state capitalism rhetoric because it doesn't apply to any real world definitions. You cannot be taken seriously.

 

Yes it does, if you haven't been paying attention, none of the examples I gave interfered with the private sector.

I have a closed mind to ignorance. Does that count?

Nothing at all like this example of arrogant ignorance. Even people who weren't posting here initially jumped on your.

If there is any comprehension problems, it's only due to the fact that I can't understand the point you are trying to make. Maybe it's because you don't have one.

Again, you don't know my ideology so you're just assuming my ideology based on the fact that I disagree with you. Which would be very "closed minded." Again, you have become what you have mocked, as a fellow user coined it best.

So now I am an extremist. Yeah, stick to the taunts, you're not getting anywhere by assuming.