On Thursday, February 12, 2015 at 5:38:26 PM UTC-5, Mayayana wrote:
| part to do with the way you write,
| which is eloquent and profuse (girls talk a lot).



| That is twice in two months I have referred to a dude
| as a chick. Thank you for being a good sport.
|

I don't mind, and the assumption is understandable.
It's actually come up before in this group, and
Trader_4 has continued to refer to me as "she" a
number of times. I didn't bother to correct it because
I figured he was probably doing it deliberately, thinking
it was an insult.



Good grief. Like I'm the only one who thought you were a woman
because of your handle.



I might prefer being a "she" to being a "liberal",
though.

Why? Are you ashamed of what you are?



Separating people into "us" and "you
libs" seems to pre-define nearly all topics so that
new angles can't be explored. Suddenly a discussion
becomes a sporting event, with teams trying to
beat each other, and anything one doesn't want to
hear can be dismissed as "typical of those other
people".

Oh please. This is like pretending that the reason Republicans
and Democrats can't come to agreement on many issues is because
they just don't like each other and totally ignoring that at the heart
of it are deeply held core differences.



I've never been political,

Really? It was *you* who just falsely tried to place the
blame on the conservatives on the Supreme Court for letting
Monsanto's win stand. At least that's the case I think you
were bitching about, because as usual, you libs don't have
much in the way of actual factt. You never told us what case
you were talking about. But assuming it's the one regarding
Monsanto GMO, you lamented that the SC need
to change because the conservatives were a problem. Of course
the truth is that the SC let the appeals court ruling in Monanto's
favor stand by not taking the case. It only takes 4 votes to take
a case, so obviously the libs on the court agreed.

Just the facts.





and while
I'm probably more liberal than conservative I don't
feel comfortable on either side. The way I see it,
the former veers too far toward unrealistic socialism
while the latter goes too far toward monarchy.

Which shows how ignorant you are of conservative positions.
Conservatives greatly fear the power of a large, central
govt. A monarchy is the last thing they'd want. It's libs
that welcome big govt and the current lib president is the
one acting like a monarch, eg his recent illegal immigration
stunt.



But
I suspect that statement will raise some hoots. The
people who like to say "you libs" just don't allow
anyone to define shades of gray.

Not when it's done with another pile of BS. Conservatives
and monarchy? Good grief you're dumb.