Yes, but that is not the problem. The problem is you are incapable of actually presenting an argument that backs your view of reality. (ProTip: this is a sign that maybe your view of reality needs adjustment).

I am neither. Please stop lying. Thanks!

You do realize -- don't you? -- that I am the one who made serious arguments to you, and you're the one who responded with ad hominem ... right? I mean, anyone looking at this knows that I am the one engaging in honest conversation, and you're the one who isn't.

False.

False.

Translation: "I got my ass handed to me. Again. And I have no rebuttal that won't sound stupid, so I'll resort, as usual, to ad hominem."

False.

False.

You're confused: I never said or implied it was the other way around. You're just saying that the people who control the money, control the government; I didn't contradict that, I am just saying that the President and Congress control the Fed, which controls the money.

Monarchists can be either left or right. While Arker is correct about the aristocrats being on the right, so too were many merchants, just like today: those that wanted the government to be the servants of capitalists and grant favors or be generally activist were on the left, while those that wanted a more laissez-faire model were on the right. And yes, they were all opposed to centralized monarchical power. But that said, a monarchist could be in favor of more or less activism in the government, more or less power to the people, and so on.

To put it more briefly: the form of government is largely, though not wholly, distinct from its political leanings.

False.

Nonsense. The movement, begun over 100 years ago, was heavily rooted in a Marxist understanding of the economy and labor. Wilson certainly held those views. Despite your protestations, this continues today. Obama believes -- or claims he does -- in the fundamental conflict between labor and owners, that owners primary gain wealth through exploitation of labor, and that government has all authority and responsibility to regulate owners in any way they see fit, without regard to morality or liberty.

You're a bit confused. First, they didn't leave the Democratic-Republican Party, which had ended 30 years before the Republican Party began. Mostly, they left the Whig Party, but many of them were Democrats or came from other third parties.

But yes, the one unifying position they shared was opposition to slavery.

The words and deeds of the founders of the party, including their first platform in 1856, which was dominated by anti-slavery language.

I'm not familiar with this new meaning of "partially" that you are applying here. The Fed was created by an Act of Congress, signed into law by the aforementioned Woodrow Wilson. Period.

So according to you, there aren't many laws on the books governing the behavior of the Fed. OK. I don't know why you are expressing such an obviously false position, but OK.

Unless the President demands them to. In fact, all executive authority belongs to the President. Therefore, all the power the Fed has, belongs to the President. That's what the Constitution very clearly says.

Nonsense. The original point was that "un-elected knobs" are granted the power. The criticism of that point was that the Fed is outside government. I pointed out that this is false, and further, that government could step in if it wanted to, because it is under the authority of the President and Congress, regardless of what anyone wants to pretend. All you are saying is that they are not usually overruled by the President, which isn't arguing against any point being made.

Further, no less than JFK himself wrote an executive order asserting control over the Fed, and the assertion isn't controversial: he literally did have power over the Fed. (I do not hold to any Fed involvement in any conspiracies to kill JFK; I agree with those that claim the executive order ultimately enhanced the power over the Fed, but it did so through asserting that the Fed is under the authority of the President.)

Please stop lying. In fact, the amount of regulation significantly increased during the Bush years, including financial regulation.

On the contrary, the federal government was explicitly saying what the financial institutions should do, and the increased regulation contributed to moral hazard, which was the real cause of the collapse. There was nothing inherently wrong with what most of these financial institutions did, other than the dishonesty: the problem was that people trusted that the investments were sound because they thought that if government allowed it, it must be sound. Government created the problem.

It seems to me that you answered the question.

But spiritual growth involves embracing and extending societal confusion. It isn't efficient, but it's worthwhile.

False.

Nope. The premise of the union itself is production of life. The premise of the social institutions around marriage, including the laws and customs, is largely about property. But that comes after.

Nonsense. Religion was an inherent part of the marriage unions and customs long before the church became the state.

False. The Amish should feel perfectly free to not recognize gay marriages, for example.

False. I ought to refute arguments, not baseless assertions.

Yes, you're doing it again. You're providing baseless assertion, and you're lying.

Yawn. Provide an argument. Provide something to refute. Say what it is about Burke's writings that differ from modern conservatives, or is similar to modern liberals. Go ahead. Quote from Burke talking about basing society on property and commerce, and show how it is more akin to liberals than conservatives. If you want me to provide a shred of refutation, then make an argument.

But that's just not in you, is it?

Yes, he did. As do I.

Someone who prefers a monarchy. Shouldn't you know that?

False. (ProTip: if you're going to lie, you should make your lie plausible.)

Sex is defined by chromosomes. Gender is defined by a combination of nature and nurture. What does it mean to be the best male or female you can be, without looking to society?

True, but freedom says they should be allowed to be married if they wish (whether or not government recognizes that, or any other marriages, is a separate question).

"Classic liberalism" is, by today's standards, conservatism.

No. He is talking about how the progressivism movement began, which have little to do with "opportunity" and are mostly about fairly extreme socialism.

Again, that was the explicit point of the beginning of the movement: to end slavery.

False. It is. All claims that it isn't are pure fiction. It was created by the government, it is regulated by the government, it's within the Executive Branch, its leadership is appointed by the President, and so on.

You mean other than the massive regulation over it by the federal government. And whether the federal government exercises control over the Fed, is irrespective of whether it is a part of the federal government ... which it is.

Unless the federal government wants them to do something else, in which case it has all power to step in and mandate it.

Thanks for proving the point: the federal government was deeply involved in all of those decisions you're referring to.

Most of those who have studied advanced math have heard of the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle, but not every single one of them understand it

Putting the same Heisenberg's Unvertainty Principle to the "average Joe on the street" and you would most probably get a blank stare

This has nothing to do with elitism, this is about reality

Most people simply do not have the mental capacity to comprehend the meaning of 1 + 1 = 2, and if you do not believe me, go ask the people around you, why 1 + 1 = 2, and not 1 + 1 = 3 ?