Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
JFK would not ever make it through the primaries of today's far left regime.
Really?
Based on what political position?
JFK would not ever make it through the primaries of today's far left regime.
Really?
Based on what political position?
Cutting taxes..
Warmongering..
Supporting the right of churches to participate in giving donations to political candidates.
He was against abortion..
He ramped the troops in Vietnam from 6000 to 18000.
Those are just a few, but JFK was the black sheep of his family. The Kennedy's were very far to the left and his Dad often admired Hitler and Stalin..
"My policies"?
I believe the subject of the thread title is "Democrats".
Anyway perhaps illiteracy prevails but my question was, and remains unaddressed, how the poster (or anyone) knows that some political party, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty". As opposed to both party wanting that. And I use the singular intentionally.
It bespeaks a fundamental naïveté about the political system, if not outright partisan wankitudinous hackery.
Since the distinction between Democrat and Liberal apparently sails over your head, you might wanna reconsider tossing the term "stupid" about. Just sayin'.
1. THe Republicans gain no advantage from keeping anyone poor. The poor are least likely to vote for them, as opposed to the party of every greater handouts.
2. I have no problem with the distinction between Democrat and Liberal. You seem to have a problem accepting that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.
3. And regardless, my point stands. She is judging you libs/dems by the fruits of your labors.
4. If you are rejecting her and my assumption(s) that you are a lib and a dem, then come out and clearly state it instead of beating around the bush.
1 - is not an answer at all. It's your own analysis of what somebody else is thinking, carrying its own strawman ("handouts").
2 - apparently you do, since you morphed the former (a political party, by definition mutable) into the latter (an abstract philosophy, by definition fixed). And I doubt you can articulate it.
3- is not an answer at all, and that's the only thing that "stands". The question was, 'what's the source'. Your rambling tangent is tacit admission that none exists.
4 - I didn't bring up my own perspective at all --- YOU did.
1. Yes, an answer. NOt a strawman, merely my viewpoint. DO you deny the dems are the party more for social spending than the GOP? You refusal to admit it is answer is just a sophist dodge.
2. Bull. You are quibbling over semantics.
3. SUre it is. WHy do you not want to stand by the dem/lib policies of the last 60 years? Aren't your proud of what your fellow travelers have produced?
4. THat was painfully obvious by my reference to our assumption(s) about you, ie that you are a lib and a dem. Do you deny that you are a liberal and a democrat?
1 - as a general rule, no I would not. But again that has nothing to do with the question. As doesn't the rest of your post.
2 - no, I'm pointing out a conflation on your part that tells me you don't know the difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat".
3 - again, cacophonous bullshit.
4 - I am a Liberal; I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a "joiner". If that's the only way you can get through life, with some organization telling you what to do, then you deserve my pity. And you have it.
1. Nonsense. You suggested that NOT just the Dems are purposefully keeping people poor. Why would the GOP purposefully keep people poor when poor people want "social spending" and thus vote for dems? COmpletely on topic. Stop playing stupid games.
2. Bullshit. Sophist games to dodge and obfuscate.
3. Bullshit. Judging dems/libs by the results of their policies is completely reasonable. I understand why you are resistant to the idea, what with the long record of failure.
4. oooooooh, you are soooo cooool and such a rebel. I had no idea. Yep. YOu're a lib as we assume, and I bet that when the chips are down, you vote dem, despite what your voting card might say.
1. THe Republicans gain no advantage from keeping anyone poor. The poor are least likely to vote for them, as opposed to the party of every greater handouts.
2. I have no problem with the distinction between Democrat and Liberal. You seem to have a problem accepting that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.
3. And regardless, my point stands. She is judging you libs/dems by the fruits of your labors.
4. If you are rejecting her and my assumption(s) that you are a lib and a dem, then come out and clearly state it instead of beating around the bush.
1 - is not an answer at all. It's your own analysis of what somebody else is thinking, carrying its own strawman ("handouts").
2 - apparently you do, since you morphed the former (a political party, by definition mutable) into the latter (an abstract philosophy, by definition fixed). And I doubt you can articulate it.
3- is not an answer at all, and that's the only thing that "stands". The question was, 'what's the source'. Your rambling tangent is tacit admission that none exists.
4 - I didn't bring up my own perspective at all --- YOU did.
1. Yes, an answer. NOt a strawman, merely my viewpoint. DO you deny the dems are the party more for social spending than the GOP? You refusal to admit it is answer is just a sophist dodge.
2. Bull. You are quibbling over semantics.
3. SUre it is. WHy do you not want to stand by the dem/lib policies of the last 60 years? Aren't your proud of what your fellow travelers have produced?
4. THat was painfully obvious by my reference to our assumption(s) about you, ie that you are a lib and a dem. Do you deny that you are a liberal and a democrat?
1 - as a general rule, no I would not. But again that has nothing to do with the question. As doesn't the rest of your post.
2 - no, I'm pointing out a conflation on your part that tells me you don't know the difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat".
3 - again, cacophonous bullshit.
4 - I am a Liberal; I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a "joiner". If that's the only way you can get through life, with some organization telling you what to do, then you deserve my pity. And you have it.
1. Nonsense. You suggested that NOT just the Dems are purposefully keeping people poor. Why would the GOP purposefully keep people poor when poor people want "social spending" and thus vote for dems? COmpletely on topic. Stop playing stupid games.
2. Bullshit. Sophist games to dodge and obfuscate.
3. Bullshit. Judging dems/libs by the results of their policies is completely reasonable. I understand why you are resistant to the idea, what with the long record of failure.
4. oooooooh, you are soooo cooool and such a rebel. I had no idea. Yep. YOu're a lib as we assume, and I bet that when the chips are down, you vote dem, despite what your voting card might say.
1- I suggested nothing, except that by asking the question I suggested that the claim was in fact the strawman it is. As your inability to provide a basis (the poster I asked didn't even attempt it) supports.
2 - hey, if you dont like it do your homework and find out what your own terms mean. Not my problem.
3 - again, it's not an answer, it never was an answer, and only digs you deeper in your own bullshit.
4 - QED #3.
Again what's on my voter reg card isn't the topic, despite your desperate attempts to shift it that way. Nothing in the topic is about me.
5 - DUH.
1 - is not an answer at all. It's your own analysis of what somebody else is thinking, carrying its own strawman ("handouts").
2 - apparently you do, since you morphed the former (a political party, by definition mutable) into the latter (an abstract philosophy, by definition fixed). And I doubt you can articulate it.
3- is not an answer at all, and that's the only thing that "stands". The question was, 'what's the source'. Your rambling tangent is tacit admission that none exists.
4 - I didn't bring up my own perspective at all --- YOU did.
1. Yes, an answer. NOt a strawman, merely my viewpoint. DO you deny the dems are the party more for social spending than the GOP? You refusal to admit it is answer is just a sophist dodge.
2. Bull. You are quibbling over semantics.
3. SUre it is. WHy do you not want to stand by the dem/lib policies of the last 60 years? Aren't your proud of what your fellow travelers have produced?
4. THat was painfully obvious by my reference to our assumption(s) about you, ie that you are a lib and a dem. Do you deny that you are a liberal and a democrat?
1 - as a general rule, no I would not. But again that has nothing to do with the question. As doesn't the rest of your post.
2 - no, I'm pointing out a conflation on your part that tells me you don't know the difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat".
3 - again, cacophonous bullshit.
4 - I am a Liberal; I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a "joiner". If that's the only way you can get through life, with some organization telling you what to do, then you deserve my pity. And you have it.
1. Nonsense. You suggested that NOT just the Dems are purposefully keeping people poor. Why would the GOP purposefully keep people poor when poor people want "social spending" and thus vote for dems? COmpletely on topic. Stop playing stupid games.
2. Bullshit. Sophist games to dodge and obfuscate.
3. Bullshit. Judging dems/libs by the results of their policies is completely reasonable. I understand why you are resistant to the idea, what with the long record of failure.
4. oooooooh, you are soooo cooool and such a rebel. I had no idea. Yep. YOu're a lib as we assume, and I bet that when the chips are down, you vote dem, despite what your voting card might say.
1- I suggested nothing, except that by asking the question I suggested that the claim was in fact the strawman it is. As your inability to provide a basis (the poster I asked didn't even attempt it) supports.
2 - hey, if you dont like it do your homework and find out what your own terms mean. Not my problem.
3 - again, it's not an answer, it never was an answer, and only digs you deeper in your own bullshit.
4 - QED #3.
Again what's on my voter reg card isn't the topic, despite your desperate attempts to shift it that way. Nothing in the topic is about me.
5 - DUH.
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
1. Yes, an answer. NOt a strawman, merely my viewpoint. DO you deny the dems are the party more for social spending than the GOP? You refusal to admit it is answer is just a sophist dodge.
2. Bull. You are quibbling over semantics.
3. SUre it is. WHy do you not want to stand by the dem/lib policies of the last 60 years? Aren't your proud of what your fellow travelers have produced?
4. THat was painfully obvious by my reference to our assumption(s) about you, ie that you are a lib and a dem. Do you deny that you are a liberal and a democrat?
1 - as a general rule, no I would not. But again that has nothing to do with the question. As doesn't the rest of your post.
2 - no, I'm pointing out a conflation on your part that tells me you don't know the difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat".
3 - again, cacophonous bullshit.
4 - I am a Liberal; I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a "joiner". If that's the only way you can get through life, with some organization telling you what to do, then you deserve my pity. And you have it.
1. Nonsense. You suggested that NOT just the Dems are purposefully keeping people poor. Why would the GOP purposefully keep people poor when poor people want "social spending" and thus vote for dems? COmpletely on topic. Stop playing stupid games.
2. Bullshit. Sophist games to dodge and obfuscate.
3. Bullshit. Judging dems/libs by the results of their policies is completely reasonable. I understand why you are resistant to the idea, what with the long record of failure.
4. oooooooh, you are soooo cooool and such a rebel. I had no idea. Yep. YOu're a lib as we assume, and I bet that when the chips are down, you vote dem, despite what your voting card might say.
1- I suggested nothing, except that by asking the question I suggested that the claim was in fact the strawman it is. As your inability to provide a basis (the poster I asked didn't even attempt it) supports.
2 - hey, if you dont like it do your homework and find out what your own terms mean. Not my problem.
3 - again, it's not an answer, it never was an answer, and only digs you deeper in your own bullshit.
4 - QED #3.
Again what's on my voter reg card isn't the topic, despite your desperate attempts to shift it that way. Nothing in the topic is about me.
5 - DUH.
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit
Great speech by a great liberal
If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.
Of course he would
Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't
If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit
Great speech by a great liberal
If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.
Of course he would
Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't
If he believed in God Given RIGHTS, he would not be a liberal by today's standards.
Moderns libs look to the All Powerful State as the source of our Rights.
Liberals support your rights regardless of where they may have come from
Yes we have to rely on the state to exercise our rights......praying does not seem to have much impact
1 - as a general rule, no I would not. But again that has nothing to do with the question. As doesn't the rest of your post.
2 - no, I'm pointing out a conflation on your part that tells me you don't know the difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat".
3 - again, cacophonous bullshit.
4 - I am a Liberal; I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a "joiner". If that's the only way you can get through life, with some organization telling you what to do, then you deserve my pity. And you have it.
1. Nonsense. You suggested that NOT just the Dems are purposefully keeping people poor. Why would the GOP purposefully keep people poor when poor people want "social spending" and thus vote for dems? COmpletely on topic. Stop playing stupid games.
2. Bullshit. Sophist games to dodge and obfuscate.
3. Bullshit. Judging dems/libs by the results of their policies is completely reasonable. I understand why you are resistant to the idea, what with the long record of failure.
4. oooooooh, you are soooo cooool and such a rebel. I had no idea. Yep. YOu're a lib as we assume, and I bet that when the chips are down, you vote dem, despite what your voting card might say.
1- I suggested nothing, except that by asking the question I suggested that the claim was in fact the strawman it is. As your inability to provide a basis (the poster I asked didn't even attempt it) supports.
2 - hey, if you dont like it do your homework and find out what your own terms mean. Not my problem.
3 - again, it's not an answer, it never was an answer, and only digs you deeper in your own bullshit.
4 - QED #3.
Again what's on my voter reg card isn't the topic, despite your desperate attempts to shift it that way. Nothing in the topic is about me.
5 - DUH.
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
1. Nonsense. You suggested that NOT just the Dems are purposefully keeping people poor. Why would the GOP purposefully keep people poor when poor people want "social spending" and thus vote for dems? COmpletely on topic. Stop playing stupid games.
2. Bullshit. Sophist games to dodge and obfuscate.
3. Bullshit. Judging dems/libs by the results of their policies is completely reasonable. I understand why you are resistant to the idea, what with the long record of failure.
4. oooooooh, you are soooo cooool and such a rebel. I had no idea. Yep. YOu're a lib as we assume, and I bet that when the chips are down, you vote dem, despite what your voting card might say.
1- I suggested nothing, except that by asking the question I suggested that the claim was in fact the strawman it is. As your inability to provide a basis (the poster I asked didn't even attempt it) supports.
2 - hey, if you dont like it do your homework and find out what your own terms mean. Not my problem.
3 - again, it's not an answer, it never was an answer, and only digs you deeper in your own bullshit.
4 - QED #3.
Again what's on my voter reg card isn't the topic, despite your desperate attempts to shift it that way. Nothing in the topic is about me.
5 - DUH.
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
1- I suggested nothing, except that by asking the question I suggested that the claim was in fact the strawman it is. As your inability to provide a basis (the poster I asked didn't even attempt it) supports.
2 - hey, if you dont like it do your homework and find out what your own terms mean. Not my problem.
3 - again, it's not an answer, it never was an answer, and only digs you deeper in your own bullshit.
4 - QED #3.
Again what's on my voter reg card isn't the topic, despite your desperate attempts to shift it that way. Nothing in the topic is about me.
5 - DUH.
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
1- I suggested nothing, except that by asking the question I suggested that the claim was in fact the strawman it is. As your inability to provide a basis (the poster I asked didn't even attempt it) supports.
2 - hey, if you dont like it do your homework and find out what your own terms mean. Not my problem.
3 - again, it's not an answer, it never was an answer, and only digs you deeper in your own bullshit.
4 - QED #3.
Again what's on my voter reg card isn't the topic, despite your desperate attempts to shift it that way. Nothing in the topic is about me.
5 - DUH.
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
DOOD. Get a GRIP. "Refusal to address it"?? I'm the one who brought it up!
Oh the density...
Bottom line, the Democrat party since if far closer to Jo
Strawman?
There is no reason to assume that CLementine was being disingenuous.
She is trying, as many do, to make sense of the dems/libs policies and intentions by looking at their actions and their results.
All your sophism aside, her point stands.
Their polices do not serve the best interests of their constituents and yet they stand by them.
Why is that?
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
You are wasting your time with Pogo, just move on...
When winning is more important than an honest exchange, it never works out.Bottom line, the Democrat party since if far closer to Jo
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
You are wasting your time with Pogo, just move on...
Yes. I am seeing that.
I didn't say she was "disingenuous", although she may be. I asked for the source of her claim that one particular political party "wants to keep the poor in poverty" -- the key word being "wants".
All your desperate deflection aside, that question STILL stands untouched.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
DOOD. Get a GRIP. "Refusal to address it"?? I'm the one who brought it up!
Oh the density...
YOu asked where she got the idea that dems want to keep people poor in order to ensure votes.
I answered.
All you have done since is complain that your standard of evidence was not met.
In no way have you addressed her claim or the reasoning I presented.
BUll. All your deflections aside, I have explained her reasoning as I have seen it.
It is an valid opinion that does indeed explain lib/dem behavior far better than their stated reasons.
For you to refuse to address it, is just you dodging the issue.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
DOOD. Get a GRIP. "Refusal to address it"?? I'm the one who brought it up!
Oh the density...
YOu asked where she got the idea that dems want to keep people poor in order to ensure votes.
I answered.
All you have done since is complain that your standard of evidence was not met.
In no way have you addressed her claim or the reasoning I presented.
What in the blue fuck do you think my original question was doing??
You won't answer that either. Nor was it even put to you in the first place. Troll.
So again -- for the fifth time --- you have no source. It's just made up.
Which makes it a strawman.
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
DOOD. Get a GRIP. "Refusal to address it"?? I'm the one who brought it up!
Oh the density...
YOu asked where she got the idea that dems want to keep people poor in order to ensure votes.
I answered.
All you have done since is complain that your standard of evidence was not met.
In no way have you addressed her claim or the reasoning I presented.
What in the blue fuck do you think my original question was doing??
You won't answer that either. Nor was it even put to you in the first place. Troll.
It was a no brainer. I felt comfortable taking that answer.
Your original question?
MMmm, well, considering that conservatives have been saying this for decades it is not credible that you have not heard this meme before.
So, by demanding a quote from some lib who admitted that they were supporting policies that had failed over and over before, because they actually WANT the failure you were probably trying to avoid discussing any actual failed polices and their results.
Probably because you were aware that this would easily make Clemetines case.
This looks sort of like the Moving the Goalposts logical fallacy, though I suspect there might be a specific version when you START the your challenge with an unreasonable demand.
That is what your original question was doing.
If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit
Great speech by a great liberal
If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.
Of course he would
Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't
Yea really you libs Wouldn't vote for a democrat who also said this...JFK would not ever make it through the primaries of today's far left regime.
Really?
Based on what political position?
Nope. It's an opinion. I explained her reasoning. And I threw in a few other possible explanations I have heard over the years.
YOur refusal to address it, in nothing but a dodge.
No matter how much sophist bullshit you try to hide it with.
DOOD. Get a GRIP. "Refusal to address it"?? I'm the one who brought it up!
Oh the density...
YOu asked where she got the idea that dems want to keep people poor in order to ensure votes.
I answered.
All you have done since is complain that your standard of evidence was not met.
In no way have you addressed her claim or the reasoning I presented.
What in the blue fuck do you think my original question was doing??
You won't answer that either. Nor was it even put to you in the first place. Troll.
It was a no brainer. I felt comfortable taking that answer.
Your original question?
MMmm, well, considering that conservatives have been saying this for decades it is not credible that you have not heard this meme before.
"Whether I've heard it before" is not the question.
"Whether I've heard it before" has never been the question.
Nothing in the question has anything to do with me at all. I mean I'm flattered that you're obsessed and I'll be happy to have my fan club send an 8 by 10 glossy but it ain't about me. The question is, in simple terms, "what's your source? Or are you pulling it out of your ass?"
Ain't rocket surgery.
So, by demanding a quote from some lib who admitted that they were supporting policies that had failed over and over before, because they actually WANT the failure you were probably trying to avoid discussing any actual failed polices and their results.
Probably because you were aware that this would easily make Clemetines case.
I didn't even consider the content. This is about process. Which is what most of my posting here is about.
As already noted this is over your head.
This looks sort of like the Moving the Goalposts logical fallacy, though I suspect there might be a specific version when you START the your challenge with an unreasonable demand.
That is what your original question was doing.
Ain't nothing 'unreasonable' about requesting a source. I ask questions that I already know can't be answered. And I do that just to watch the limbo dance you're doing right now. What is it, ten posts by now all designed to push a question away that wasn't even put to you in the first place?
