Historic High for WAGE earners

[LuvRPgrl]

Right... everyone has the same opportunities? .

OF course not, but everyone does have THE OPPORTUNITY to succeed.

And it isn't only the have-nots who are concerned about the widening gap between rich and poor. A lot of haves understand what happens to society when there's no middle class. Democracy only exists where there's a vital middle class..

Really? Your proof?

There's also a little something called empathy and understanding... a knowledge that no everyone can "make it"..

Govt is there to provide OPPORTUNITIES, not create success for people. Lincoln grew up in a log cabin, enuff said.

Our economy is a service economy. And even those jobs have been shipped overseas with impunity..

Again you are talking out your ass. You should go down the miles and miles and miles of blocks of small business industries that MANUFACTURE stuff. Not to mention that we actually have a NET GAIN of jobs by outsourcing, not a NET LOSS. In other words, we have more people in the US working on jobs that have been oursourced here, than we have jobs outsourced overseas. You really should check facts and statistics before running off at the mouth.

No one supports a family properly on a Wal-Mart salary..

You are right, wal mart salaries are usually for people who are creating supplemental income to a family, and are not the main bread winner. And if you are on a wal mart salary only, dont start a family

Now let's hear about how stupid they are if they can't get beyond Wal-Mart when all the mom and pop businesses closed when Wal-Mart came to town.

Not all of them closed. And I suppose you want the govt to come in and tell wal mart they cant have a store here, or there. Hell, lets close them down so all those people will lose their jobs (most are 2nd job incomes creating "spending money" for the families anyways, like retirees, college students, etc. etc), and so the shoppers will have to go somewhere else and pay higher prices.

For you guys its all about control, and you hide behind a veneer of "unfiarness" and lie to the masses through your liberal driven media outlets with scare tactics and lies.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

um, because wealth and opportunity are finite and trickle down economies work about as well at creating wealth as someone pissing on your head?.

No it isnt. Wealth quits when people quit producing.

I'm pretty sure that it's not true that every middle to lower class citizen is a crack junky on welfare blowing disposable income on cable tv and smokes. .

Which really belongs in the "drugs and booze" threads.

Sorry, most of us just don't have the same types of opportunity that donald trump jr benefits from. .

Ahhh, so for you, JUST HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY ISNT ENOUGH, you want EQUAL OPPORTUNITY..sounds like COMMUNISM to me. Guess what buddy, they tried that in the 70's, it failed miserably. Go try reading some history about it. You know, Stalin, Pol Pot, those nice guys who murdered, errr, ran their people into poverty. Is that what you really want?

Reducing the value of labor with outsourcing and mexicans won't make that any less true.

You really should do some research on outsourcing. I know you guys love those little bumper sticker slogans, but we actually have a net gain of jobs due to outsourcing. Also, we outsource lower paying jobs and insource higher paying jobs.

 

[ReillyT]

OF course not, but everyone does have THE OPPORTUNITY to succeed.

Well, that is a fine piece of bullshit. I have the opportunity to become a millionaire by the end of the week... if I win the lottery, but my odds are pretty fucking long.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Um... I know that. I'm the daughter of a self-made type. However, he became a self-made type in a different era. In his day, he was the first Jew in management at a particular corporate entity. He ended up going back to college at 30. Now, he couldn't get a job in a mail room or driving a truck without the college education BEFOREHAND.

On the other hand, my dad had three brothers and none of them were ever going to be as successful, not because they were lazy, but because they didn't have the same chutzpah my dad had and has and weren't able to create opportunity the way he did. But my dad is/was unique. They are the norm. So expecting the vast majority of people to act outside the norm isn't reasonable.

And even given that, opportunity doesn't exist the same way now that it did then.

There are more self made millionaires, percentage wise and b y sheer numbers, today in the US than anywhere EVER.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Me? Nothing but a lack of imagination and desire.

The kids that I used to teach from the public schools of Oakland?

Broken homes, violent neighborhoods, some of the worst school districts in the United States, poverty so extreme that some must leave high school to work to support their families (let's not even talk about paying for college), undocumented status (no fault of their own), homelessness, etc.

For most of those kids, being "rich" was something they imagined, but the obstacles were pretty high for even achieving a modest and stable level of income.

And yet its the Republicans that want to offer free choice to those kids/families. And those families want it, but the Dems oppose it. WHY? Because the Dems are more beholden to the larger power and money that the School Teacher Unions have.

The obstacles you point out have nothing to do with what the parents are doing, the parents have every opportunity to go out and earn. What happens to you when you are a kid can slow you down, but wont stop you from achieiving what you want.

You want to know how I know? I came for a dirt poor family, mother deserted by her husband, then she drank herself to death by the time I was 13. I lived in the jungles of the inner city of Long Beach, where my four brothers and I had to stick together everywhere we went or get our asses kicked by blacks. This was in the 60's during the race riots, I went on to get involved in drugs and drinking, both my brothers wound up in prison, lifers, or homeless in between their prison stints. There they are today. BUT I MADE A CHOICE TO CHANGE MY LIFE. The single biggest thing I did was to change MY VALUES. I decided I was no longer a victim. I quit stealing. I quit drinking. I decided a family was more important than a party. I decided having a wife was more important than getting laid with variety of chicks.
I started returning change when the person accidentally gave me back too much, or if they undercharged me for what I was paying for.
Guess what??????? Things started turning around for me, I was able to save some money, get things going, better financial opportunities opened (and I truly believe that because when you are out in the community and people are associating with you, they can tell what "kind" of person you are). Opportunities that werent offered me before, suddenly were popping up all over the place. Now, I am selling a home and taking the profit and heading south,. because of MY CHANGE IN ATTITUDE AND VALUES, my financial situation turned around 100%.

My brothers, NO. They remained the same. Now all they do is contact me for handouts, tell me what a victim they still are and that I WAS JUST "LUCKY"

I know, I LIVED IT.

The difference between those who grow up in good enviorments and those who grow up in crappy ones, is , the ones who grow up in crappy enviorments have to start their opportunities later in life. Once you become an adult you have to put the past behind you, and make your own choices and quit being a victim. You and only YOU are responsable once you become an adult.

I had a poor child hood because of my "parents'
I was having a poor adulthood because of me.
I changed, my life changed.

Not eveyone has the SAME OPPORTUNITIES, but in the US, EVERYONE has the chance IF THEY REALLY WANT IT.

 

[jillian]

There are more self made millionaires, percentage wise and b y sheer numbers, today in the US than anywhere EVER.

Which has what to do with shrinking middle class and the growing divide between rich and poor?

 

[Bern80]

Well, that is a fine piece of bullshit. I have the opportunity to become a millionaire by the end of the week... if I win the lottery, but my odds are pretty fucking long.

Emphasis on the wrong word smart guy. I wouldn't exactley call winning the lottery 'succeeding'. Interesting analogy though in that it shows how easy you think success should be

 

[Shogun]

You are STILL not listening. Identifying those that got rich from inheritence is not difficult. I am saying that Bush is one of those exceptions. You can lump him in with the Hilton and Trumps. I don't care. The point is, those that came into money that way are teh exception, not the rule.

according too... what.. ONE book? Like, say, A People's History of the United States?


come on. Give me some evidence beyond some goofy book whose core premise is as astounding as it is predictable. I'm just not interested in the wishful rhetoric. If you are going to drop stats on us then support your post.

 

[Shogun]

No it isnt. Wealth quits when people quit producing.

ANd people can't produce when your heroes send jobs to india where clean drinking water and stocked toilet paper amounts to a worthwhile living standard, eh? Not that your silly little strawman has anything to do with the facade of trickle down economic policies anyway.



Which really belongs in the "drugs and booze" threads.

Like your mom?

No, my observation speaks to the generalize notion that poor people deserve their place based on their own poor choices. Maybe if you were quicker in the brain than you are in the bedroom...



Ahhh, so for you, JUST HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY ISNT ENOUGH, you want EQUAL OPPORTUNITY..sounds like COMMUNISM to me. Guess what buddy, they tried that in the 70's, it failed miserably. Go try reading some history about it. You know, Stalin, Pol Pot, those nice guys who murdered, errr, ran their people into poverty. Is that what you really want?


Im sure anything this side of depression era vagrants sounds like communism to you. SHOCKER. Indeed, the greatest example of poverty in American history was caused by, say it with me, capitalist dickheads with more concern on their wallet than in their nation. Wanna remind me how the SOCIALISTIC programs of a particular president pulled the US out of that decade of rank poverty? I guess that's not as much fun as assuming socialism breeds a stalin while ignoring your buddy hitler's appriciation for capitalism.



You really should do some research on outsourcing. I know you guys love those little bumper sticker slogans, but we actually have a net gain of jobs due to outsourcing. Also, we outsource lower paying jobs and insource higher paying jobs.


Why don't you take this chance to show this evil liberal up and PROVE it. INSOURCE! HAHAHAHA!


You, sir, are either too stupid to be serious or too retarded to know what the hell you are talking about. INSOURCE! please, post some evidence, buddy! Take your dick skinning hands out of your pants and post a source. I'm DYING to see your evidence that MORE jobs are created in the US due to outsourcing. Holy fucking krikey, dude. It takes a great nation like the US to let even it's mouth breathing, Neanderthal capitolist junkies vote.

 

[Bern80]

according too... what.. ONE book? Like, say, A People's History of the United States?


come on. Give me some evidence beyond some goofy book whose core premise is as astounding as it is predictable. I'm just not interested in the wishful rhetoric. If you are going to drop stats on us then support your post.

Ah, so you've read it? And of course deduced that they pulled their stats out of thin air? Or we going to get into another Shogun approved sources only debate? The book isn't even politcal in nature. Make sure you at least know the material your bashing before you start to look really stupid.

 

[Shogun]

Ah, so you've read it? And of course deduced that they pulled their stats out of thin air? Or we going to get into another Shogun approved sources only debate?

Well, that depends. Are you ready to accept Howard Zinn's book as the standard by which our national history is taught to kids?

if not, then why don't you express your concern while I nod my head as you prove my point about your goofy one book source.


Like I said, the Fair Tax book doesn't imply that it is either Fair OR a better idea just because some dude writes a book. Which, i'm positive you'll say too about zinn's book.

Don't cry on my shoulder if you have failed to post evidence while slinging stats like bullets flying at the OK Choral. I'd expect you to maintain the same standard the next time Eots wants to tell us about the latest book from David Icke.

If you can provide a better source then go for it. If not, well, you are not the first person to read a book and insist upon it's validity. Nor, too, would you be the first to be as wrong as the author.



ps. neg repping me is about as lame as thinking a single source proves your point. I'm sure tagging me with a little more red will make your position TRUE!

 

[Bern80]

Well, that depends. Are you ready to accept Howard Zinn's book as the standard by which our national history is taught to kids?

if not, then why don't you express your concern while I nod my head as you prove my point about your goofy one book source


Like I said, the Fair Tax book doesn't imply that it is either Fair OR a better idea just because some dude writes a book. Which, i'm positive you'll say too about zinn's book.

Don't cry on my shoulder if you have failed to post evidence while slinging stats like bullets flying at the OK Choral. I'd expect you to maintain the same standard the next time Eots wants to tell us about the latest book from David Icke.

If you can provide a better source then go for it. If not, well, you are not the first person to read a book and insist upon it's validity. Nor, too, would you be the first to be as wrong as the author.

Are you sure Larkinn didn't hi-jack your acocunt? You sound just like him. You haven't read it. You don't kow what sources they used, but you do know it's crap.

Very intelligent. Again I'm not gonna waste my time comeing up with Shogun approved sources. mainly cause your approval doesn't mean shit to me.

I haven't failed to provide evidence. I told you where you can find it. You failed to look at it.

 

[Shogun]

Are you sure Larkinn didn't hi-jack your acocunt? You sound just like him. You haven't read it. You don't kow what sources they used, but you do know it's crap.

Very intelligent. Again I'm not gonna waste my time comeing up with Shogun approved sources. mainly cause your approval doesn't mean shit to me.

I haven't failed to provide evidence. I told you where you can find it. You failed to look at it.

and Howard Zinn can say the same thing to you when you read his book on the people's history of the US..

What? You have no interest in reading his book because the premise of his OPINION are bullshit, you say?


gosh, chief. I bet neg repping me again will make your single source book impervious to this same standard of evidence.


Hell, even hitler wrote a book, stud. You think his offering has many valid points in its pages? I mean, it's a book you know. He probably doesn't even care if you put the premise of his book through the same standard im putting your source through while he is burning in hell.

 

[Bern80]

and Howard Zinn can say the same thing to you when you read his book on the people's history of the US..

What? You have no interest in reading his book because the premise of his OPINION are bullshit, you say?


gosh, chief. I bet neg repping me again will make your single source book impervious to this same standard of evidence.


Hell, even hitler wrote a book, stud. You think his offering has many valid points in its pages? I mean, it's a book you know. He probably doesn't even care if you put the premise of his book through the same standard im putting your source through while he is burning in hell.

If you choose to remain ignorant I can't help you. I don't get into the spoon feeding evidence to goldilocks till it's just right game that a lot of you like to play. You know what the source is and where to find it. Judge for yourself. To top it off you accuse me of doing the same thing you're doing. You want to push off the same ignorance you possess on to me with no evidence that it is the case.

As to Howard Zinn, I have no idea why you keep bring him up. I have no idea who is, what his premise was or what book he wrote. So you can drop that dumb argument. However, since I'm not like you, if you tell me what he wrote I'll read it and decide for myself whether it's crap or not.

You are quickly approaching typicl liberal operating procedure, which is to essentially exhaust all excuses to avoid being exposed to actual evidence.

 

[Shogun]

If you choose to remain ignorant I can't help you. I don't get into the spoon feeding evidence to goldilocks till it's just right game that a lot of you like to play. You know what the source is and where to find it. Judge for yourself. To top it off you accuse me of doing the same thing you're doing. You want to push off the same ignorance you possess on to me with no evidence that it is the case.

As to Howard Zinn, I have no idea why your bring him up. I have no idea who is, what is premise was or what book he wrote. So you can drop that dumb argument. However, since I'm not like you, if you tell me what he wrote I'll read it and decide for myself whether it's crap or not.

You are quickly approaching typicl liberal operating procedure, which is to essentially exhaust all excuses to avoid being exposed to actual evidence.

I'm bringing up howard zinn because, chances are, you would not accept the premise of his book any more than are people taking YOUR word regarding the validity of your only source. Please, give me another lesson on remaining ignorant while letting my comments swoop over your head like a fucking pterodactyl. Maybe when you figure out who he is and what he wrote you will come to understand why I keep bringing him up while you insist on using one lame assed book as proof. Like I said, even hitler wrote a book. Care to use it as a source for defending domestic policy?


I'm judging already and the verdict is that your little tantrum won't impress upon me the validity of a single book source any more than stomping your foot. If you want to assert stats like you have then, sorry for holding you to a standard of evidence, but you are going to have to do better than quote a single book that no one cares to read while refusing to even TRY and support your opinion otherwise. Clearly, your conviction extends to the point of convenience rather than proving your opinion.

Howard Zinn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

knock yourself out. I bet saying you'll read it is a whole lot easier than actually doing so. But, if the stars and planets are in alignment and you DO get it down, make sure you tell me how it is a valid source for the premise of his historic perspective and that it should be taught to the public on par with your best-case scenario consideration of your single source here.


Like I've been saying. If you have actual evidence then skin that bad puppy out and lets see it. Otherwise, it doesn't take expertise to write book just like it doesn't take critical thought to BELIEVE a book. so, continue on with the tantrum, dude. Stomping your foot one more time and calling me a liberal will probably be as convincing as another neg rep.



Maybe you can even help LuvRPgirl out with proving his comment about how outsourcing CREATES more jobs for the US!

 

[Bern80]

I'm bringing up howard zinn because, chances are, you would not accept the premise of his book any more than are people taking YOUR word regarding the validity of your only source. Please, give me another lesson on remaining ignorant while letting my comments swoop over your head like a fucking pterodactyl. Maybe when you figure out who he is and what he wrote you will come to understand why I keep bringing him up while you insist on using one lame assed book as proof. Like I said, even hitler wrote a book. Care to use it as a source for defending domestic policy?


I'm judging already and the verdict is that your little tantrum won't impress upon me the validity of a single book source any more than stomping your foot. If you want to assert stats like you have then, sorry for holding you to a standard of evidence, but you are going to have to do better than quote a single book that no one cares to read while refusing to even TRY and support your opinion otherwise. Clearly, your conviction extends to the point of convenience rather than proving your opinion.

Howard Zinn
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Zinn

knock yourself out. I bet saying you'll read it is a whole lot easier than actually doing so. But, if the stars and planets are in alignment and you DO get it down, make sure you tell me how it is a valid source for the premise of his historic perspective and that it should be taught to the public on par with your best-case scenario consideration of your single source here.


Like I've been saying. If you have actual evidence then skin that bad puppy out and lets see it. Otherwise, it doesn't take expertise to write book just like it doesn't take critical thought to BELIEVE a book. so, continue on with the tantrum, dude. Stomping your foot one more time and calling me a liberal will probably be as convincing as another neg rep.



Maybe you can even help LuvRPgirl out with proving his comment about how outsourcing CREATES more jobs for the US!

It isn't a tantrum Shogun, it is pointing out the endless excuses some will make to avoid debating actual evidence.

For example I have read the book, therefore I know what sources they used to attain their stats. You don't know that because you haven't read it. Therefore you don't have the ability to say with single shred of credibility that it is crap. I understand exactley the point you are trying to make about single sources. it's the same one Larkinn made. i agree with it. At the same time I have no reason to beleive their information is invalid. See the things with a lot of books is the people writing them often do what we call research. that take information from other sources.

Seeing as how your exposure to that particular piece literature is non-existant you have absolutely no credibility when you say it must be crap because you've never read it. You don't what sources were used. How they used them or in what manner they were presented. yet you already know it must be crap.

You have wasted a whole page now comeing up with excuses. Why is this so difficult? Surely, you can see how stupid it is to maintain the position that a piece of material is bullshit as far as information is concerned when you know next to nothing about that piece of information. Unless I'm mistaken, you know the book's title, that's it and the evidence that I cited from that 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires. Yet you are so positive that the evidence it contains is bogus again when you don't even know where it came from.

I'm not even listing the book as proof. You asked a simple question. Where did I come up with that figure. I told you where and based on absolutely nothing you decided it must be incorrect.

Are you afraid if you do actually read it you'll be brainwashed or something?

 

[Shogun]

It isn't a tantrum Shogun, it is pointing out the endless excuses some will make to avoid debating actual evidence.

indeed, so why don't you post a valid source and we can start debating that actual evidence.


For example I have read the book, therefore I know what sources they used to attain their stats. You don't know that because you haven't read it. Therefore you don't have the ability to say with single shred of credibility that it is crap. I understand exactley the point you are trying to make about single sources. it's the same one Larkinn made. i agree with it. At the same time I have no reason to beleive their information is invalid. See the things with a lot of books is the people writing them often do what we call research. that take information from other sources.

And, often enough, that research and premise of a book fall WAAAAY short of valid conclusions. do you want to trade titles of books that have, in fact, been proven to be a giant pile of biased shit? Do you think that someone who WANTS to believe in the premise of such a book will be MORE or LESS objective when taking it as evidence? Moreso, are you going to suggest that your author wrote a book based on the results of RESEARCH or based on his OPINION? Hell, if the premise of the book is so fucking solid then why don't you have multiple sources claiming the same thing? Wouldn't it have been easier to douse my standard of evidence 5 posts ago with supporting EVIDENCE rather than insist that everyone take YOUR WORD about the validity of a single book? Do you think this weakens or strengthens your position when coupled with liberal hating shit talking?

Seeing as how your exposure to that particular piece literature is non-existant you have absolutely no credibility when you say it must be crap because you've never read it. You don't what sources were used. How they used them or in what manner they were presented. yet you already know it must be crap.

NO, i've said no such think about that source being crap. Quote me. What i've said is that it is hardly a reliable source and using a single book as some beacon of truth is a fucking joke. Again, quote me suggesting otherwise. In fact, by pointing out Zinn I am showing you how using a single source is laughably pathetic since people who argue THAT source as "valid reaserch that proves blah blah blah" rather than giving any value judgement on the book itself. Maybe if you had taken a minute to provide concuring evidence rather than insist that a single book is the key to understanding the world. Hell, again, it doesn't take truth to write a book nor critical thought to believe it.

You have wasted a whole page now comeing up with excuses. Why is this so difficult? Surely, you can see how stupid it is to maintain the position that a piece of material is bullshit as far as information is concerned when you know next to nothing about that piece of information. Unless I'm mistaken, you know the book's title, that's it and the evidence that I cited from that 80% of millionaires are first generation millionaires. Yet you are so positive that the evidence it contains is bogus again when you don't even know where it came from.

Not at all. I'm positive that you refuse to support your assertion with more than a complete joke of a single source. Hey, David Icke does research too! I am challenging you to meet a minimal standard in evidence and flounderinig around like a fish gasping for breath instead of going for the throat and POSTING said evidence does more to tarnish your position than a single book does proving it.

How many examples of books gone awry do you want, dude? Why don't you skip the streaking tears and show me whats up by dropping valid evidence like four Aces since you seem so convinced. Again, if your book is so correct you shouldnt have a hard time finding support for it.

I'm not even listing the book as proof. You asked a simple question. Where did I come up with that figure. I told you where and based on absolutely nothing you decided it must be incorrect.

So, you are admitting that the book isn't proof... but refuse to find evidence that proves 80%. Nice. So, did you want to provide evidence or not? I can throw numbers out too, see? 78% of all men are left handed. 3% of women have a penis. See how fun this is? 43% of humans speak backwards fluently. Hey, I've read a book that says so!


Are you afraid if you do actually read it you'll be brainwashed or something?

it's more of a matter of wasting my time. You see, I have a reading list that is already 5 books deep and I just don't care to read Ann Coulter just because you are convinced of her "research". Pretty please, with sugar and welfare checks on the top, provide evidence that suggests your point beyond a single source.

or don't.


again, calling me names and neg repping me probably makes your point stick better than evidence ever could.

 

[Bern80]

And, often enough, that research and premise of a book fall WAAAAY short of valid conclusions. do you want to trade titles of books that have, in fact, been proven to be a giant pile of biased shit? Do you think that someone who WANTS to believe in the premise of such a book will be MORE or LESS objective when taking it as evidence? Moreso, are you going to suggest that your author wrote a book based on the results of RESEARCH or based on his OPINION? Hell, if the premise of the book is so fucking solid then why don't you have multiple sources claiming the same thing? Wouldn't it have been easier to douse my standard of evidence 5 posts ago with supporting EVIDENCE rather than insist that everyone take YOUR WORD about the validity of a single book? Do you think this weakens or strengthens your position when coupled with liberal hating shit talking?

What is the premise of the book "The Millionaire Next Door"?

I understand completely everything you are saying. Many works have been shown to be complete pieces of crap factually. My point as far as where we are in the conversation and your non-existant exposure to the source I provided, you have no legitimate basis for disregarding out right as you have. Further if you want to prove yourself right in the assertion that the book is crap, just go read it. Not hard.

NO, i've said no such think about that source being crap. Quote me. What i've said is that it is hardly a reliable source and using a single book as some beacon of truth is a fucking joke. Again, quote me suggesting otherwise. In fact, by pointing out Zinn I am showing you how using a single source is laughably pathetic since people who argue THAT source as "valid reaserch that proves blah blah blah" rather than giving any value judgement on the book itself. Maybe if you had taken a minute to provide concuring evidence rather than insist that a single book is the key to understanding the world. Hell, again, it doesn't take truth to write a book nor critical thought to believe it.

"....complete joke of a single source." and comparing it to Ann Coulter.

Now you quote me where I said my source is infallible, or anything that says otherwise is wrong, or where I claimed it was 'the key to understanding the world'

Not at all. I'm positive that you refuse to support your assertion with more than a complete joke of a single source. Hey, David Icke does research too! I am challenging you to meet a minimal standard in evidence and flounderinig around like a fish gasping for breath instead of going for the throat and POSTING said evidence does more to tarnish your position than a single book does proving it.

And I'm challenging you to actually examine a source before passing judgement on it.

So, you are admitting that the book isn't proof... but refuse to find evidence that proves 80%. Nice. So, did you want to provide evidence or not? I can throw numbers out too, see? 78% of all men are left handed. 3% of women have a penis. See how fun this is? 43% of humans speak backwards fluently. Hey, I've read a book that says so!

Sure I'll admit that. I just haven't seen anything that refutes it.

it's more of a matter of wasting my time. You see, I have a reading list that is already 5 books deep and I just don't care to read Ann Coulter just because you are convinced of her "research". Pretty please, with sugar and welfare checks on the top, provide evidence that suggests your point beyond a single source.

again, calling me names and neg repping me probably makes your point stick better than evidence ever could.

Are you sure Larkinn isn't typing for you? that was his lame ass excuse almost verbatim.

 

[Shogun]

oh hey, the larkin line again. I guess tossing that out wasn't as tough as quoting me actually suggesting that your book, instead of using a single source, falls short of valid evidence.


Hey, you can always neg rep me again if this is the kind of shit you think proves your point.


and let me know when you get done reading Zinn's book on US History. I won't hold my breath waiting for your synopsis.

 

[Bern80]

oh hey, the larkin line again. I guess tossing that out wasn't as tough as quoting me actually suggesting that your book, instead of using a single source, falls short of valid evidence.


Hey, you can always neg rep me again if this is the kind of shit you think proves your point.


and let me know when you get done reading Zinn's book on US History. I won't hold my breath waiting for your synopsis.

You don't read very well. I fully admitted my source doesn't constitute actual proof. Seeing as how you have refused to respond to anything I said I figure your maybe finally running out of excuses.

As to reading the book. Sounds interesting enough. I'll maybe pick it up tonight. You still have a few excuses left in your bag to not pick up what I suggested?

I asked you to tell me what the premise because you seem to know. You didn't answer, surprise, surprise.

Unless you want to get into a semantic debate I pointed out where essentially said the source was crap then asked you to quote me on what you claimed I said. You didn't (because you couldn't). Again, big surprise