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.
Here's the exchange that you are trying to sidestep lonestar:
Quote: Originally Posted by nodoginnafight
"Traditionally Republicans are more homogenous than Democrats because Democrats in general are a much more diverse group of people. "
Is THIS the statement you are asking for documentation to support?
if so:
Democrats Gain Edge in Party Identification - Pew Research Center for the People & the Press
http://www.nd.edu/~cwolbrec/PartyID.pdf
(Page 64 of 66) - Multiculturalism and American Party Politics authored by Bass, Shana.
Republican Base Heavily White, Conservative, Religious
Lonestar: This from the first link you offered.
Quote:
In historical terms, the Democratic Party held a sizable lead over the Republicans in party identification.
Lonestar: This quote contradicts your claim that republicans have traditionally been more homogeneous than democrats.
I personally have a problem taking someone who lacks the intellectual means to master the sites quote system, seriously.
Again we find that this member's opinion rests PURELY upon the opinion of another leftist.
What American could give a red rats ass WHAT ANY LEFTIST feels about ANYTHING? They're idiots.
That's different than what you said before.
No it is not... Your inability to recognize opinion is faulty...
Oh I see, your position is that there is no difference between saying, "He committed no crime" and in saying "In my opinion he committed no crime"
Then why did you try to distinguish between MY saying, "He committed a crime" rather than saying "in my opinion he committed a crime"?
You clearly believe that the former is a definitive assertion... and the other is qualified; confined to the scope of knowlegde intrisic to the speaker.
I personally have a problem taking someone who lacks the intellectual means to master the sites quote system, seriously.
Again we find that this member's opinion rests PURELY upon the opinion of another leftist.
What American could give a red rats ass WHAT ANY LEFTIST feels about ANYTHING? They're idiots.
Yup, been here a whole week and haven't figured out how to pull the entire quotes from one thread to another. Sorry...
hmmmm. how can an inability be faulty? it means not able to begin with.That's different than what you said before.
No it is not... Your inability to recognize opinion is faulty...
No it is not... Your inability to recognize opinion is faulty...
Oh I see, your position is that there is no difference between saying, "He committed no crime" and in saying "In my opinion he committed no crime"
Then why did you try to distinguish between MY saying, "He committed a crime" rather than saying "in my opinion he committed a crime"?
What would the distinction be counselor?
You clearly believe that the former is a definitive assertion... and the other is qualified; confined to the scope of knowlegde intrisic to the speaker.
Yes
Great! Now we're getting somewhere... You're being too smart by half; which is nearly always the case where one is found dancing on the head of a semantic pin...
You see friend, the speaker is always advancing their opinion except where they state a fact... with a fact being 'a substantiated truth;' such truths are however rare indeed and never more so than in matters of jurisprudence... as indicated by the TITLE... prudent jurist...
A Jurist doesn't require prudence in matters of FACT. As such is only required where DOUBT exists regarding the FACTS.
Thus where the issue is judicial, assertions are a function of OPINION... Now where the OPINION is in line with the known FACTS... such is either intellectually sound and logically valid or it is NOT. But that such is an OPINION is as irrelevant as it is an obvious CERTAINTY.
Then why did you try to distinguish between MY saying, "He committed a crime" rather than saying "in my opinion he committed a crime"?
hmmmm. how can an inability be faulty? it means not able to begin with.That's different than what you said before.
No it is not... Your inability to recognize opinion is faulty...
good point - I misspoke...
In my defense, I wanted to get to lunch...
good point - I misspoke...
In my defense, I wanted to get to lunch...
lol I was just joshin. I'm bored as a motherfucker hoping to leave this desk soon. Got any literature on ghosts or aliens or time travel that would keep me busy for 2 hours?
Hmmmm but you failed to treat MY post as clearly stating my opinion ......Becaues you seem to be too fucking stupid to recognize that the majority of posts made on message boards are opinion...
That doesn't apply here, its exactly what it looks like, a fishing expedition. Bush would have to testify about what they said and wanted and he never will.
What are you saying - that perjury doesn't apply here? Why not? He made false statements under oath and that has been confirmed by his own emails.
What has Bush got to do with it?
Don't you believe in enforcing the law? Or do you only believe in enforcing the law when one of your political opponents is at fault?
The bolded part, IMHO, presumes guilt... You are jumping to conclusions on what you preceive to be facts, not actual facts...
What are you saying - that perjury doesn't apply here? Why not? He made false statements under oath and that has been confirmed by his own emails.
What has Bush got to do with it?
Don't you believe in enforcing the law? Or do you only believe in enforcing the law when one of your political opponents is at fault?
The bolded part, IMHO, presumes guilt... You are jumping to conclusions on what you preceive to be facts, not actual facts...
Hmmm ... but YOUR jumping to conclusions is perfectly aceptable.
You admitted you did it and apologized for doing it, asshat...
Later, lightweight...
Do you not read? I told you that you weren't worth the effort... Do you need further clarification?Hmmmm but you failed to treat MY post as clearly stating my opinion ......
Find a mirror while you're at it...Mr. Pot my I introduce you to Mr. Kettle
Aparently I was right about chalking you up as another looney leftist hell bent on sticking it to Karl Rove...Apparently my intial reaction to you (hypocrit) was right on target - I guess I wasted my time giving you more benefit of the doubt than you deserve.
I'm not worried about what some leftist believes is a damaged reputation... Spicy conversation is rampant here... If you don't put on thicker skin I imagine you won't last long here...btw - when you have to resort to vulgarities - it does NOTHING to repair your damaged reputation.
You have yet to prove yourself a worthy oponent... So far I'm not impressed with many aspects of your style... Neither are some other posters here in this thread alone...But I will welcome your absence - your not really not enough of a challenge in a debate - and I'm not a big fan of hypocrisy OR vulgarities.
You admitted you did it and apologized for doing it, asshat...
Later, lightweight...
Yes, apparently only ONE OF US was man enough to apologize for expressing opinion as fact while the other sniveling punk tried to hide behind an assumption of opinion that he was unwilling to offer to others.
You're exposed - hypocrite
Got one that I'm reading now, House. Time Travel Possibilities
