Prove it (or at least provide some evidence)!

LOL, advantage to stupid.

No, no its advantage daveman, but I understand with the stupid and all why you'd think it was you.

Thanks for sharing. On point, my reasoning was to simply state facts. That you're so biased you can't see that is truly sad.

No your posts aren't based on facts. You set up a strawman argument from the very start. Insisting that certain believes are held by a large enough group of people to warrant a major political discussion over. You asked a bunch of questions asking why a bunch of things are true that you that you clearly believe are not. First, whomever is debating would have to agree that the group you are accussing of of having said beliefs actually has them or at least enough to warrant labeling the whole group and two they have to come up with an answer. Since you clearly believe none of things are true, the chances of anyone coming up with anything you would accept no matter how logical, reasoned, and factual it may be, are basically zero.
 
Last edited:
No, no its advantage daveman, but I understand with the stupid and all why you'd think it was you.

Thanks for sharing. On point, my reasoning was to simply state facts. That you're so biased you can't see that is truly sad.
Leftist "facts" are an interesting concept.

Once again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

See my signature line, I want all the money - bribes - from all sources identified and limited. Stating I want unions to have an advantage is another of your lies.

The only reason you need to lie is obvious, you're not smart enough to make a substantive argument to defend the emotionally based ideology you hold.
 
Thanks for sharing. On point, my reasoning was to simply state facts. That you're so biased you can't see that is truly sad.
Leftist "facts" are an interesting concept.

Once again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

See my signature line, I want all the money - bribes - from all sources identified and limited. Stating I want unions to have an advantage is another of your lies.

The only reason you need to lie is obvious, you're not smart enough to make a substantive argument to defend the emotionally based ideology you hold.

The goals are exactly the same. Why do you stress the funding source so much? Oh, so you can claim it represents the will of the union members who have no vote in where or how the money is spent, I see.

I think it is wrong to let either donate to campaigns. The Supreme Court has a differing opinon.
 
Thanks for sharing. On point, my reasoning was to simply state facts. That you're so biased you can't see that is truly sad.
Leftist "facts" are an interesting concept.

Once again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

See my signature line, I want all the money - bribes - from all sources identified and limited. Stating I want unions to have an advantage is another of your lies.

The only reason you need to lie is obvious, you're not smart enough to make a substantive argument to defend the emotionally based ideology you hold.
Right. Unions are different. Somehow. They just are.

Mostly, they're different because they donate primarily to Democrats.
 
Leftist "facts" are an interesting concept.

Once again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

See my signature line, I want all the money - bribes - from all sources identified and limited. Stating I want unions to have an advantage is another of your lies.

The only reason you need to lie is obvious, you're not smart enough to make a substantive argument to defend the emotionally based ideology you hold.

The goals are exactly the same. Why do you stress the funding source so much? Oh, so you can claim it represents the will of the union members who have no vote in where or how the money is spent, I see.

I think it is wrong to let either donate to campaigns. The Supreme Court has a differing opinon.

Do you support Hugo Chavez putting Millions of Dollars into a Super PAC and running TV and Radio ads to influence American voters? Under CU v. FEC Chavez can do so anonymously; you will never know who funds the Super PAC's or how much money was spent.
 
Millionaires and Billionaires create jobs (name them and describe the jobs)
Anybody know of a brokedick who owns a Gulfstream?

Nope?...Didn't think so.

Well, the owner of that aircraft (the hated rich guy) needs pilots, A&P mechanics, line personnel, hangar and FBO staff, and more, to keep that aircraft operating.

Happy now?...No?...Didn't think so...You liberoidal nincompoops are never happy.
 
Once again I'm forced not to ignore your obvious ignorance and respond. Unions are not Super PACs, the money used by unions in making donations is money paid by union members. The source is known, as is the amount.

CU v. FEC allows an unlimited amount of money to influence our elections and allows for the complete anonymity of where the money originated.

See my signature line, I want all the money - bribes - from all sources identified and limited. Stating I want unions to have an advantage is another of your lies.

The only reason you need to lie is obvious, you're not smart enough to make a substantive argument to defend the emotionally based ideology you hold.

The goals are exactly the same. Why do you stress the funding source so much? Oh, so you can claim it represents the will of the union members who have no vote in where or how the money is spent, I see.

I think it is wrong to let either donate to campaigns. The Supreme Court has a differing opinon.

Do you support Hugo Chavez putting Millions of Dollars into a Super PAC and running TV and Radio ads to influence American voters? Under CU v. FEC Chavez can do so anonymously; you will never know who funds the Super PAC's or how much money was spent.

Hugo or the unions, same difference. I notice making the ads truthful and accurate is not at issue here. It is nothing more than a funding source difference to me like I said before.
 
The goals are exactly the same. Why do you stress the funding source so much? Oh, so you can claim it represents the will of the union members who have no vote in where or how the money is spent, I see.

I think it is wrong to let either donate to campaigns. The Supreme Court has a differing opinon.

Do you support Hugo Chavez putting Millions of Dollars into a Super PAC and running TV and Radio ads to influence American voters? Under CU v. FEC Chavez can do so anonymously; you will never know who funds the Super PAC's or how much money was spent.

Hugo or the unions, same difference. I notice making the ads truthful and accurate is not at issue here. It is nothing more than a funding source difference to me like I said before.

"Hugo or the unions, same difference"? Wow.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top