Weather Underground Magazine (1975)

[CaféAuLait]

It doesn't make anyone look "bad" you ignorant fool.

What you are assuming is EVERY conservative gives more then EVERY Liberal?

Does your precious poll include volunteer work?

I don't donate to charity but I do volunteer.

That is just one example of a flaw in your precious poll you cling to.

Take the blinders off, go hit the books and come back in about two or four years.

Name calling wow,

I guess you did not take the time to read my posts and the polls did you? IF YOU DID you would see the polls included volunteering and giving blood. Wow reading is fundamental.

 

[CaféAuLait]

LOL I just noticed that I even bolded those facts in post number 36 of this thread:

Conservatives also donate more time and give more blood.


Scroll up.

 

[Modbert]

Name calling wow,

I guess you did not take the time to read my posts and the polls did you? IF YOU DID you would see the polls included volunteering and giving blood. Wow reading is fundamental.

If the term fits, then fool for you fits.

"Conservatives give more time" is based off of what? People polling?

Once again, hasn't life taught you that most polls are bullshit? People LIE.

Example: Polls have Obama up by 13%, he most likely win by 2-5%.

And I'm talking about the amount of Liberals compared to Conservatives DOING Volunteer Work, not "giving more time".

But again, the poll would be inaccurate anyway.

But cling to your polls like paperboy, reality is a tough brick which you don't want to be hit with. Stop seeing the world as so black and white.

 

[CaféAuLait]

If the term fits, then fool for you fits.

"Conservatives give more time" is based off of what? People polling?

Once again, hasn't life taught you that most polls are bullshit? People LIE.

Example: Polls have Obama up by 13%, he most likely win by 2-5%.

And I'm talking about the amount of Liberals compared to Conservatives DOING Volunteer Work, not "giving more time".

But again, the poll would be inaccurate anyway.

But cling to your polls like paperboy, reality is a tough brick which you don't want to be hit with. Stop seeing the world as so black and white.

LOL parsing words are we now, Giving time is volunteering. Not only did I link to two different polls I also linked to a book which recounts the same.

Run along and find the truth and stop with the name calling it does not help your case at all-- it only establishes that you are losing a debate.

Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive;

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

 

[Modbert]

LOL parsing words are we now, Giving time is volunteering. Not only did I link to two different polls I also linked to a book which recounts the same.

Run along and find the truth and stop with the name calling it does not help your case at all-- it only establishes that you are losing a debate.

Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive;

Intellectually honest and intellectually dishonest debate tactics

Really? Trying "debate" tactics with me? If this were a debate, you as Government would be unable to even use the links you are using due to specific knowledge. If you want to try a debate with me, you'll lose.

Arthur C. Brooks is currently a Republican.

You also forget that giving to churches is included in giving to charity. Erase that and what happens? He also happened to cut out alot of qualifying information from the book.

It's not called name-calling, honestly trying to throw mud at my character is a petty tactic. You continue to hide behind not only biased but wrong sources.

You are so highly biased to one party it is sickening in some ways. As I stated before, some Liberals give more then some Conservatives. Simple concept which you REFUSE to believe.

Funny thing about your link:

You're committing #4, #5, #7. Especially since you cannot proof every conservative gives more to charity then every Liberal and that every Conservative makes less then every Liberal.

Oh and your committing #14. Perhaps #18 and your committing #22.

You are refusing to acknowledge the facts in exchange for trying to make your side look better. Which is pathetic.

A little less partsian hackery from you would be nice.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Really? Trying "debate" tactics with me? If this were a debate, you as Government would be unable to even use the links you are using due to specific knowledge. If you want to try a debate with me, you'll lose.

Arthur C. Brooks is currently a Republican.

You also forget that giving to churches is included in giving to charity. Erase that and what happens? He also happened to cut out alot of qualifying information from the book.

It's not called name-calling, honestly trying to throw mud at my character is a petty tactic. You continue to hide behind not only biased but wrong sources.

You are so highly biased to one party it is sickening in some ways. As I stated before, some Liberals give more then some Conservatives. Simple concept which you REFUSE to believe.

Funny thing about your link:

You're committing #4, #5, #7. Especially since you cannot proof every conservative gives more to charity then every Liberal and that every Conservative makes less then every Liberal.

Oh and your committing #14. Perhaps #18 and your committing #22.

You are refusing to acknowledge the facts in exchange for trying to make your side look better. Which is pathetic.

A little less partsian hackery from you would be nice.

Look, Robert, you lost this debate several posts ago when you “forgot’ to read what I had written and started to call names. Now that you have lost you try and belittle every source I gave--- you can’t site one source for your claim but because one of mine are conservative this negates all? Nope those are not the rules of debate, no matter how hard you try to make it such. The forum you are a member of Debate . com outline exactly where you have gone wrong.

For the last time I am not a conservative. Assumptions in debate-- another debate Faux pas. Shall I continue? No, I'm done with the petty childness of your posts this evening.

 

[Modbert]

Look, Robert, you lost this debate several posts ago when you “forgot’ to read what I had written and started to call names. Now that you have lost you try and belittle every source I gave--- you can’t site one source for your claim but because one of mine are conservative this negates all? Nope those are not the rules of debate, no matter how hard you try to make it such. The forum you are a member of Debate . com outline exactly where you have gone wrong.

For the last time I am not a conservative. Assumptions in debate-- another debate Faux pas. Shall I continue? No, I'm done with the petty childness of your posts this evening.

Assumption based off evidence given in the debate. You have shown nothing but bias for Liberals.

Plus, your first post on this board alone set the tone of the type of party your rooting for in this election.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/introduce-yourself/62687-not-aol-but-a-court-tv-reject-here.html

You seemed to have forgotten a thing called common sense.

You continue to say every single conservative gives more then every single Liberal. And you say that single conversative gives more blood, volunteers more then every single Liberal. That was the basis of my argument of where YOU went wrong because of partisan hackery.

This is by far not even a formalized debate. Because once again, if you were the Gov't team in a formal real life debate, you would be unable to use specific knowledge and your whole entire "evidence" goes out the window.

I never said they were such rules of the debate. However, you are ignoring common sense, facts, and continue partsian hackery.

And what are you talking about debate.com, care to expand upon that statement since your not making much sense?

"Done with your petty childness posts for this evening"

The only one who has shown how petty they are this evening is yourself through keeping the blinders on.

I have easily admitted that plenty of Conservatives give more then plenty of Liberals. However, the opposite can hold true.

Trying to sling mud at my character is a cheap tactic by the way. It won't work when you can't take the blinders off.

Also if my posts were so "petty and childness" then you would of never had responded in the first place. You just wanted to seem to get in the last word to try and make yourself look better. You contradict yourself in your last post by saying I'm not worth your time yet you continue to respond.

 

[CaféAuLait]

Angel Heart here is a picture of the cover of that new book written by Ayers and Dhorn;

Did you note the center of thecover and the article you linked to?

 

[Gunny]

Two posts are not hijacking.

Just informing.

Purposefully posting off-topic is hijacking. Spare us the innocent act. You know EXACTLY what you're trying to do. That's just the dishonest type of person you are.

You were asked nicely by a mod to stop. Now I'm TELLING you ... you can stop, or you will be stopped. End of story.