hey smart guy--read the other post
I'll say it again:
1. he was not referring to the KKK--but the Unite the RIght--that makes you wrong right there
Wuz he now.
Prove it.
Don't you mean that you will prove your "premise"?
Nope -- again it's not my premise is it.
This klown would have us believe that a vague "both sides" somehow means one very specific group and simultaneously omits every other group. That's his job to make that walk.
You challenged him to prove something. By your definitions, that makes it your "premise".
So, prove it. Or admit that your previous position was utter bullshit.
This is over your head? Really, THIS?
Once AGAIN --- he claims Rump was referring to "UTR". THAT <<< is his premise.
Therefore HE has the burden of proof for HIS premise. Which is ALWAYS the way it works.
Not rocket surgery.
I know that.
You've demonstrated though that you consider a challenge to be on the challenger to prove.
IN your words, it is your "premise".
Or do you just play word games to justify utter bullshit, as it suits you?