Democrats Have No Intention Fixing Problems... Instead Tell Lies About Republicans In Order To Win

[mudwhistle]

I read it.

I see no 'lies'.

Please tell me what you are mistaking as lies so I can explain to you what you're not understanding.

I understand.

The problem is you still buy this tactic. After they keep getting caught lying.. you're still buying it.

You're brainwashed....

It's simple...point out where the lies are and post corresponding evidence that are lies.

Did it long ago in this thread.

Sorry you missed it.

Nope...you just said "read the link" but there was no corresponding evidence to prove what was said was a lie.

What ARE the "lies"? Can you list two?

No he cant, please stop asking the OP to back up or explain anything. Thats not what he does

STFU!!!!

 

[mudwhistle]

The democratic party has done things to fix problems and make changes, I can't say the same for the republican party. Name one thing they have done or tried to do since the starting at reagan.

I asked you first....

Woman's suffrage, the new deal, the civil rights act, the ACA, energy plans, taxation on the capitalist pigs...

Thanks for the Bullshit response comrade.....

 

[Marxist]

The democratic party has done things to fix problems and make changes, I can't say the same for the republican party. Name one thing they have done or tried to do since the starting at reagan.

I asked you first....

Woman's suffrage, the new deal, the civil rights act, the ACA, energy plans, taxation on the capitalist pigs...

Thanks for the Bullshit response comrade.....

You continue failing to provide one thing.

 

[mudwhistle]

The democratic party has done things to fix problems and make changes, I can't say the same for the republican party. Name one thing they have done or tried to do since the starting at reagan.

I asked you first....

Woman's suffrage, the new deal, the civil rights act, the ACA, energy plans, taxation on the capitalist pigs...

Thanks for the Bullshit response comrade.....

You continue failing to provide one thing.

You continue to spout communist propaganda.

 

[Marxist]

The democratic party has done things to fix problems and make changes, I can't say the same for the republican party. Name one thing they have done or tried to do since the starting at reagan.

I asked you first....

Woman's suffrage, the new deal, the civil rights act, the ACA, energy plans, taxation on the capitalist pigs...

Thanks for the Bullshit response comrade.....

You continue failing to provide one thing.

You continue to spout communist propaganda.

Where in this thread did I do that?

 

[-S-]

As most of that came off as more of a rant than a list 'lies', I'll focus on this:

"Because they own the media...or at least 95% of it....they can say anything and expect it to be believed."

Should be alright, because it seemed to be the closest thing to a thesis statement in there. Now then:

Hillary Clinton enjoyed full time coverage on just about EVERY news channel for almost two weeks over her email situation.

Now, if the left had full control of 95% of the media, you would think that the front runner leftist in the coming presidential election could have just asked them to talk about something else.
As that did not happen, I think we can state pretty confidently that the thesis was incorrect



As I thought, you just misunderstood.

The email scandal was caused by a Valerie Jarrett leak.

You see....Obama and the Hildibeast hate each other's guts. Obama knew about it.....leaked some of her emails to the press...So Hillary came in and kissed his feet....and now the MSM doesn't bother covering the missing emails anymore. It will go the way of Benghazi.

That's definitely an interesting take on the situation. Is there any sort of evidence for it happening that way though, or is this just speculation?

As most of that came off as more of a rant than a list 'lies', I'll focus on this:

"Because they own the media...or at least 95% of it....they can say anything and expect it to be believed."

Should be alright, because it seemed to be the closest thing to a thesis statement in there. Now then:

Hillary Clinton enjoyed full time coverage on just about EVERY news channel for almost two weeks over her email situation.

Now, if the left had full control of 95% of the media, you would think that the front runner leftist in the coming presidential election could have just asked them to talk about something else.
As that did not happen, I think we can state pretty confidently that the thesis was incorrect



As I thought, you just misunderstood.

Imagine any Republican with such a scandal.

How long would they remain a viable candidate?

Scandals work differently for Democrats than Republicans simply because of their control of the media.

Not necessarily.


There was the whole 'Weapons of mass destruction' Iraq thing that somehow didn't affect Bush's reelection.

We had only been in Iraq since 2003.

Everyone felt they would eventually be found...not to mention the fact that Lurch was a really shitty candidate anyway.

And I wasn't speculating.......I can read.

First two lines are excuses to try to brush away a point I made. The point still stands.

Now, the third:
I know you can read, and if I made you feel I thought you were illiterate, my apologies.
But, can you quote any reliable sources on that claim?

Did it already......here's the link again.....

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton s email scandal New York Post

Just read the article^ (thanks for posting it), and did some research on the subject.

No offense, but this is more of a conspiracy theory than a factual, proven event.

1.) Unnamed sources. There's a definite chance that somebody telling that kind of info would NOT want their name out there, but that still hurts the logical legitimacy. Without a real person, and proof that they were even in the position to obtain the information, there's no way to know for sure.

2.) Every known person tied to it in any way denies it, so there is nobody to vouch for the legitimacy of it.

3.) Looking at it from a hypothetical point of view, I see no reason why Obama would want to hurt Hillary's White House aspirations, regardless of his personal feelings for her. She's the front runner in his party with a HUGE amount of name recognition. She had unstoppable polling numbers before the leak. She was in a great position, and a Democratic win is one of the only ways for Obama to ensure that the ACA lasts longer than he does. If he cares about his legacy through the ACA and/or anybody that is being helped by it's implementation, he logically would want to make sure a Democrat wins, whether it's Hillary or not.
Thus, I don't even see a logical motive for the leak.

Try to look at it from a purely apolitical perspective and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

 

[mudwhistle]

The email scandal was caused by a Valerie Jarrett leak.

You see....Obama and the Hildibeast hate each other's guts. Obama knew about it.....leaked some of her emails to the press...So Hillary came in and kissed his feet....and now the MSM doesn't bother covering the missing emails anymore. It will go the way of Benghazi.

That's definitely an interesting take on the situation. Is there any sort of evidence for it happening that way though, or is this just speculation?

Imagine any Republican with such a scandal.

How long would they remain a viable candidate?

Scandals work differently for Democrats than Republicans simply because of their control of the media.

Not necessarily.


There was the whole 'Weapons of mass destruction' Iraq thing that somehow didn't affect Bush's reelection.

We had only been in Iraq since 2003.

Everyone felt they would eventually be found...not to mention the fact that Lurch was a really shitty candidate anyway.

And I wasn't speculating.......I can read.

First two lines are excuses to try to brush away a point I made. The point still stands.

Now, the third:
I know you can read, and if I made you feel I thought you were illiterate, my apologies.
But, can you quote any reliable sources on that claim?

Did it already......here's the link again.....

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton s email scandal New York Post

Just read the article^ (thanks for posting it), and did some research on the subject.

No offense, but this is more of a conspiracy theory than a factual, proven event.

1.) Unnamed sources. There's a definite chance that somebody telling that kind of info would NOT want their name out there, but that still hurts the logical legitimacy. Without a real person, and proof that they were even in the position to obtain the information, there's no way to know for sure.

2.) Every known person tied to it in any way denies it, so there is nobody to vouch for the legitimacy of it.

3.) Looking at it from a hypothetical point of view, I see no reason why Obama would want to hurt Hillary's White House aspirations, regardless of his personal feelings for her. She's the front runner in his party with a HUGE amount of name recognition. She had unstoppable polling numbers before the leak. She was in a great position, and a Democratic win is one of the only ways for Obama to ensure that the ACA lasts longer than he does. If he cares about his legacy through the ACA and/or anybody that is being helped by it's implementation, he logically would want to make sure a Democrat wins, whether it's Hillary or not.
Thus, I don't even see a logical motive for the leak.

Try to look at it from a purely apolitical perspective and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

Of course they will deny it.

BTW, a president shouldn't be worried about his stupid legacy......and shouldn't ignore everything else. That's one of the problems of Obama. He is more concerned about his legacy.....how people think of him....than doing his job. This guy is a pure phoney. A packaged empty suit who spends his time imagemaking rather doing the work of the people of this great country......that is when he isn't golfing.

 

[Seawytch]

I read it.

I see no 'lies'.

Please tell me what you are mistaking as lies so I can explain to you what you're not understanding.

I understand.

The problem is you still buy this tactic. After they keep getting caught lying.. you're still buying it.

You're brainwashed....

It's simple...point out where the lies are and post corresponding evidence that are lies.

Did it long ago in this thread.

Sorry you missed it.

Nope...you just said "read the link" but there was no corresponding evidence to prove what was said was a lie.

What ARE the "lies"? Can you list two?

I'm not talking about the link.

Okay.......since when has believing in marriage between a man and a women meant you hate gays and want to take their rights away?

Where was that stated by and by whom? Exact quotes, please.

The Bush tax-cuts didn't just give a cut to the rich.

There's two.

Also.....Mitt Romney paid taxes.....Dingy Harry just made it up.

The primary reason we went into Iraq wasn't to find WMDs.......it was to keep him from doing what Iran is doing today. Building nukes.

Hands Up.....don't shoot turned out to be based totally off of lies.

And so on... . ..

Exact quotes from the linked article please.

 

[mudwhistle]

I understand.

The problem is you still buy this tactic. After they keep getting caught lying.. you're still buying it.

You're brainwashed....

It's simple...point out where the lies are and post corresponding evidence that are lies.

Did it long ago in this thread.

Sorry you missed it.

Nope...you just said "read the link" but there was no corresponding evidence to prove what was said was a lie.

What ARE the "lies"? Can you list two?

I'm not talking about the link.

Okay.......since when has believing in marriage between a man and a women meant you hate gays and want to take their rights away?

Where was that stated by and by whom? Exact quotes, please.

The Bush tax-cuts didn't just give a cut to the rich.

There's two.

Also.....Mitt Romney paid taxes.....Dingy Harry just made it up.

The primary reason we went into Iraq wasn't to find WMDs.......it was to keep him from doing what Iran is doing today. Building nukes.

Hands Up.....don't shoot turned out to be based totally off of lies.

And so on... . ..

Exact quotes from the linked article please.

Try reading it yourself please.
The discussion had wandered a bit I to other areas. Somebody asked for specific lies from the left other than those in the article.

The article pointed out the product of other lies. That when Republicans demand we enforce border security that isn't politically-correct. That we're trying to be less inclusive because of racists in the party.

Total hogwash.

 

[-S-]

That's definitely an interesting take on the situation. Is there any sort of evidence for it happening that way though, or is this just speculation?

Not necessarily.


There was the whole 'Weapons of mass destruction' Iraq thing that somehow didn't affect Bush's reelection.

We had only been in Iraq since 2003.

Everyone felt they would eventually be found...not to mention the fact that Lurch was a really shitty candidate anyway.

And I wasn't speculating.......I can read.

First two lines are excuses to try to brush away a point I made. The point still stands.

Now, the third:
I know you can read, and if I made you feel I thought you were illiterate, my apologies.
But, can you quote any reliable sources on that claim?

Did it already......here's the link again.....

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton s email scandal New York Post

Just read the article^ (thanks for posting it), and did some research on the subject.

No offense, but this is more of a conspiracy theory than a factual, proven event.

1.) Unnamed sources. There's a definite chance that somebody telling that kind of info would NOT want their name out there, but that still hurts the logical legitimacy. Without a real person, and proof that they were even in the position to obtain the information, there's no way to know for sure.

2.) Every known person tied to it in any way denies it, so there is nobody to vouch for the legitimacy of it.

3.) Looking at it from a hypothetical point of view, I see no reason why Obama would want to hurt Hillary's White House aspirations, regardless of his personal feelings for her. She's the front runner in his party with a HUGE amount of name recognition. She had unstoppable polling numbers before the leak. She was in a great position, and a Democratic win is one of the only ways for Obama to ensure that the ACA lasts longer than he does. If he cares about his legacy through the ACA and/or anybody that is being helped by it's implementation, he logically would want to make sure a Democrat wins, whether it's Hillary or not.
Thus, I don't even see a logical motive for the leak.

Try to look at it from a purely apolitical perspective and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

Of course they will deny it.

BTW, a president shouldn't be worried about his stupid legacy......and shouldn't ignore everything else. That's one of the problems of Obama. He is more concerned about his legacy.....how people think of him....than doing his job. This guy is a pure phoney. A packaged empty suit who spends his time imagemaking rather doing the work of the people of this great country......that is when he isn't golfing.

Sure, they'll deny it, but you have to keep in mind he doesn't even have a logical motive.

Yeah, he loves golf, but I have a feeling ALL presidents get concerned about how they'll look in future history books.
He did manage to do a pretty amazing thing. Love it or hate it, the ACA is a landmark bill. People have been trying to change the healthcare system for the better part of a century, and he was the one to get it pushed through.

 

[Seawytch]

It's simple...point out where the lies are and post corresponding evidence that are lies.

Did it long ago in this thread.

Sorry you missed it.

Nope...you just said "read the link" but there was no corresponding evidence to prove what was said was a lie.

What ARE the "lies"? Can you list two?

I'm not talking about the link.

Okay.......since when has believing in marriage between a man and a women meant you hate gays and want to take their rights away?

Where was that stated by and by whom? Exact quotes, please.

The Bush tax-cuts didn't just give a cut to the rich.

There's two.

Also.....Mitt Romney paid taxes.....Dingy Harry just made it up.

The primary reason we went into Iraq wasn't to find WMDs.......it was to keep him from doing what Iran is doing today. Building nukes.

Hands Up.....don't shoot turned out to be based totally off of lies.

And so on... . ..

Exact quotes from the linked article please.

Try reading it yourself please.
The discussion had wandered a bit I to other areas. Somebody asked for specific lies from the left other than those in the article.

The article pointed out the product of other lies. That when Republicans demand we enforce border security that isn't politically-correct.

You posted the article that said there were lies in the discussion. You posted the link, which gave no specifics or countered any lies. You got called on it and have yet to produce a single lie your posted OP claimed.

Pulling random "lies" having nothing to do with the article you posted isn't evidence.

 

[mudwhistle]

We had only been in Iraq since 2003.

Everyone felt they would eventually be found...not to mention the fact that Lurch was a really shitty candidate anyway.

And I wasn't speculating.......I can read.

First two lines are excuses to try to brush away a point I made. The point still stands.

Now, the third:
I know you can read, and if I made you feel I thought you were illiterate, my apologies.
But, can you quote any reliable sources on that claim?

Did it already......here's the link again.....

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton s email scandal New York Post

Just read the article^ (thanks for posting it), and did some research on the subject.

No offense, but this is more of a conspiracy theory than a factual, proven event.

1.) Unnamed sources. There's a definite chance that somebody telling that kind of info would NOT want their name out there, but that still hurts the logical legitimacy. Without a real person, and proof that they were even in the position to obtain the information, there's no way to know for sure.

2.) Every known person tied to it in any way denies it, so there is nobody to vouch for the legitimacy of it.

3.) Looking at it from a hypothetical point of view, I see no reason why Obama would want to hurt Hillary's White House aspirations, regardless of his personal feelings for her. She's the front runner in his party with a HUGE amount of name recognition. She had unstoppable polling numbers before the leak. She was in a great position, and a Democratic win is one of the only ways for Obama to ensure that the ACA lasts longer than he does. If he cares about his legacy through the ACA and/or anybody that is being helped by it's implementation, he logically would want to make sure a Democrat wins, whether it's Hillary or not.
Thus, I don't even see a logical motive for the leak.

Try to look at it from a purely apolitical perspective and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

Of course they will deny it.

BTW, a president shouldn't be worried about his stupid legacy......and shouldn't ignore everything else. That's one of the problems of Obama. He is more concerned about his legacy.....how people think of him....than doing his job. This guy is a pure phoney. A packaged empty suit who spends his time imagemaking rather doing the work of the people of this great country......that is when he isn't golfing.

Sure, they'll deny it, but you have to keep in mind he doesn't even have a logical motive.

Yeah, he loves golf, but I have a feeling ALL presidents get concerned about how they'll look in future history books.
He did manage to do a pretty amazing thing. Love it or hate it, the ACA is a landmark bill. People have been trying to change the healthcare system for the better part of a century, and he was the one to get it pushed through.

The ACA was projected to cause as many as 50 million people to lose their health insurance. It stated so in the 2010 National Register....

What an accomplishment.........

 

[mudwhistle]

Did it long ago in this thread.

Sorry you missed it.

Nope...you just said "read the link" but there was no corresponding evidence to prove what was said was a lie.

What ARE the "lies"? Can you list two?

I'm not talking about the link.

Okay.......since when has believing in marriage between a man and a women meant you hate gays and want to take their rights away?

Where was that stated by and by whom? Exact quotes, please.

The Bush tax-cuts didn't just give a cut to the rich.

There's two.

Also.....Mitt Romney paid taxes.....Dingy Harry just made it up.

The primary reason we went into Iraq wasn't to find WMDs.......it was to keep him from doing what Iran is doing today. Building nukes.

Hands Up.....don't shoot turned out to be based totally off of lies.

And so on... . ..

Exact quotes from the linked article please.

Try reading it yourself please.
The discussion had wandered a bit I to other areas. Somebody asked for specific lies from the left other than those in the article.

The article pointed out the product of other lies. That when Republicans demand we enforce border security that isn't politically-correct.

You posted the article that said there were lies in the discussion. You posted the link, which gave no specifics or countered any lies. You got called on it and have yet to produce a single lie your posted OP claimed.

Pulling random "lies" having nothing to do with the article you posted isn't evidence.

I pointed out one big one and you ignored it predictably.....immigration ring a bell?????


No.......you've been drinking the Kool-aid so long you can't notice an obvious lie like that anymore. You're brainwashed....

 

[-S-]

First two lines are excuses to try to brush away a point I made. The point still stands.

Now, the third:
I know you can read, and if I made you feel I thought you were illiterate, my apologies.
But, can you quote any reliable sources on that claim?

Did it already......here's the link again.....

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton s email scandal New York Post

Just read the article^ (thanks for posting it), and did some research on the subject.

No offense, but this is more of a conspiracy theory than a factual, proven event.

1.) Unnamed sources. There's a definite chance that somebody telling that kind of info would NOT want their name out there, but that still hurts the logical legitimacy. Without a real person, and proof that they were even in the position to obtain the information, there's no way to know for sure.

2.) Every known person tied to it in any way denies it, so there is nobody to vouch for the legitimacy of it.

3.) Looking at it from a hypothetical point of view, I see no reason why Obama would want to hurt Hillary's White House aspirations, regardless of his personal feelings for her. She's the front runner in his party with a HUGE amount of name recognition. She had unstoppable polling numbers before the leak. She was in a great position, and a Democratic win is one of the only ways for Obama to ensure that the ACA lasts longer than he does. If he cares about his legacy through the ACA and/or anybody that is being helped by it's implementation, he logically would want to make sure a Democrat wins, whether it's Hillary or not.
Thus, I don't even see a logical motive for the leak.

Try to look at it from a purely apolitical perspective and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

Of course they will deny it.

BTW, a president shouldn't be worried about his stupid legacy......and shouldn't ignore everything else. That's one of the problems of Obama. He is more concerned about his legacy.....how people think of him....than doing his job. This guy is a pure phoney. A packaged empty suit who spends his time imagemaking rather doing the work of the people of this great country......that is when he isn't golfing.

Sure, they'll deny it, but you have to keep in mind he doesn't even have a logical motive.

Yeah, he loves golf, but I have a feeling ALL presidents get concerned about how they'll look in future history books.
He did manage to do a pretty amazing thing. Love it or hate it, the ACA is a landmark bill. People have been trying to change the healthcare system for the better part of a century, and he was the one to get it pushed through.

The ACA was projected to cause as many as 50 million people to lose their health insurance. It stated so in the 2010 National Register....

What an accomplishment.........

Like I said:
Love it or hate it, the ACA is a landmark bill.

Here are some facts about the amount of people losing coverage:

Millions Lost Insurance

Here is an excerpt that is pertinent to your post:

"It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law.

But those policyholders didn’t lose the ability to have insurance. In most cases, insurers offered them an alternative plan, though there were some instances of companies exiting the individual market altogether.

Whether offered an alternative or not, individuals could shop for insurance on the federal and state marketplaces, or through a broker or insurance carrier directly. Many were likely eligible for federal subsidies to help pay for insurance, resulting in better coverage and lower rates for some. But the specific plan they had was indeed discontinued. (More than half of those with canceled policies were likely to be eligible for federal assistance, according to Urban Institute research, and about 80 percent of all those buying plans on the exchanges are expected to qualify for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

How many individual market cancellations were there?

The most commonly used figure is 4.7 million, based on reporting by the Associated Press last December. But there’s reason to doubt the accuracy of that figure. An analysis of a more recent poll by researchers at the Urban Institute puts the figure at somewhere around 2.6 million."


It's long article, but it's an interesting read when you have the time.

 

[mudwhistle]

Did it already......here's the link again.....

Obama adviser behind leak of Hillary Clinton s email scandal New York Post

Just read the article^ (thanks for posting it), and did some research on the subject.

No offense, but this is more of a conspiracy theory than a factual, proven event.

1.) Unnamed sources. There's a definite chance that somebody telling that kind of info would NOT want their name out there, but that still hurts the logical legitimacy. Without a real person, and proof that they were even in the position to obtain the information, there's no way to know for sure.

2.) Every known person tied to it in any way denies it, so there is nobody to vouch for the legitimacy of it.

3.) Looking at it from a hypothetical point of view, I see no reason why Obama would want to hurt Hillary's White House aspirations, regardless of his personal feelings for her. She's the front runner in his party with a HUGE amount of name recognition. She had unstoppable polling numbers before the leak. She was in a great position, and a Democratic win is one of the only ways for Obama to ensure that the ACA lasts longer than he does. If he cares about his legacy through the ACA and/or anybody that is being helped by it's implementation, he logically would want to make sure a Democrat wins, whether it's Hillary or not.
Thus, I don't even see a logical motive for the leak.

Try to look at it from a purely apolitical perspective and I'm sure you'll see what I mean.

Of course they will deny it.

BTW, a president shouldn't be worried about his stupid legacy......and shouldn't ignore everything else. That's one of the problems of Obama. He is more concerned about his legacy.....how people think of him....than doing his job. This guy is a pure phoney. A packaged empty suit who spends his time imagemaking rather doing the work of the people of this great country......that is when he isn't golfing.

Sure, they'll deny it, but you have to keep in mind he doesn't even have a logical motive.

Yeah, he loves golf, but I have a feeling ALL presidents get concerned about how they'll look in future history books.
He did manage to do a pretty amazing thing. Love it or hate it, the ACA is a landmark bill. People have been trying to change the healthcare system for the better part of a century, and he was the one to get it pushed through.

The ACA was projected to cause as many as 50 million people to lose their health insurance. It stated so in the 2010 National Register....

What an accomplishment.........

Like I said:
Love it or hate it, the ACA is a landmark bill.

Here are some facts about the amount of people losing coverage:

Millions Lost Insurance

Here is an excerpt that is pertinent to your post:

"It’s true that insurance companies discontinued health plans that had covered millions of people who had bought them directly rather than through an employer. That’s because those plans didn’t meet the coverage standards of the new law.

But those policyholders didn’t lose the ability to have insurance. In most cases, insurers offered them an alternative plan, though there were some instances of companies exiting the individual market altogether.

Whether offered an alternative or not, individuals could shop for insurance on the federal and state marketplaces, or through a broker or insurance carrier directly. Many were likely eligible for federal subsidies to help pay for insurance, resulting in better coverage and lower rates for some. But the specific plan they had was indeed discontinued. (More than half of those with canceled policies were likely to be eligible for federal assistance, according to Urban Institute research, and about 80 percent of all those buying plans on the exchanges are expected to qualify for subsidies, according to the Congressional Budget Office.)

How many individual market cancellations were there?

The most commonly used figure is 4.7 million, based on reporting by the Associated Press last December. But there’s reason to doubt the accuracy of that figure. An analysis of a more recent poll by researchers at the Urban Institute puts the figure at somewhere around 2.6 million."


It's long article, but it's an interesting read when you have the time.

Two facts about the ACA would have killed it.

1. Millions would lose their coverage. Which puts Obama's lie "If you like you insurance....." in perspective.
2. It is a tax increase.

Either of these facts...if they had been known would have killed it in committee. So Obama and the rest of those who read the thing were lying about it..

That.....is by law FRAUD. Anyone involved in its passage are co-conspirators.

 

[kaz]

Well that and the Democrats are just fucking smarter than a Republican. See that on here every day.

Man, that's the truth. How you all have the same position on every issue which you justify with the same talking points. Your inability to follow a logical discussion or to actually answer questions other than matching the closest talking point you can think of. Brilliant you are, brilliant

 

[kaz]

Did you notice all four questions come with the assumption that government redistribution of wealth is a good thing?