Democrats: The Anti-Liberty Party

[PoliticalChic]

Boil down, and 'Liberty' can be reduced to
a. Private Propery
b. Freedom of speech

Both are anathema to Progressives, Liberals, Democrasts.



1. Some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence,John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes

The word "property" was replaced with the term "pursuit of happiness". If the founding fathers wanted to insert your opinion, theory, concept or idea that is needed to build on the rest of theory, they would have kept the quote the way the slave owner Locke wrote it and would not have replaced it with "pursuit of happiness".

Liberty, free markets, private property.....inseparable.
There is no liberty without the right to private property.

1. A fundamental principle of our society is property rights. In nations were property rights have not been formally established, the costs of legally validating ownership of a home, a farm, or a business may be prohibitively expensive relative to the average income level, a crippling handicap for those seeking to rise from poverty to prosperity. Without property rights, one with entrepreneurial talents loses the access to other people’s money: homes or other assets not recognized by a legal system cannot be used as collateral. Sowell, “Economic Facts & Fallacies,” chapter seven.
   1. There is no faster way to create a nation of serfs than to remove property rights.

Your response does not change the fact that you have begun your OP with a misleading interpretation or misleading evaluation of a a quote which has been changed to create the foundation of your thesis. You further bastardize the term and concept of property rights by interpreting the meaning of property rights to fit your definition. That definition is of course shaped to fit your concept or thesis. Sentence by sentence, quote by quote, paragraph by paragraph and conclusion by conclusion you are using manipulated skewed bits of fraudulent data to attempt to make your point. Lots of little misrepresentations add up to one big one.

So....your response isn't support for liberty....but simply "is not, is not!!!!"


Another brilliant Liberal post.


I have the sense that you'd sell your car to buy gas.

My response has been that your idea is based from the very beginning of the OP on a fraudulent concept. The very foundation of your argument is a false and erroneous concept. Pointing that out has not brought forward an intellectual response, it has, as usual from you, brought about a deflection from answering and simple charge that because I dare challenge your distorted concept, I must be against liberty and followed by some kind on nonsense about "is not, is not". The thing that "is not" is the opening of the OP where you attempt to confuse the issue by supplanting and misrepresenting a quote by the founders.

That's what I said....your usual non-response: "Is notttt!!!!"

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Is this thread meant to infer that Republicans are the pro-liberty party, because that's a joke.

This thread is a typical PoliticalChic thread where she reads a political commentary and cuts and paste from the article and some of the sources used by the author to make it appear to be her own thesis. Problem is always the same. She doesn't really know the topic and is restricted to the cut and paste. Hence she ends up guessing at a lot. That and using insults to deflect.

Which is why she won't answer my question.

She is indeed in favor of government control of the issues I listed. Her own c/p's show she is in favor of government control of speech and property as well.

Indeed, most rabid RWs are in favor of big government and lots and lots of very invasive, intrusive laws.

I miss the days of true Conservatives.

 

[BlindBoo]

More partisan hackery by my favorite partisan hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Boil down, and 'Liberty' can be reduced to
a. Private Propery
b. Freedom of speech

Both are anathema to Progressives, Liberals, Democrasts.



1. Some know that before it became “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” in our Declaration of Independence,John Locke wrote that man has a right to “life, liberty, and property.”
Property Rights Have Personal Parallels - Forbes

2. " Karl Marx describes in his communist manifesto, the ten steps necessary to destroy a free enterprise system and replace it with a system of omnipotent government power, so as to effect a communist socialist state. Those ten steps are known as theTen Planksof The Communist Manifesto…

a. Abolition of private property and the application of all rents of land to public purposes.

b. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.

c. Centralization of the means of communications and transportation in the hands of the State."
Communist Manifesto 10 Planks



3. Without admitting obeisance to Marx, this government obviates the 'private' part via taxation and regulation.
Remember the "The Anti-Capitalist Brigade..." Occupy Wall Street? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/magazine/oakland-occupy-movement.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The current Marxists reveal same with its war cry..... 'income inequality' and support for exta-legal demands with it's creation Occupy Wall Street.
And Obama and Pelosi were right there with them from the start.





4. In order to muzzle dissent, the radicals, early on, took aim at the media, and at academia. But controlling these outlets of information was not enough.

Silencing opposition voices, as any fascist program would do, became the corollary.


a. "....attempts to shut down people whose free speech interferes with other people's political agendas go on, with remarkably little notice, much less outrage. The Internal Revenue Service's targeting the tax-exempt status of conservative groups is just one of these attempts to fight political battles by shutting up the opposition, rather than answering them." The New Inquisition - Thomas Sowell - Page 1

I love how you were kind enough to 'boil' everything that is American down to a simple a) b) format and, in typical conservative Dixiecrat fashion, 'property rights' gets the top slot. How unoriginal.

I'm an American.
I'm a progressive.
I own property.
I own a couple guns, and love to shoot them.
I am pro military spending.
I'm seriously considering joining the military, and would consider it an honor.
I'm pro business.
I am pro labor union.
I support Social Security and other social safety nets.
I believe healthcare for all Americans should be a right.

I vote Democrat today, because I believe civil rights and the opportunity of happiness are of greater importance than unbridled property rights. I would have voted Republican in 1860 for the exact same reasons.

You vote Republican today, because you believe in the unmatched importance of property rights. You would have voted Democrat in 1860 for the exact same reason.

Point is, don't put so much importance on party affiliation. What a party stands for today may very well change years from now. 'Republican' and 'Democrat' are just words. It's the beliefs behind a person with each label that matters.

By "Dixiecrat," you mean the typical segregationist,racist Democrat.

You guys can run,but you can't hide from history.


In fact.....the most popular Democrat today personifies exactly that same segregationist, racist history that your party attempts to hide behind some lame 'they switched from KKKers to loving their darker brethren" nonsense.
"Former President Bill Clinton tried to get former senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in the 2008 election by describing Barack Obama this way: "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags."
Bill Clinton on Obama A Few Years Ago This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags The Weekly Standard


"Point is, don't put so much importance on party affiliation blah blah blah..."

Why?

What are you afraid of?



Proves my point, huh?

 

[PredFan]

Is this thread meant to infer that Republicans are the pro-liberty party, because that's a joke.

The Democrats are pro-Liberty, but only the liberties they approve of.
The Republicans are pro-Liberty, but only the liberties they approve of.

TheOP was pointing out the left's anti-Liberty stand. And she's right about that.

 

[PredFan]

Is this thread meant to infer that Republicans are the pro-liberty party, because that's a joke.

This thread is a typical PoliticalChic thread where she reads a political commentary and cuts and paste from the article and some of the sources used by the author to make it appear to be her own thesis. Problem is always the same. She doesn't really know the topic and is restricted to the cut and paste. Hence she ends up guessing at a lot. That and using insults to deflect.

Which is why she won't answer my question.

She is indeed in favor of government control of the issues I listed. Her own c/p's show she is in favor of government control of speech and property as well.

Indeed, most rabid RWs are in favor of big government and lots and lots of very invasive, intrusive laws.

I miss the days of true Conservatives.

I imagine it's because she has your ignorant illiterate ass on ignore, duh.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this thread meant to infer that Republicans are the pro-liberty party, because that's a joke.

This thread is a typical PoliticalChic thread where she reads a political commentary and cuts and paste from the article and some of the sources used by the author to make it appear to be her own thesis. Problem is always the same. She doesn't really know the topic and is restricted to the cut and paste. Hence she ends up guessing at a lot. That and using insults to deflect.

It is my thesis.

thesis
[thee-sis]

• Synonyms
• Examples
• Word Origin

noun, plural theses [thee-seez] (Show IPA)
1.
a proposition stated or put forward forconsideration, especially one to be discussed andproved or to be maintained against objections:
He vigorously defended his thesis on the causesof war.
2.
a subject for a composition or essay.
Thesis Define Thesis at Dictionary.com



So, I have to teach you vocabulary in addition to history and politics?


What are you...a Liberal???

 

[PredFan]

More partisan hackery by my favorite partisan hack.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this thread meant to infer that Republicans are the pro-liberty party, because that's a joke.

Take your foot out of your mouth and give examples of.....conservatives....silencing free speech due to political disagreement.....

Such as this:

"Brendan Eich is just the beginning. Let’s oust everyone who donated to the campaign against gay marriage.

Brendan Eich is gone. The creator of JavaScript and co-founder of mozilla.org hasquitas Mozilla’s CEO,forced out by the uproar over a donation he made six years ago to a ballot measure against gay marriage.

There’s no record of Eich discriminating against gay employees—“I never saw any kind of behavior or attitude from him that was not in line with Mozilla’s values of inclusiveness,” says the company’s chairwoman, Mitchell Baker. In fact, last week, Eich pledged,..."
Brendan Eich quits Mozilla Let s purge all the anti-gay donors to Prop 8.

 

[-S-]

By "Dixiecrat," you mean the typical segregationist,racist Democrat.

You guys can run,but you can't hide from history.


In fact.....the most popular Democrat today personifies exactly that same segregationist, racist history that your party attempts to hide behind some lame 'they switched from KKKers to loving their darker brethren" nonsense.
"Former President Bill Clinton tried to get former senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in the 2008 election by describing Barack Obama this way: "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags."
Bill Clinton on Obama A Few Years Ago This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags The Weekly Standard


"Point is, don't put so much importance on party affiliation blah blah blah..."

Why?

What are you afraid of?



Proves my point, huh?

You actually proved my point (aside from the silly Obama paragraph)
Republicans' and Democrats' views have evolved over time. Some for better, some for worse. Look at TRoosevelt's trust busting and later push for social insurance (an early version of what later became social security). That would never fly in today's Republican platform, just as segregation would never fly in today's Democratic platform.

I don't run from history, I embrace it. I fully accept that at one time in history I would have been proud to vote Republican. Point is that day is long passed. I also completely embrace that at one time I would have been completely against the Democratic party.

They evolved, and that's why party affiliation doesn't matter. Their platforms can change. A person's core beliefs generally do not.



P.S.
I have nothing against links, and I don't mean to be rude, but do you ever just say things that you think of?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Is this thread meant to infer that Republicans are the pro-liberty party, because that's a joke.

This thread is a typical PoliticalChic thread where she reads a political commentary and cuts and paste from the article and some of the sources used by the author to make it appear to be her own thesis. Problem is always the same. She doesn't really know the topic and is restricted to the cut and paste. Hence she ends up guessing at a lot. That and using insults to deflect.

Which is why she won't answer my question.

She is indeed in favor of government control of the issues I listed. Her own c/p's show she is in favor of government control of speech and property as well.

Indeed, most rabid RWs are in favor of big government and lots and lots of very invasive, intrusive laws.

I miss the days of true Conservatives.

I imagine it's because she has your ignorant illiterate ass on ignore, duh.

For clarity...I have no one on ignore...but why repeat what has already been proven.

 

[PoliticalChic]

By "Dixiecrat," you mean the typical segregationist,racist Democrat.

You guys can run,but you can't hide from history.


In fact.....the most popular Democrat today personifies exactly that same segregationist, racist history that your party attempts to hide behind some lame 'they switched from KKKers to loving their darker brethren" nonsense.
"Former President Bill Clinton tried to get former senator Ted Kennedy to endorse Hillary Clinton for president in the 2008 election by describing Barack Obama this way: "A few years ago, this guy would have been carrying our bags."
Bill Clinton on Obama A Few Years Ago This Guy Would Have Been Carrying Our Bags The Weekly Standard


"Point is, don't put so much importance on party affiliation blah blah blah..."

Why?

What are you afraid of?



Proves my point, huh?

You actually proved my point (aside from the silly Obama paragraph)
Republicans' and Democrats' views have evolved over time. Some for better, some for worse. Look at TRoosevelt's trust busting and later push for social insurance (an early version of what later became social security). That would never fly in today's Republican platform, just as segregation would never fly in today's Democratic platform.

I don't run from history, I embrace it. I fully accept that at one time in history I would have been proud to vote Republican. Point is that day is long passed. I also completely embrace that at one time I would have been completely against the Democratic party.

They evolved, and that's why party affiliation doesn't matter. Their platforms can change. A person's core beliefs generally do not.



P.S.
I have nothing against links, and I don't mean to be rude, but do you ever just say things that you think of?

Actually, I destroyed your point.


The same Dixiecrats went right back to voting Democrat.

And Clinton has a long.....long....history of racism and support of segregation.
Please say so if you are too stupid to recognize same, and I'll happily educate you.


And your comment on how I post?
It simply means that I back up everything I post...and will do so.
The more it galls you, the better.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Is this thread meant to infer that Republicans are the pro-liberty party, because that's a joke.

This thread is a typical PoliticalChic thread where she reads a political commentary and cuts and paste from the article and some of the sources used by the author to make it appear to be her own thesis. Problem is always the same. She doesn't really know the topic and is restricted to the cut and paste. Hence she ends up guessing at a lot. That and using insults to deflect.

Which is why she won't answer my question.

She is indeed in favor of government control of the issues I listed. Her own c/p's show she is in favor of government control of speech and property as well.

Indeed, most rabid RWs are in favor of big government and lots and lots of very invasive, intrusive laws.

I miss the days of true Conservatives.

I imagine it's because she has your ignorant illiterate ass on ignore, duh.

For clarity...I have no one on ignore...but why repeat what has already been proven.

You have proven you are in favor of government control of speech, property and ...

Abortion
Marriage equality
Sharia law to control the populace
Forcing people to give up their property for a pipeline that does not benefit the US
Taking from the poor to give to the rich
Believing one criminal rancher should be able to steal millions from Americans

Otherwise, you would simply have answered YES or NO.

 

[-S-]

Actually, I destroyed your point.


The same Dixiecrats went right back to voting Democrat.

And Clinton has a long.....long....history of racism and support of segregation.
Please say so if you are too stupid to recognize same, and I'll happily educate you.


And your comment on how I post?
It simply means that I back up everything I post...and will do so.
The more it galls you, the better.

You can point at as many old Democrats as you want with a history of racism haha. That isn't my point. A person's racist beliefs may still very well be intact, but the parties' platforms have evolved. Younger subscribers to the parties are not forced to hold their parents'/grandparents' core views as their own. You keep missing my point.

And like I said, I didn't mean to come off as rude, I just feel you'd do better in this debate if you used your own words. The copy/paste stuff seems to muddle your views.

 

[-S-]

You have proven you are in favor of government control of speech, property and ...

Abortion
Marriage equality
Sharia law to control the populace
Forcing people to give up their property for a pipeline that does not benefit the US
Taking from the poor to give to the rich
Believing one criminal rancher should be able to steal millions from Americans

Otherwise, you would simply have answered YES or NO.

I think PolitiChick is simply lost in the debate. It's easy to confuse your arguments when you have a dozen of them and not one of them is actually yours Go easy on her.

 

[PredFan]

Actually, I destroyed your point.


The same Dixiecrats went right back to voting Democrat.

And Clinton has a long.....long....history of racism and support of segregation.
Please say so if you are too stupid to recognize same, and I'll happily educate you.


And your comment on how I post?
It simply means that I back up everything I post...and will do so.
The more it galls you, the better.

You can point at as many old Democrats as you want with a history of racism haha. That isn't my point. A person's racist beliefs may still very well be intact, but the parties' platforms have evolved. Younger subscribers to the parties are not forced to hold their parents'/grandparents' core views as their own. You keep missing my point.

And like I said, I didn't mean to come off as rude, I just feel you'd do better in this debate if you used your own words. The copy/paste stuff seems to muddle your views.

That's because it's common practice among the lefties to scream and cry about links and backing up everything you say. It's a ploy that they use to wear out their opponent. It helps them avoid the actually point of any discussion. When you do provide proof and links they attack the source or ignore you completely. PC deserves kudos for her efforts in spite of all of this.

 

[PredFan]

You have proven you are in favor of government control of speech, property and ...

Abortion
Marriage equality
Sharia law to control the populace
Forcing people to give up their property for a pipeline that does not benefit the US
Taking from the poor to give to the rich
Believing one criminal rancher should be able to steal millions from Americans

Otherwise, you would simply have answered YES or NO.

I think PolitiChick is simply lost in the debate. It's easy to confuse your arguments when you have a dozen of them and not one of them is actually yours Go easy on her.

Here's a friendly hint for you. Take it or leave it I don't care:

If you find yourself on Luddley's side in anything, you're doing it wrong.

 

[-S-]

That's because it's common practice among the lefties to scream and cry about links and backing up everything you say. It's a ploy that they use to wear out their opponent. It helps them avoid the actually point of any discussion. When you do provide proof and links they attack the source or ignore you completely. PC deserves kudos for her efforts in spite of all of this.

You should reread the discourse between PolitiChick and myself. The problem isn't that she's posting links. The problem is that none of her links actually address the point I'm making. Thus, her argument becomes muddled. You should reread them and point out to me where one of her links actually (factually) addresses my point.

If you cannot, I suggest you edit or delete your post. There's no shame in correcting one's self, PredFan.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Actually, I destroyed your point.


The same Dixiecrats went right back to voting Democrat.

And Clinton has a long.....long....history of racism and support of segregation.
Please say so if you are too stupid to recognize same, and I'll happily educate you.


And your comment on how I post?
It simply means that I back up everything I post...and will do so.
The more it galls you, the better.

You can point at as many old Democrats as you want with a history of racism haha. That isn't my point. A person's racist beliefs may still very well be intact, but the parties' platforms have evolved. Younger subscribers to the parties are not forced to hold their parents'/grandparents' core views as their own. You keep missing my point.

And like I said, I didn't mean to come off as rude, I just feel you'd do better in this debate if you used your own words. The copy/paste stuff seems to muddle your views.

OMG...you are dense.


While talking a great game, it is well known by all except liberals in general, and the Black community specifically, that the Democrat Party claims to be concerned with support of blacks, their record with respect to black politicians tells a different story…



1. In 2005, the Democrats did not name Donna Brazile to head the Democratic National Committee. They chose Howard Dean.


2. “Gov. David A. Paterson defiantly vowed to run for election next year despite the White House‘s urging that he withdraw from the New York governor’s race.” http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/20/nyregion/20paterson.html

3. President Barack Obama has kept mum on the fate of Rep. Charles Rangel (D-NY) for days -- but he tells CBS News that it's time for the embattled 80-year-old former Ways and Means Chairman to end his career "with dignity."

"I think Charlie Rangel served a very long time and served-- his constituents very well. But these-- allegations are very troubling," Obama told Harry Smith in an interview to be aired on the "Early Show." and first broadcast on the CBS Evening News with Katie Couric. Obama Time for Rangel to end career with dignity - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com

4 Harold Ford told not to run for Senator from New York:

“From the start, Mr. Ford’s potential candidacy angered national Democratic Party leaders by disrupting plans for what was planned as a seamless Gillibrand nomination. Harry Reid of Nevada, the Senate majority leader, called Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg to discourage him from supporting Mr. Ford, and Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York met personally with Mr. Ford to argue against his candidacy.” http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/nyregion/02ford.html


5. “As state comptroller, [Carl] McCall earned the distinction of being the first African American ever elected to a statewide office in New York. Four years later voters overwhelmingly supported McCall over Republican Bruce Blakeman 64.75 to 32.1%. McCall's reelection in 1998 may have given him the confidence he needed in order to pursue the governor's mansion….The McCall campaign had the support of the Democratic Party; whether or not McCall had the party's full support has been the subject of much debate….Still one wonders just how committed the party was to McCall's campaign….shunned by some of the state's most respected Democrats…McCall blamed his money woes on the national Democratic Party, claiming that the party had abandoned his campaign….” H. Carl McCall for Governor a lesson to all black high-profile statewide office seekers. - Free Online Library


6. And, most telling, Bill Clinton’s remarks about the black candidate for the presidency:

“[A]s Hillary bungled Caroline, Bill’s handling of Ted was even worse. The day after Iowa, he phoned Kennedy and pressed for an endorsement, making the case for his wife. But Bill then went on, belittling Obama in a manner that deeply offended Kennedy. Recounting the conversation later to a friend, Teddy fumed that Clinton had said, A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee.”
Teddy s anger - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com


7. Three staffers working for embattled Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) were asked by security officers to leave an event in downtown Washington on Thursday after they tried to display large campaign signs just as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was about to speak. .. Waters told The Hill afterward that the staffers had been displaying the signs at the annual legislative conference for the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation, which was held at the Washington convention center a few blocks away. “It ain’t about Nancy. It’s about black people,” Waters said. Waters aides expelled from Pelosi event TheHill


8. And what Governor of Arkansas made the Saturday before Easter "Confederate Flag Day"?
The Arkansas Code, Section 1-5-107. Confederate Flag Day.
(a) The Saturday immediately preceding Easter Sunday of each year is designated as "Confederate Flag Day" in this state.
No person, firm, or corporation shall display any Confederate flag or replica thereof in connection with any advertisement of any commercial enterprise, or in any manner for any purpose except to honor the Confederate States of America.
Any person, firm, or corporation violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be fined not less than one hundred dollars ($100) nor more than one thousand dollars ($1,000).

"In April 1985, Governor Bill Clinton signed Act 985 into law...'
Mark R. Levin on Trent Lott & Moral Outrage on National Review Online


9. Do Democrats in Congress support blacks by practicing affirmative action in their hiring…and of course this would be our of moral convictions, as they are legally exempt from affirmative action requirements. More than passing interesting, the ‘National Journal,’ a survey of congressional staffers revealed that Democrats hired black employees at the same rate as Republicans: 2 percent. “The Racial Breakdown of Congressional Staffs,” National Journal, June 21, 2005
Schweitzer, “Do As I Say,” p. 9


10. Clinton pushed black candidate to drop out of Florida race:

“Bill Clinton sought to persuade Rep. Kendrick Meek to drop out of the race for Senate during a trip to Florida last week — and nearly succeeded…Clinton did not dangle a job in front of Meek, who gave up a safe House seat to run for the Senate, but instead made the case that the move would advance the congressman’s future prospects, said a third Democrat familiar with the conversations. Clinton campaigned with Meek in Florida on Oct. 19 and 20, and thought he had won Meek over. But as the week wore on, Meek lost his enthusiasm for the arrangement, spurred in part, a third Democratic source said, by his wife’s belief that he could still win the race. Clinton spoke with Meek again at week’s end, three Democrats said, and again Meek said he would drop out.”
Read more: Bill Clinton pushed Kendrick Meek to quit Florida race - Ben Smith - POLITICO.com


By some strange coincidence, the Democrats, again, force a black to the back:

11. “Under an arrangement reached two days ago, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, the current majority leader, would get the No. 2 job of minority whip come January. Clyburn, now majority whip, would hold the post of assistant leader, newly created for the purpose of heading off a contest for the whip position.” Bloomberg Business





12. Remember Mark Lloyd, who was chosen by President Obama as the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)'s Chief Diversity Officer, a.k.a. the Diversity Czar?
This... there's nothing more difficult than this. Because we have really, truly good white people in important positions. And the fact of the matter is that there are a limited number of those positions. And unless we are conscious of the need to have more people of color, gays, other people in those positions we will not change the problem.

We're in a position where you have to say who is going to step down so someone else can have power.
Audio FCC s Diversity Czar White People Need to be Forced to Step Down So Someone Else Can Have Power



So....who are those white Democrats who 'stepped down' so black Dems could 'have power'???



Amazing how you just lap up the propaganda.

 

[PredFan]

That's because it's common practice among the lefties to scream and cry about links and backing up everything you say. It's a ploy that they use to wear out their opponent. It helps them avoid the actually point of any discussion. When you do provide proof and links they attack the source or ignore you completely. PC deserves kudos for her efforts in spite of all of this.

You should reread the discourse between PolitiChick and myself. The problem isn't that she's posting links. The problem is that none of her links actually address the point I'm making. Thus, her argument becomes muddled. You should reread them and point out to me where one of her links actually (factually) addresses my point.

If you cannot, I suggest you edit or delete your post. There's no shame in correcting one's self, PredFan.

I think she posts links to support HER point.