AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@ican711nm,

"?HUH?"

i'll wait...

(actually, i'll come back later, cuz i have my doubts about you really ever getting it.)

chow.

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

so it's ok for you , since they did it first?

lousy logic.

NO! It's OK with me to describe to WREDA the villifications of me the WREDA post .... first ... last ... repeatedly!

0 Replies

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

... actually, i'll come back later, cuz i have my doubts about you really ever getting it ...

Getting what?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

exactly.

later...

1 Reply

@Rockhead,

Rockhead wrote:

exactly.

later...

!OH!

0 Replies

WREDA ARE INCOMPETENT.
They do not understand:
(1) The Constitution of the USA as Lawfully Amended;
(2) The falsities in WREDAP speeches;
(3) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's employment;
(4) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's Gross Domestic Product;
(5) The damage WREDAP are doing to the cost of USA energy production;
(6) The damage WREDAP are doing to the rule of law in the USA.

WREDA = Wealth REDistribution Advocates
WREDAP = Wealth REDistribution Advocate Practicianers

2 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

WREDA ARE INCOMPETENT.
They do not understand:
(1) The Constitution of the USA as Lawfully Amended;
(2) The falsities in WREDAP speeches;
(3) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's employment;
(4) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's Gross Domestic Product;
(5) The damage WREDAP are doing to the cost of USA energy production;
(6) The damage WREDAP are doing to the rule of law in the USA.

WREDA = Wealth REDistribution Advocates
WREDAP = Wealth REDistribution Advocate Practicianers

I would include the insult to those that had family that died, or were injured, in wars fought to maintain our Republic going back to the colonial days.

There is also ingratitude to a country that has allowed hard work to result in one's family living better.

3 Replies

@Foofie,

I'm very entertained when you MAC folk launch into your masturbatory rants.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

ican711nm wrote:

In my opinion, generally you are not responsible for proving my source's claim wrong any more than I am responsible for proving my source's claim right. The exception to that occurs when I post a source's claim, and you post your claim, not your opinion, that the source's claim is wrong. For your claim to have credibility you must provide valid evidence to support your claim.

Or, in other words, you don't have to come up with any facts to support your claims, but anyone who criticizes your position must support their claims with evidence.

1 Reply

Well, Foofie, you mealy-mouthed, hypocritical son-of-a-bitch, i voluntarily joined the United States Army, and served every day of my three year enlistment. How long were you in the armed forces?

2 Replies

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

Or, in other words, you don't have to come up with any facts to support your claims, but anyone who criticizes your position must support their claims with evidence.

FALSE! TRY AGAIN TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I ACTUALLY POSTED (I paragraphed each sentence and provided additional underlining to make my post easier for you to understand):

In my opinion, generally you are not responsible for proving my source's claim wrong any more than I am responsible for proving my source's claim right.

The exception to that occurs when I post a source's claim, and you post your claim, not your opinion, that the source's claim is wrong.

For your claim to have credibility you must provide valid evidence to support your claim.

3 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

demonstration of incompetence: Well, Foofie, you mealy-mouthed, hypocritical son-of-a-bitch, i voluntarily joined the United States Army, and served every day of my three year enlistment. How long were you in the armed forces?

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

So it's your opinion that your source is correct, but you are not CLAIMING that they are correct.

Weak sauce, what a bunch of bullshit. You are too cowardly to defend the stuff that you post, Ican. Why even bother posting it?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Quote:

For your claim to have credibility you must provide valid evidence to support your claim.

Except if you post valid evidence including links ican will only claim it isn't evidence. Of course that's only his opinion.

1 Reply

@Foofie,

WREDA ARE INCOMPETENT.
They do not understand:
(1) The Constitution of the USA as Lawfully Amended;
(2) The falsities in WREDAP speeches;
(3) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's employment;
(4) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's Gross Domestic Product;
(5) The damage WREDAP are doing to the cost of USA energy production;
(6) The damage WREDAP are doing to the rule of law in the USA.

WREDA = Wealth REDistribution Advocates
WREDAP = Wealth REDistribution Advocate Practicianers

(1) The Constitution of the USA as Lawfully Amended;
WREDA do not understand:

The Constitution of the USA consists of grants of power to the federal government that the federal government cannot legally exceed.
See Amendment X.

The Constitution of the USA does not grant to the federal government the power to transfer property from those who lawfully earned it to those who did not lawfully earn it.
See Article I, Section 8 and Amendment V.

The Constitution of the USA does not grant to the federal government the power to impose on any resident of the USA participation in any medical insurance program.
See Article I, Section 8 and Amendment V.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

WREDA ARE INCOMPETENT.
They do not understand:
(1) The Constitution of the USA as Lawfully Amended;
(2) The falsities in WREDAP speeches;
(3) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's employment;
(4) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's Gross Domestic Product;
(5) The damage WREDAP are doing to the cost of USA energy production;
(6) The damage WREDAP are doing to the rule of law in the USA.

(2) The falsities in WREDAP speeches;
WREDA do not understand that President Obama's speech to Congress on healthcare contains 12 falsities.
See President Obama's prepared remarks to Joint Session of Congress September 10, 2009, as provided by the White House at
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2009/09/obama-speech-text-to-congress.html
And see Analysis of President Obama’s Speech to Congress on Healthcare at
http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2009/09/analysis-of-president-obamas-speech-to-congress-on-healthcare.html

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

WREDA ARE INCOMPETENT.
They do not understand:
(1) The Constitution of the USA as Lawfully Amended;
(2) The falsities in WREDAP speeches;
(3) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's employment;
(4) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's Gross Domestic Product;
(5) The damage WREDAP are doing to the cost of USA energy production;
(6) The damage WREDAP are doing to the rule of law in the USA.

(3) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's employment;
WREDAP do not understand what creates jobs.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
....Total USA Employed.....Change
Carter
1980.. 99,302,000------------------
Reagan
1984 105,005,000....+ 5,703,000
Reagan
1988 114,968,000....+ 9,963,000
Bush I
1992 118,492,000....+ 3,524,000
Clinton
1996 126,708,000....+ 8,216,000
Clinton
2000 136,891,000....+ 10,183,000
Bush II
2004 139,252,000....+ 2,361,000
Bush II
2008 145,362,000....+ 6,110,000
Obama
2009 139,649,000....- 5,713,000 (as of August 31, 2009)

(4) The damage WREDAP are doing to the USA's Gross Domestic Product;
WREDAP do not understand how to improve our economy.
http://www.bea.gov/national/nipaweb/TablePrint.asp?FirstYear=1965&LastYear=2008&Freq=Year&SelectedTable=5&ViewSeries=NO&Java=no&MaxValue=14412.8&MaxChars=8&Request3Place=N&3Place=N&FromView=YES&Legal=&Land=
Year..…….GDP ($billions)….Change
Carter
1980…….. 2,789.5………………………………
Regan
1984…….. 3,933.2…….…………. + 1,143.7
Reagan
1988…….. 5,103.8…….……….…. + 1,170.6
Bush 41
1992…….. 6,337.7…….………….. + 1,233.9
Clinton
1996……. 7,816.9…….………….. + 1,479.2
Clinton
2000…….. 9,817.0…….………….. + 2,000.1
Bush 43
2004…,, 11,685.9…….………….. + 1,868.9
Bush 43
2008….. 14,208.7…….………….. + 2,522.8
Obama
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/afx/2009/02/18/afx6067181.html
2009…… 14,109.2…….………….…... " 99.5 (-0.7% as of August 31)

0 Replies

Wow, you can actually watch the slow disintegration of Ican's mind in this thread. It's almost like reading "Flowers for Algernon" again. Cool.

1 Reply

@parados,

For your claim to have credibility you must provide valid evidence to support your claim.

parados wrote:

Except if you post valid evidence including links ican will only claim it isn't evidence. Of course that's only his opinion.

FALSE!

You are the one claiming or opining the evidence I provided to support my claim that there are 12 falsities in Obama's last speech to Congress, is not valid. If you are opining that, then you need not provide evidence of that. But if you are claiming that, then you need to provide evidence of that.

I opined that the evidence I provided is valid. Had I claimed it is valid, then I would need to provide evidence of that.

If you opine that the evidence you provided is valid, then you need not provide evidence of that. If you claim the evidence you provided is valid, then you need to provide evidence of that.

Which is it? Did you opine or claim the evidence you provided was valid?

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

You are the one claiming or opining the evidence I provided to support my claim that there are 12 falsities in Obama's last speech to Congress, is not valid.

That's because you refused to provide actual evidence to back your position up, and refused to engage me when I provided logical argumentation against your positions. When I asked which positions you required more information for, you refused to say which ones. These are the actions of someone who cannot support their claims.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know