QUESTION:: WHY DOES THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE AGAINST ITS INTERESTS?

@oralloy,

This from the idiot who doesn't provide any fact or evidence for what he says.

@oralloy,

Quote:

Another important point of data: There were a number of serious crimes that were conclusively proven.

No such thing. There were crimes alleged. There were none conclusively proven. You are free to make stuff up but it doesn't change the facts. There were no crimes proven in a court. There were no crimes proven in the Congress.

There were merely allegations made. Allegations that you may think are conclusively proven but that only conclusively proves you don't know the meaning conclusively proven.

2 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
You mean Starr failed to indict Clinton because of the Democrats?

No. Stop deliberately misinterpreting me. It's tiresome.

Then why didn't Starr indict Clinton for these crimes that were conclusively proven? Certainly he could have got a conviction if they were so conclusive.
Oh.. since you can conclusively prove that Clinton committed a lie, could you prove how any lie about Lewinsky was germaine to the Paula Jones case? I would love to see your proof since most legal experts question how it was.

1 Reply

@parados,

You're trying to have a discussion with an idiot who doesn't understand the legal system of this country, doesn't know how to provide proof for his charges, and pretty much uses his useless brain to arrive at conclusions that only he can see.

Why are you wasting your time with an idiot who doesn't respond to direct requests for proof/evidence?

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

I think he gets a boner every time he thinks he has upset one of you liberals.

2 Replies

@RABEL222,

I'm not a liberal. I'm an independent, and there may be a time in the future when I may consider a republican for office. None exists today; they are too far right and extreme in their politics. I was once a democrat and once a republican. Both are too extreme for my moderate politics.

I believe in less government intrusion into private lives, freedom of choice, and self-sufficiency to a point. I believe in helping my fellow Americans when they are having a difficult time financially or physically over wars half way around the world. I believe in maintaining our infrastructure, our schools, and our social services. I also believe our government whether under democratic or republican administration and congress wastes too much money on unnecessary garbage.

Do you now understand my politics?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

scroll, scroll, scroll....

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

There were merely allegations made. Allegations that you may think are conclusively proven but that only conclusively proves you don't know the meaning conclusively proven.

No, it was conclusively proven. You just always try to whitewash all the misdeeds of the Democrats.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Oh.. since you can conclusively prove that Clinton committed a lie, could you prove how any lie about Lewinsky was germaine to the Paula Jones case? I would love to see your proof since most legal experts question how it was.

I probably could. I've argued materiality before. But I don't remember the argument (was many years ago). And I've already stated my lack of interest in digging through the 1990s again. Actually looking something up to refresh myself is more than I'm willing to do for this particular issue right now.

Your claim "most legal experts" is mistaken though. Maybe a handful of partisan legal experts disputed the materiality, but certainly not most legal experts.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

scroll, scroll, scroll....

0 Replies

@RABEL222,

RABEL222 wrote:

I think he gets a boner every time he thinks he has upset one of you liberals.

You're a freak.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

parados wrote:
There were merely allegations made. Allegations that you may think are conclusively proven but that only conclusively proves you don't know the meaning conclusively proven.

No, it was conclusively proven. You just always try to whitewash all the misdeeds of the Democrats.

No, it wasn't conclusively proven. You have presented no evidence to support that it was.

You also have presented no evidence that I try to whitewash ALL the misdeeds of Democrats.

Let's look at 2 things that are true -
Clinton was not factually accurate when he was in court.
The Bush administration was not factually accurate about wmd in Iraq.

In case 1 - a lie is not necessarily a crime since perjury requires more than just a factual untruth. Yet you argue he committed a crime without meeting the entire test.
in case 2 - you will argue that the Bush administration didn't lie.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

You have presented no evidence to support that it was.

Correct. I have already stated that I am no longer interested enough in the issue to look anything up. My discussion of this subject will be limited to whatever I can pull from my memory of the matter.

parados wrote:

You also have presented no evidence that I try to whitewash ALL the misdeeds of Democrats.

Well, you regularly try to whitewash Obama's various assaults upon the Second Amendment.

And you try to whitewash the UN's gun ban plotting (that's not Democrats, of course, but it's certainly plotting that most Democrats sympathize with).

parados wrote:

Let's look at 2 things that are true -
Clinton was not factually accurate when he was in court.
The Bush administration was not factually accurate about wmd in Iraq.

In case 1 - a lie is not necessarily a crime since perjury requires more than just a factual untruth. Yet you argue he committed a crime without meeting the entire test.

No, I am saying that Clinton met the entire test for perjury. I also say he committed a number of other crimes beyond perjury.

parados wrote:

in case 2 - you will argue that the Bush administration didn't lie.

Actually I argue that the Bush Administration was factually accurate on one count: their accusation that Saddam was still keeping his pre-1991 stockpile was borne out when some 500 nerve gas shells were found in the desert.

But yes, even where they were factually inaccurate, it was the result of error as opposed to deception.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

First, even IF one of my facts are wrong (and that's a pretty big if), it will be an error, not deliberate deception.

And second, it is very unlikely that any of my facts are wrong.

got any facts on offer this week?

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Actually I argue that the Bush Administration was factually accurate on one count: their accusation that Saddam was still keeping his pre-1991 stockpile was borne out when some 500 nerve gas shells were found in the desert.

Wow... Got any evidence to back that claim up?
It's amazing the things you believe some days.

2 Replies

@parados,

Why are you wasting your time with this idiot, oralloy? He never has provided any factual evidence on anything he has ever claimed. NEVER!

1 Reply

@parados,

By the way.... the 500 shells you are referring to contained DEGRADED mustard and sarin and were so badly corroded they were unusable. They were also declared by Iraq has having been lost or misplaced after the 1991 war.The condition of them points to that being accurate.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=15918

So you were wrong on Saddam keeping his stockpile, you were wrong on there being 500 shells of nerve gas and you were wrong on how degraded the materials were.

2 Replies

@ehBeth,

ehBeth wrote:

got any facts on offer this week?

Yes. Just read any of my posts. All I ever do is post facts.

0 Replies

@parados,

I betcha oralloy only posts his personal opinion(s) not based on facts or evidence.

2 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Actually I argue that the Bush Administration was factually accurate on one count: their accusation that Saddam was still keeping his pre-1991 stockpile was borne out when some 500 nerve gas shells were found in the desert.

Wow... Got any evidence to back that claim up?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/30/AR2006063001528.html

It was a mix of nerve gas and mustard gas, so I was slightly off in describing the 500 shells as all nerve gas.

parados wrote:

It's amazing the things you believe some days.

Well to me, adhering to the truth is just common sense.

But compared to most humans, perhaps my honesty is a bit extraordinary.

1 Reply

QUESTION:: WHY DOES THE MIDDLE CLASS VOTE AGAINST ITS INTERESTS?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know