Politics : Liberal Logic
1
2
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
Con - flation.
You actually see those events as parallel, don't you?
Dalai Llama Lama Puss Puss
Stella Marls Missa Nobis
You actually see those events as parallel, don't you?
Dalai Llama Lama Puss Puss
Stella Marls Missa Nobis
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
You're right. One simply gave his opinion, the other used the force of the government. They aren't comparable at all.
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
Absolutely.
Obama didn't break an ethics LAW.
tRump's minions DID break an ethics LAW.
So much so that ummm, even Republicans agree and are alarmed.
I know that EmoCons think of themselves as the Lawgiver ones who shove laws down America's throatand NEVER have to actually live under laws themselves
IF they are giving laws, they are good. If the law is against them, burn America down.
Remember all those GOPee draft dodgers during Viet Nam with "other priorities" than USA.
Obama didn't break an ethics LAW.
tRump's minions DID break an ethics LAW.
So much so that ummm, even Republicans agree and are alarmed.
I know that EmoCons think of themselves as the Lawgiver ones who shove laws down America's throatand NEVER have to actually live under laws themselves
IF they are giving laws, they are good. If the law is against them, burn America down.
Remember all those GOPee draft dodgers during Viet Nam with "other priorities" than USA.
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
You mean while he was a Senator? Are no US Senators allowed to go overseas or just the ones you hate?
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
So you're saying you think a US Senator and a private citizen are equivalent?
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
Interesting.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Read the rest of that quote, dipsh!t. All I wrote makes perfect sense.
Are no US Senators allowed to go overseas
No such thing follows from what I've written, dipsh!t.
you think a US Senator and a private citizen are equivalent
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Name calling just reflects poorly on you, not me.
Read the rest of that quote, dipsh!t.
OK, let's start with this.
All I wrote makes perfect sense.
"talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA"
Of the countries he visited, which ones do you think were hostile to the USA?
Again, juvenile name calling doesn't strengthen your argument, it weakens it.
No such thing follows from what I've written, dipsh!t.
But to your point, you start out talking about President Obama talking to foreign heads of state as a Senator and end the paragraph with, ' LIBs say: "so what?"' In the same post you talk about General Flynn, "as a private citizen", talking to "Russian official" and end with, ' LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".' If you're not trying to say they are equivalent, then what is your point?
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Wrong again, dipsh!t. I haven't reflected nothing on myself by calling you names. My OP makes good sense. And the point of it was self evident. Your kindergarten English reading level probably caused you to miss it. Here it is again, since my unknown stalker will come along and report it for deletion.
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
So you decided to focus on defending your juvenile name calling. And the points I made? <
Wrong again, dipsh!t. I haven't reflected nothing on myself by calling you names. My OP makes good sense. And the point of it was self evident. Your kindergarten English reading level probably caused you to miss it. Here it is again, since my unknown stalker will come along and report it for deletion.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
I'm going to miss you NVDan. You've always been such a breath of reasonable air.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Thank you.
I'm going to miss you NVDan. You've always been such a breath of reasonable air.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
I agree. I haven't always agreed with you, but I've always respected you. Same goes for CTS. It's nice being able to discuss things with mature, intelligent people without it devolving into "ur a libtard, u haet america!" On the other hand, I'm not above labeling Republicans as morons (but not conservatives, because they are not synonyms), but all the logic and facts in the world isn't going to work on some people, so you may as well use them for some amusement.
Never trust a black man named "Chip."
Never trust a black man named "Chip."
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Thanks. You and PaulsLaugh are among the posters who, even when I disagreed, I felt were usually trying to add to the conversation rather than just increasing the noise.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Juvenile, dipsh!t, is you trying to pretend I said one thing when I actually said another. Or you try to claim meanings to my words that don't follow. Plus imitating me.
What I first posted has clear meaning. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
What I first posted has clear meaning. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Bottomline, Flynn meeting with the Russian ambassador is not the issue, however we know from the intelligence reports what Flynn promised Putin via the ambassador. Now if you have evidence of Obama "undercutting foreign policy" during his tour, present it now.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Yes, it is being made an issue.
Bottomline, Flynn meeting with the Russian ambassador is not the issue
Nope, Flynn didn't promise anything.
however we know from the intelligence reports what Flynn promised Putin via the ambassador.
Present the evidence of Flynn promising something. All I said or meant was that it is a good question to wonder what went on between Obama and some heads of state he visited in the 2008 campaign.
Now if you have evidence of Obama "undercutting foreign policy" during his tour, present it now.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
The day obama imposes.more sanctions on Russia, Flynn is on the phone talking to the Russian ambassador. We KNOW.that the main topic were sanctions. We also know.that Putin didn't retaliate, in any way, which goes against all logic for the people who have studied Putin for years.
So, you tell me..was nothing promised by flynn? (The least likely scenario), or did Flynn promise him something he legally wasn't supposed to do (the most likely scenario)???
Get out of your head for once and look at things objectively.
So, you tell me..was nothing promised by flynn? (The least likely scenario), or did Flynn promise him something he legally wasn't supposed to do (the most likely scenario)???
Get out of your head for once and look at things objectively.
I don't want the world. I just want your half.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
No, name calling because you know you've lost the argument is juvenile. I've never pretended you've said anything other than what you've actually said.
Juvenile, dipsh!t, is you trying to pretend I said one thing when I actually said another.
All I've done is quoted what you've said about what President Obama did as a Senator and what you've said in the same post about what General Flynn did as a private citizen. You've never attempted to explain how you think those two things are related. Instead, you've concentrated on juvenile name calling.
Or you try to claim meanings to my words that don't follow.
If you have some other reason for including both incidents other than you thinking they are the same, feel free to share it. Preferably without name calling.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Wrong again, dipsh!t. I haven't lost any argument. You have no argument. You are just claiming something about my words. And I don't buy into it. I don't believe there is any merit to anything you've said or claimed here.
What I wrote originally had crystal clear meaning. Here it is again (before it's deleted):
What I wrote originally had crystal clear meaning. Here it is again (before it's deleted):
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
And yet, you continue to use juvenile name calling.
Wrong again, dipsh!t. I haven't lost any argument.
So that would be "no" on being able to offer a reason for including President Obama's actions as a Senator and General Flynn's actions as a private citizen in the same post other than the one I suggested.
You have no argument. You are just claiming something about my words. And I don't buy into it. I don't believe there is any merit to anything you've said or claimed here.
What I wrote originally had crystal clear meaning.
Thanks for clearing that up. Should I expect another round of juvenile name calling from you?
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
It shows your level of maturity.
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said.
I totally understand. As I've recently discovered, you would rather post the same thing over and over because you lack the maturity to admit you're wrong.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said. Or level of maturity. You playing games with my words; that is low level of maturity.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Funny you still haven't actually responded to NVDan's points.
Seems like you're willing to spend you last days on this board as a spamming piece of sh!t. (I don't have Dan's aversion to name-calling, sh!t-stain).
Seems like you're willing to spend you last days on this board as a spamming piece of sh!t. (I don't have Dan's aversion to name-calling, sh!t-stain).
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
I don't have to respond to what he's claiming, used-condom-floating-in-toilet.
I don't buy into his claims as to what my words mean, last-night's-dump-still-sitting-in-toilet.
So go f^ck yourself, used-tampon-encrusted-with-blood-streaks-and-hairs.
I don't buy into his claims as to what my words mean, last-night's-dump-still-sitting-in-toilet.
So go f^ck yourself, used-tampon-encrusted-with-blood-streaks-and-hairs.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Juvenile name calling is a very clear level of your maturity. Adults don't need to use them. The fact that you're unwilling to admit that you're wrong is another indication of your maturity level.
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said. Or level of maturity.
Which is just another way of saying you know I'm right but just can't bring yourself to admit it.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said. Or level of maturity. You playing games with my words; that is low level of maturity.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
I understand. You're frustrated so you lash out with immature name calling. And since you know I'm right and just can't bring yourself to admit it you repeat the same thing over and over because, being immature, you think that's an appropriate response.
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said. Or level of maturity. You playing games with my words; that is low level of maturity.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said. Or level of maturity. You playing games with my words; that is low level of maturity.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
You're right. Your original post was crystal clear that you thought President Obama going on a world tour in 2008 was equivalent to General Flynn, as a private citizen, talking to "Russian official".
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said. Or level of maturity. You playing games with my words; that is low level of maturity.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
It's also crystal clear that you had no idea President Obama's "world tour in 2008" was as a Senator until I pointed it out.
It's also crystal clear that you now realize that you were wrong when you claimed President Obama had talked to quite a few foreign governments that were "hostile to the USA". (None of them were.)
It's also crystal clear that being exposed angered you so much that, due to your immaturity, you lashed out with juvenile name calling.
It's also crystal clear that, again due to your immaturity, that you are incapable of admitting you are wrong.
It's also crystal clear that, once again due to your immaturity, you think by repeating the same post over and over it will hide all that is crystal clear.
___
Sorry, sometimes my wife forgets that she is not an alien from outer space.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
And yet again, dipsh!t, calling you names hasn't invalidated anything I've said. Or level of maturity. You playing games with my words; that is low level of maturity.
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
I don't buy into the premise you have made up that is behind your claims here. I don't need to show any reason. My original post here was crystal clear. Here it is again (before it is deleted):
Obama in 2008 going on world tour (reporters following him around like rock band groupies), talking to heads of foreign gov'ts, quite a few hostile to the USA, talking about God-knows-what, promising God-knows-what if he's elected, potentially undercutting foreign policy of Bush II or McCain if elected. LIBs say: "so what?"
Trump simply talking during Presidential campaign that it would be good for USA to be on friendly terms with Russia. LIBs say: "massive investigation needed".
Gen. Flynn, still a private citizen, talks to Russian official and then doesn't tell VP Pence every entire, cotton-picking, single-solitary detail. LIBs say: "we demand a spec. prosecutor".
It is pointed out that the above information was obtained by secret intelligence monitoring of said Russian official. Release by someone in intel. community to MSM constitutes violation of US secrecy acts. <>
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
I haven't reflected nothing
Yet the cretin accuses you of "kindergarten English reading level". It's comedy gold, I tell you. I'm beginning to think the worst thing about the boards going away is I won't get to see this arrogant ass make a fool of himself, almost hourly any longer.
TNSTAAFL
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
./´¯/)
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
01011001 01101111 01110101 00100000 01110010 01100101 01100001 01101100 01101100 01111001 00100000 01100001 01110010 01100101 00100000 01100001 00100000 01110000 01100001 01110100 01101000 01100101 01110100 01101001 01100011 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01101000 01101111 01101100 01100101 00101110 00100000 00100000 01000101 01101110 01101010 01101111 01111001 00100000 01110011 01110000 01100101 01110111 01101001 01101110 01100111 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 01110010 00100000 01101000 01100001 01110100 01110010 01100101 01100100 00100000 01100101 01101100 01110011 01100101 01110111 01101000 01100101 01110010 01100101 00101110
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
./´¯/)
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
Still haven't figured it out.
Reply |
01001110 01101111 00100000 01100110 01110101 01100011 01101011 00100000 01111001 01101111 01110101 00101100 00100000 01100001 01110011 01110011 01101000 01101111 01101100 01100101 00100001
Re: Still haven't figured it out.
Reply |
./´¯/)
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
You do realize that you jutted yourself to be the same person jaguar is, amirite?
PS- nothing you ever say makes sense, let alone good sense.
My OP makes good sense.
PS- nothing you ever say makes sense, let alone good sense.
I don't want the world. I just want your half.
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Only what, scrotum head? Huh?
And while I'm at it:
./´¯/)
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
And while I'm at it:
./´¯/)
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
Re: Hey, stalker
Reply |
Couldn't tell last time which one of my posts you were responding to, scrotum head. Gutless, yellow belly coward. Your internet bully boy act never worked on me, did it?
Oh, before I forget:
./´¯/)
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
Oh, before I forget:
./´¯/)
..,/¯../
././
./´¯/''/´¯¯`·¸
./'//././¨¯\
..('(´´. ¯~/'')
\..'../
.''\. _.·´
\..(
..\.\
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
Trumps mouthpiece did in fact commit an ethics violation
If you can't afford insurance you can sign up with ACA and get a plan that you can afford based on your income
Maybe instead of dropping out of high school you should have stayed and got your diploma. That could have helped you get a better job, better insurance coverage, etc
===
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand
If you can't afford insurance you can sign up with ACA and get a plan that you can afford based on your income
Maybe instead of dropping out of high school you should have stayed and got your diploma. That could have helped you get a better job, better insurance coverage, etc
===
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
Since the precedent has been set that the federal government can force you to buy products from private companies, do you think it would be an ethics violation for Trump to mandate American citizens purchase his family's products?
Of course, you wouldn't actually be mandated to. You would just be taxed if you didn't.
Of course, you wouldn't actually be mandated to. You would just be taxed if you didn't.
Re: Liberal Logic
Reply |
It would be an ethics violation. He can not profit by exploiting the office of president
Try to catch up jack. We only have a few more days left
===
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand
Try to catch up jack. We only have a few more days left
===
Ignorance and prejudice and fear walk hand in hand
1
2
▲ Top
Liberal Logic
Obama forcing you to buy health insurance you can't afford is cool.