• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Report shows how recession hit families [W:391, 502]

Why are you having such a problem answering the direct questions as to the role of the Federal Govt?

You already told me you knew exactly what I believed about these issues. Now I am simply waiting for you to provide the proof.

Why are you so woefully impotent to provide evidence for what you previously claimed?
 
You already told me you knew exactly what I believed about these issues. Now I am simply waiting for you to provide the proof.

I have to prove nothing as I know who you are and who you work or worked for. I asked you questions that would show others who you are. You refuse to answer, that is good enough for me.
 
I have to prove nothing as I know who you are and who you work or worked for. I asked you questions that would show others who you are. You refuse to answer, that is good enough for me.

You are unable to provide any evidence for your claims. thank you again for clearly illustrating that with this post.
 
You are unable to provide any evidence for your claims. thank you again for clearly illustrating that with this post.

Look, this is nothing but diversion on your part. I don't need to prove a thing to anyone else here but the fact that you won't answer the questions posed speaks volumes to those the even care who you are. I know who you are and the fact that you won't answer the questions shows others who you are as well. My last post on the subject, you are a big govt. liberal who refuses to admit who you are.
 
I was at Tessco
 
Look, this is nothing but diversion on your part. I don't need to prove a thing to anyone else here but the fact that you won't answer the questions posed speaks volumes to those the even care who you are. I know who you are and the fact that you won't answer the questions shows others who you are as well. My last post on the subject, you are a big govt. liberal who refuses to admit who you are.

here are your own words about me in post 400

I have seen enough of your posts to understand exactly what you believe and support.

Still waiting for the evidence to support this claim.

As to the charge that I am a "big government liberal" - that is false. I want the smallest government possible to carry out the Constitution of the USA and the states. But again, feel free to present your evidence of your claims. I welcome that.
 
Last edited:
Eminent domain.

Two words naming a Constitutional power given to us by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the states do not constitute me supporting what you describe.
 
here are your own words about me in post 400



Still waiting for the evidence to support this claim.

As to the charge that I am a "big government liberal" - that is false. I want the smallest government possible to carry out the Constitution of the USA and the states. But again, feel free to present your evidence of your claims. I welcome that.

Great, then you don't feel it is the role of the FEDERAL Govt to provide UHC, bailout GM/Chrysler, fund police, fire fighters, teachers and that the role of the govt. is truly to PROVIDE for the common defense and PROMOTE, not provide, for domestic welfare. According to the Constitution anything not stated in the Constitution is the responsibility of the states. Does your boss know of your change in political leanings? Glad to see that you have changed your mind, people can do that.
 
Two words naming a Constitutional power given to us by the Founding Fathers and ratified by the states do not constitute me supporting what you describe.

So you don't support eminent domain now?
 
You are unable to provide any evidence for your claims. thank you again for clearly illustrating that with this post.
i hope you are not shocked by this...pretty much par for the course me thinks....
 
I support the US Constitution. Why does that cause you pain?

So, as I said a few posts ago, you support the initiation of aggression* against society.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
So, as I said a few posts ago, you support the initiation of aggression* against society.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

That's still nonsense, and will always be nonsense no matter how many times you repeat it. Nothing we're talking about here or on other threads where you through that up meets that definition.
 
i hope you are not shocked by this...pretty much par for the course me thinks....

Hey, randel, have you found the news site that is acceptable to you as one to provide you with non partisan, non biased information? Still waiting
 
i hope you are not shocked by this...pretty much par for the course me thinks....

For some reason - it has evolved to be the desired strategy of far too many on the right. They proudly proclaim that they know what you believe and support but fall woefully short of being able to actually cite any statements from you proving their allegations and claims. I suspect this is simply part of a dishonest tactic to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with them into a convenient box so that they can they dispense the usual trite and stereotyped arguments against without having to really deal with the nuances and subtleties of individual positions. Whether this is merely laziness or intellectual dishonesty or a combination of two I will leave for others to say. But when somebody tells me that they know what I believe or support the first challenge I make is to ask them to show evidence of their claims as to my beliefs. It usually drives them crazy as they are unable to do it.
 
Hey, randel, have you found the news site that is acceptable to you as one to provide you with non partisan, non biased information? Still waiting
mornin' con:coffeepap
 
That's still nonsense, and will always be nonsense no matter how many times you repeat it. Nothing we're talking about here or on other threads where you through that up meets that definition.

Eminent domain is the taking of land that belongs to someone. It fits the definition of aggression* precisely.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.
 
That's still nonsense, and will always be nonsense no matter how many times you repeat it. Nothing we're talking about here or on other threads where you through that up meets that definition.

Repetition of the same ridiculous lie over and over and over again is believed by some to constitute debate. And that is sad.
 
Hey, randel, have you found the news site that is acceptable to you as one to provide you with non partisan, non biased information? Still waiting

Try actual news. I'd go with PBS if I were you. But many mainstream actual news sources will be accurate enough. And that is what you should worry about, . . . .Accuracy.

This would help you a lot.
 
Eminent domain is the taking of land that belongs to someone. It fits the definition of aggression* precisely.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

You seem to be ignoring the part about fair compensation being paid to the person.

Now why did you leave that important part out? :roll:
 
For some reason - it has evolved to be the desired strategy of far too many on the right. They proudly proclaim that they know what you believe and support but fall woefully short of being able to actually cite any statements from you proving their allegations and claims. I suspect this is simply part of a dishonest tactic to pigeonhole anyone who disagrees with them into a convenient box so that they can they dispense the usual trite and stereotyped arguments against without having to really deal with the nuances and subtleties of individual positions. Whether this is merely laziness or intellectual dishonesty or a combination of two I will leave for others to say. But when somebody tells me that they know what I believe or support the first challenge I make is to ask them to show evidence of their claims as to my beliefs. It usually drives them crazy as they are unable to do it.
i'd say that that is a spot on analysis
 
Eminent domain is the taking of land that belongs to someone. It fits the definition of aggression* precisely.

* Violation of or damage to another person's body; or trespass upon, damage to, or taking of something owned by another.

I repeat, nothing here fits that definition. Nothing. Take a deep breath. Go over what we're actually talking about. Nothing here fits your definition.
 
Back
Top Bottom