• 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!

How many questions can an illegal immigration advocate answer?

No...Tucker practically accused Alex of saying what she said.

That's a lie.

In short, Tucker was trying to put words in Alex's mouth and make him defend something he didn't say...aka...a strawman.

That's a lie.

That sort of dishonest, low life tactic speaks volumes about Tucker...and you.

You just completed the "lie" trifecta... Congratz.


.
 
That's a lie.



That's a lie.



You just completed the "lie" trifecta... Congratz.


.

LMAO! Thanks for proving my point about you, Grim.
 
You might need a piece of paper to keep track of the questions, but no paper is necessary to keep track of the answers he gives.

This is just stunning... and don't think for a minute it is unusual, because it isn't... it's the norm.




.


Yeah, just watch any clip of Jorge Rrrrrrrrrrrrramos. :rolleyes:
 
Yeah, just watch any clip of Jorge Rrrrrrrrrrrrramos. :rolleyes:

The parallels are striking.

I suppose this guy may be taking his cues from the guy who cannot pronounce the word illegal.
 
He asked him 2 previous times to give his opinion on what she said, and he wouldn't give it. Skipping over those first two and alluding to the 3rd time it came up, is wholly dishonest on your part.

Why you are playing semantics and defending that turd is beyond me... unless you agree with what she said, then it makes perfect sense.


.

I was commenting on the three minute part. If you want to comment on the earlier part, leave me out of it because that is NOT what I was commenting on regardless of all the straw men you and your compatriots wish to invent.
 
No...Tucker practically accused Alex of saying what she said.

Show it.

In short, Tucker was trying to put words in Alex's mouth and make him defend something he didn't say...aka...a strawman.

Show where Tucker said or implied that Alex said those things.

I've given word for word transcript taken straight from the video to defend my position in previous posts. Can you do the same?
 
Show it.



Show where Tucker said or implied that Alex said those things.

I've given word for word transcript taken straight from the video to defend my position in previous posts. Can you do the same?

I'm not interested in your opinion, Kal.
 
I'm not interested in your opinion, Kal.

I wasn't giving an opinion. I was asking you for proof of your statements. If you can't provide it then you are the one offering up nothing but opinion. Not me.
 
I wasn't giving an opinion. I was asking you for proof of your statements. If you can't provide it then you are the one offering up nothing but opinion. Not me.

I thought I made myself clear....I'm not interested in your opinion or what you have to say, Kal.
 
I thought I made myself clear....I'm not interested in your opinion or what you have to say, Kal.

Ahh, I see. Can't back up your statements so you just want to ignore anyone that attempts to make you prove your statements. Now THAT is partisan hackery pure and simple.
 
Ahh, I see. Can't back up your statements so you just want to ignore anyone that attempts to make you prove your statements. Now THAT is partisan hackery pure and simple.

I'm still not interested in your opinion, Kal.
 
I don't need to prove anything to you.

:shrug: If you expect your statements to be considered as true then yeah, you do need to prove your statements. Maybe not to me. But to everyone else in the forum that reads your posts. Remember, lots of people see how you post Moot and if you continually refuse to prove your statements or retract them then you will be seen as someone not to be taken seriously. This IS a debate forum after all and proof is in high demand. You're call though. :shrug:
 
:shrug: If you expect your statements to be considered as true then yeah, you do need to prove your statements. Maybe not to me. But to everyone else in the forum that reads your posts. Remember, lots of people see how you post Moot and if you continually refuse to prove your statements or retract them then you will be seen as someone not to be taken seriously. This IS a debate forum after all and proof is in high demand. You're call though. :shrug:

Have a nice day, Kal. :roll:
 
Have a nice day, Kal. :roll:

You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself 1 question... "Why do I have to use lies and deception to validate my political beliefs?"

If you are brave enough to not only ask that question of yourself, but to actually answer it, you will discover truths that can change your entire outlook on the world around you and you will no longer have to run away from you own words.


.
 
You really need to take a look in the mirror and ask yourself 1 question... "Why do I have to use lies and deception to validate my political beliefs?"

If you are brave enough to not only ask that question of yourself, but to actually answer it, you will discover truths that can change your entire outlook on the world around you and you will no longer have to run away from you own words.


.



Your petty partisan, fallacious strawman thread is a big fail, so what else is there to say...except look in a mirror at yourself, Grim.
 
Your petty partisan, fallacious strawman thread is a big fail, so what else is there to say...except look in a mirror at yourself, Grim.

So tell me something... Why is it you make accusations and instead of posting the excerpts from the interview that support what you've said, you run away?

I have posted the quotes from the interview that support everything I've said on this thread, because that's what an honest person does.


.
 
I was commenting on the three minute part. If you want to comment on the earlier part, leave me out of it because that is NOT what I was commenting on regardless of all the straw men you and your compatriots wish to invent.

You can't make a claim based on that part of the video and ignore the 2 previous times Carlson posed the question to him. It's totally and completely dishonest.


.
 
So tell me something... Why is it you make accusations and instead of posting the excerpts from the interview that support what you've said, you run away?

I have posted the quotes from the interview that support everything I've said on this thread, because that's what an honest person does.


.

I've said what I had to say about the video...and don't feel the need to engage in your dishonest farce of a thread any further....so have a nice day, Grim. :2wave:
 
I've said what I had to say about the video...and don't feel the need to engage in your dishonest farce of a thread any further....so have a nice day, Grim. :2wave:

What you did was lie about the interview to prop up your political beliefs, which you yourself confirmed by your inability/refusal to substantiate what you said.

I could never embrace beliefs that forced me to disregard facts and lie in order to publicly validate them. That's a direct contradiction that amounts to "fooling yourself", which is something I simply can't fathom how anyone could do... yet here you are doing exactly that.

You have a good evening Moot.



.


.
 
What you did was lie about the interview to prop up your political beliefs, which you yourself confirmed by your inability/refusal to substantiate what you said.

I could never embrace beliefs that forced me to disregard facts and lie in order to publicly validate them. That's a direct contradiction that amounts to "fooling yourself", which is something I simply can't fathom how anyone could do... yet here you are doing exactly that.

You have a good evening Moot.


.

All you're doing is flame baiting, Grim. Stop it.
 
Unchecked immigration is more about demographic change for political power. No one gives a rats ass if they work or don't work. They just have to vote for democrats.

The middle class is just collateral damage.

That's why Trump is so hated by progressives. The actuaries predicted that by 2050 the European white majority will be
the minority & Trump has put a monkey wrench into the liberal wet dream of a 'borderless world'

True I doubt there was any curb on immigration until the 1920's Reed-Johnson Act which limited the number of immigrants
allowed entry into the United States through a national origins quota. The quota provided immigration visas to two percent
of the total number of people of each nationality in the United States as of the 1890 national census.

It was at that time that German was the 2nd most spoken language in the country & when America had just surpassed
Great Britain as the most powerful economy in the world & the act of 1924 helped keep the USA on an even keel until
Lyndon Johnson & his partner in crime Ted Kennedy changed immigration policy in 1965.

Cumulative number of living non-native citizens 1860 Time of Civil War
Northern Europe 2,271,661
Ireland 1,611,304
Germany 1,276,075
Canada 249,970
France 109,870

Cumulative number of living non-native citizens 2000
Mexico 9,177,487
Caribbean 2,953,066
India 1,022,552
China 988,857
Africa 881,300

Today this country has become a hodge pod of peoples of every creed & color on earth,
diversity on steroids, united not any more, languages spoken:

1 English 231,122,908
2 Spanish 37,458,470
3 Chinese (Cantonese, Mandarin, 2,896,766
4 French and French Creole 2,047,467
5 Tagalog 1,613,346
6 Vietnamese 1,399,936
7 Korean 1,117,343
8 German 1,063,773
9 Arabic 924,374
10 Russian 879,434
11 Italian 708,966
12 Portuguese 693,469
13 Hindi 643,337
14 Polish 580,153
15 Japanese 449,475
16 Urdu 397,502
17 Persian 391,113
18 Gujarati 373,253
19 Greek 304,932
20 Bengali 257,740
21 Panjabi 253,740
22 Telugu 247,760
 
Back
Top Bottom