Nancy Caves

[Excon]

:laughat:

And once again, you have no idea what ideologies I hold. I have presented none. You are simply deflecting because you don't know what to do with your frustration. You are clearly wrong and stumbling about to legitimatize the government handout.

:lamo Wrong as usual.
Your ideology comes through in your arguments whether you want to believe that or not.

Certainly, there's a High School student in your neighborhood that you might ask for help:

You are projecting.

The guy who had a job yesterday, but not today, somehow doesn't qualify as different? Unemployment and welfare makes him a drag on society? Because you weren't in need, he should just work harder?

Wtf did you not understand about the current situation being different? Huh?
Now is about the nation.

This is why any discussion with you is pointless. You can't admit to reality and instead want to go off and make arguments that have not a damn thing to do with what was said.

Your argument about how a situation is not socialism, simply because they are different today for you, is absolutely retarded.

You are projecting again.

You are just one of the ones who want that assistance today, but whined about socialism yesterday, thus you seek to re-define the word so as to protect yourself from the clear hypocrisy.

:doh There you go making things up again.

 

[MSgt]

:laughat::lamo Wrong as usual.
Your ideology comes through in your arguments whether you want to believe that or not.

You are welcome to define them.

You are clearly the one with the busted ideologies about welfare and socialism, the free-market illusion, and the idea of private business being free from government interference. As has been proven time and again in history, all three are busts. Now, you have declared that "this is different" in regards to the government aid to citizens; and that "this is different" when it comes to government bail-outs to corporations. Both go right back to those busted ideologies that people of convenience cling to in order to define their politics.

Funny how in other times when these occurred, people also argued that "this is different." Depression? Too big to fail? Virus? None of this changes what the government act is.

Wtf did you not understand about the current situation being different? Huh?
Now is about the nation.

Whereas before there was just Americans? Is that what is different? Simply more people in need somehow changes what is occurring? You aren't making an argument. You are merely changing the rules for when socialism is acceptable, without wanting to declare it socialism, because that has become inconvenient for now.

This is why any discussion with you is pointless. You can't admit to reality and instead want to go off and make arguments that have not a damn thing to do with what was said.

Well, any discussion with me must first be rational and actually be based in reality. You are clearly not and have designed an alternate reality, one where you get to protect yourself from what is clear hypocrisy. Tax-paying Americans in need are tax-paying Americans in need, no matter what the times tell you. If it comes from government, it is socialism.

:doh There you go making things up again.

You are the one scared of the word. Declaring that this is different does not alter definitions. Yet, you think "reality" is where you argue from? Things were different after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, yet conservatives went on for decades complaining about socialism and "the left." Well, here we are. Same ****. Nation in need. Americans in need, as if Americans yesterday weren't in need. But people like you have a personal need to re-define the word in the temporary, don't you? Oh, because things are just different now. Realty also has an established definition.

* And by the way, when one starts dropping in emoticons and obtusely declaring that the other is wrong without even trying to make an argument of position, the frustration is very clear. Oh, but you did make an argument, huh? What was it? Oh yes, "things are different."

 

[Excon]

:laughat:

[SUP]You are welcome to define them.

You are clearly the one with the busted ideologies about welfare and socialism, the free-market illusion, and the idea of private business being free from government interference. As has been proven time and again in history, all three are busts. Now, you have declared that "this is different" in regards to the government aid to citizens; and that "this is different" when it comes to government bail-outs to corporations. Both go right back to those busted ideologies that people of convenience cling to in order to define their politics.

Funny how in other times when these occurred, people also argued that "this is different." Depression? Too big to fail? Virus? None of this changes what the government act is.



Whereas before there was just Americans? Is that what is different? Simply more people in need somehow changes what is occurring? You aren't making an argument. You are merely changing the rules for when socialism is acceptable, without wanting to declare it socialism, because that has become inconvenient for now.



Well, any discussion with me must first be rational and actually be based in reality. You are clearly not and have designed an alternate reality, one where you get to protect yourself from what is clear hypocrisy. Tax-paying Americans in need are tax-paying Americans in need, no matter what the times tell you. If it comes from government, it is socialism.



You are the one scared of the word. Declaring that this is different does not alter definitions. Yet, you think "reality" is where you argue from? Things were different after the Stock Market Crash of 1929, yet conservatives went on for decades complaining about socialism and "the left." Well, here we are. Same ****. Nation in need. Americans in need, as if Americans yesterday weren't in need. But people like you have a personal need to re-define the word in the temporary, don't you? Oh, because things are just different now. Realty also has an established definition.

* And by the way, when one starts dropping in emoticons and obtusely declaring that the other is wrong without even trying to make an argument of position, the frustration is very clear. Oh, but you did make an argument, huh? What was it? Oh yes, "things are different."[/SUP]

Your lies, projection, making of things up and inability to see reality, makes any attempt to discuss anything with you pointless.

 

[Hamish Howl]

Still having trouble with reading? or understanding ?

Explain why I'm wrong.

 

[Atomic Kid]

I think you need to inform yourself better.

All the came across from your screed here is 'I don't like your facts so you are wrong'. :shrug:

Continue on.

No I think my post is dead on. You posted that same block of BS before and I took down it piece by piece by piece. Just like I'm doing to you now. As I recall, I challenged you then to find one Democrat who had denounced the President's travel restrictions on China and you couldn't up with one then and you still can't now. Instead all you have is same old lame irrelevant BS you posted before. Go ahead and prove me wrong. You know you can't.

 

[Bullseye]

No I think my post is dead on. You posted that same block of BS before and I took down it piece by piece by piece. Just like I'm doing to you now. As I recall, I challenged you then to find one Democrat who had denounced the President's travel restrictions on China and you couldn't up with one then and you still can't now. Instead all you have is same old lame irrelevant BS you posted before. Go ahead and prove me wrong. You know you can't.

One Democrat? This good enough?

 

[Metric Mouse]

No I think my post is dead on. You posted that same block of BS before and I took down it piece by piece by piece. Just like I'm doing to you now. As I recall, I challenged you then to find one Democrat who had denounced the President's travel restrictions on China and you couldn't up with one then and you still can't now. Instead all you have is same old lame irrelevant BS you posted before. Go ahead and prove me wrong. You know you can't.

“The United States and other countries around the world have put in place unprecedented travel restrictions in response to the virus,” said Democratic Rep. Eliot L. Engel. “These measures have not proven to improve public health outcomes, rather they tend to cause economic harm and to stoke racist and discriminatory responses to this epidemic.”

- Factcheck.org

Besides the diplomatic blowback, he said, the travel ban “probably doesn’t make sense,”

Rep. Ami Bera, Politico.

So at least two Democrats criticized the travel ban pretty directly in early February.

Not that Trump is as much of a victim as he claims, but he wasn't completely lying.

 

[Atomic Kid]

One Democrat? This good enough?

You seem to be stuck on the same kind of stupid.The article you posted doesn't mention China or the Coronavirus at all.

 

[Atomic Kid]

- Factcheck.org

Rep. Ami Bera, Politico.

So at least two Democrats criticized the travel ban pretty directly in early February.

Not that Trump is as much of a victim as he claims, but he wasn't completely lying.

Why did you not post an actual URL link to the factcheck.org article you are referencing? I'll tell you why because it says that no major or ranking Democratic leaders or candidates had criticized it save for a couple of obscure representatives.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Why did you not post an actual URL link to the factcheck.org article you are referencing? I'll tell you why because it says that no major or ranking Democratic leaders or candidates had criticized it save for a couple of obscure representatives.

So now some Democrats have indeed criticized the travel bans, but it's not important because they're "obscure"? Is the Chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee really "obscure"? Are those goalposts heavy?

I quoted the sources and gave you the references. You dismissed them as expected, but now you know that multiple Democrat representatives have indeed criticized Trumps China travel bans.

 

[MSgt]

:laughat:Your lies, projection, making of things up and inability to see reality, makes any attempt to discuss anything with you pointless.

So, you aren't going to define my ideology, in which you declare is obvious? Clearly it is not, and clearly I understand your ideology. You are an easy read. And it is because your ideologies are consistently proven to be broken and shallow that you can't have a discussion with anybody outside of your bubble. This is why like-minded people watch FOX News. It helps to reassure the illogical and unreasonable.

Still, with the idea that you get reality, despite persistent poor attempts to pervert it into something more comfortable for yourself? Are you one of the many now declaring unemployment, a government social program to offer aid? Are you just not working hard enough? Why should my tax dollars finance your life? Oh, but it's not socialism because "things are different" right now, right? Hard to call reality a lie unless your idea of it is skewed.

What a joke.

 

[Indie guy]

In the meantime, the Senate and WH are very close to finishing negotiations on a Senate bill.



Sorry Trump haters and liberals, I know this must chap your ass...but really, this is best for the American people.

Hold on a minute. You do realize that this massive trillion-dollar bill is highly liberal on a political and spending level, yes?

Perhaps think twice before you slam liberal policies because Trump and almost all so-called conservatives are in favor of this, which amounts to nothing more than a huge government handout.

 

[Mycroft]

Hold on a minute. You do realize that this massive trillion-dollar bill is highly liberal on a political and spending level, yes?

Perhaps think twice before you slam liberal policies because Trump and almost all so-called conservatives are in favor of this, which amounts to nothing more than a huge government handout.

Do you seriously think that liberals are the only people who are concerned for the welfare of Main Street USA?

In any case, it was Nancy who took advantage of broad bipartisan concern for the people and businesses of America to inject her own Dem liberal agenda items...and it was Nancy who got slapped around by public opinion...and it was Nancy who caved and walked back her callous attempt to further her agenda on the backs of suffering Americans.

To take your "liberal policies" and shove them...like Nancy was forced to do.

 

[Indie guy]

Do you seriously think that liberals are the only people who are concerned for the welfare of Main Street USA?

In any case, it was Nancy who took advantage of broad bipartisan concern for the people and businesses of America to inject her own Dem liberal agenda items...and it was Nancy who got slapped around by public opinion...and it was Nancy who caved and walked back her callous attempt to further her agenda on the backs of suffering Americans.

To take your "liberal policies" and shove them...like Nancy was forced to do.

Doesn't make any difference. A true fiscal conservative would normally reject any kind of massive government spending package like this. This bill is very liberal and you know it.

 

[Excon]

So, you aren't going to define my ideology, in which you declare is obvious? Clearly it is not, and clearly I understand your ideology. You are an easy read. And it is because your ideologies are consistently proven to be broken and shallow that you can't have a discussion with anybody outside of your bubble. This is why like-minded people watch FOX News. It helps to reassure the illogical and unreasonable.

Still, with the idea that you get reality, despite persistent poor attempts to pervert it into something more comfortable for yourself? Are you one of the many now declaring unemployment, a government social program to offer aid? Are you just not working hard enough? Why should my tax dollars finance your life? Oh, but it's not socialism because "things are different" right now, right? Hard to call reality a lie unless your idea of it is skewed.

What a joke.

Again.

Your lies, projection, making of things up and inability to see reality, makes any attempt to discuss anything with you pointless.​

Do you need me to say that again?