I didn't say you did, you do need to show how giving the poor temporary food assistance is "repressive" to the poor.
You have failed to show that I don't.
For like the fourth time you have failed to support your argument.
Swell.
I have no interest in doing so.
Probably because I'm not arguing. I'm stating. You haven't given me anything to argue about except buzz words. That's not an argument or even a basis of a misunderstanding - that's just you emotively screaming at your keyboard.
Then why did you bring it up? FFS!
The derailing was your hypocritical off topic bs....and even now when on topic, you can't defend your position about the repression of the poor by temporary food assistance.
Uh, you are stating YOUR argument that temporary assistance is repressive to the poor......but you cannot come up with anything to back the argument.
If all you can do is to argue about adjectives describing your pathetic argument.... while being unable to defend a political belief......well there you are.
No, what you need to do is to defend the reich-wing screed that "temporary food assistance is repressive for the poor".
You brought up the buzz words. Did you forget?
Nothing to defend.
Oh you want links? Sure... have at it.
If you'd provide a post that's worth debating, I'd be happy to oblige.
I'm not arguing. You seem to with yourself though.
You are so confused.....you were upset that I showed your hypocrisy in coming to a thread, spouting off topic nonsense about another posters comment......when you had reported me for doing so less than a month ago.
Nothing to defend? Then why in the following response are you posting links to defend your argument? Is your right hand unaware of what your left hand is doing?
No, I did not ask for links on "dependency" (especially not opinion from G Will or decades old articles from the NYT), I asked you to show how your argument that "temp food assistance to the poor is repressive for the poor"
There you go again, first you say you have nothing to defend, then you post links you think speak for you, then you say you don't have an argument...again.
You don't have the ability to remember 2 separate arguments.....or realize that you are participating in those argument.......while allowing yourself to be overwhelmed still by adjectives!
Nothing you say makes me upset - the direct opposite. I view your posts the same way I watch monkeys at a zoo pick bugs off each other and fling their poo.
In order to defend something I need a rational and logical thought in one of your posts.... I'm patiently waiting for that to happen one day.
Your answer is right in the links.
I figure I'll keep repeating it, hoping a pavlovian response will kick in on your part.
opcorn2:
LOL....anyone who spends their time doing that at the zoo REALLY needs something more in their life.
LOL....you need to rationalize YOUR OWN argument......which you tried by linking to opinion pieces.....but you cannot, in your own words say how they back your claim.
LOL.....so you think. To bad you can't state them.
The only thing that your jumping from contradiction to contradiction will do is to further show just how pathetic your argument is.
Uh, I know you are SERIOUSLY confused about what you have to defend, you don't have to keep proving it.
New word for you to learn: Metaphor.
I don't have an argument or a claim.
Those who use "LOL" a bunch of times in a row usually indicates they have lost and are going down in a ball of flames.
Once again, I am not arguing.
Actually, it might be an analogy, but you made the mistake of stating that you do in fact watch monkeys do everything you described at the zoo. Your out would have been to include the word "might"....but you didn't
I agree, your argument is so indefensible that it utterly fails.....making it a non-argument.
Or, in this case, it expresses the comedy of your total failure to defend your "point", your "argument".
I already agreed since it failed after you tried to defend it.
Why, do you need help understanding that term too?
I thought of using analogy and decided against it as too complex of a word to bring to you at this time.
There is no failure as I'm not arguing.
Which point would that be then?
There is no failure as there is no argument.
This is coming from the poster that insists " Temporary food assistance is repressive to the poor" is not an argument.
Again, I agree, you have abandoned your argument.....since it is indefensible. You tried by bringing opinion from George Will.....but since then you have given up.
The one you say you are not arguing.
Failure is to begin and then give up without success......which is what you have here on multiple levels.
Then you are unsure of the spelling?
I have no idea why you keep quoting me while failing to defend your " Temporary food assistance is repressive to the poor" argument.
| Moderator's Warning: |
 You two need to stop this. Stick to the topic, which is not each other. Which also goes for everyone else in the thread. Stop the baiting and personal comments. |
You don't have to assume anything, just go back and review what I wrote, then defend to hearts content your argument.....that is unless like others here, you cannot.