most people do, they just don't find your desired welfare-socialism to be proper. and people like you don't think a society without massive welfare is proper,.
Why don't you tell the board what causes your infatuation with my posts?
And again another example of turtle thinking up a really stupid way of doing socialism and then insisting that is the way it must be done. I am really not interested in your fear of socialism as it will probably be based on these kinds of idiotic observations.
Oh look. Another over-the-top, unsubstantiated claim in which one poster is attempting, and failing, to tell "others he doesn't know" what motivates them, and what and why they allegedly "hate.". Nuclear Irony meters exploding, Round 3 in this one thread alone.
Speaking of stupid. are you denying that socialist states have murdered millions? Why don't you just be honest in a few posts and tell us why you are constantly attacking the second amendment rights in a nation you don't count in
this is typical Logician Man posting. He whines about me talking about false motivations, but he never ever criticizes anyone arguing with me, even if they are constantly doing the things he complains that I do. why? because his issue is ME, not the topics of the posts
Crystal clear who is doing the "whining." Hint: It ain't me. I'm simply addressing 'your' words in 'your' posts 'you' wilfully, and of 'your' own accord, choose to put forth in this thread.
Short list. And it's more shock and disgust, as opposed to "infatuation." 1) The stupidity and controversy contained within some of those posts. 2) The "posted" desire to "starve" certain Americans, with no plan as to what to do with the children of those you desire to starve. 3) The desire to strip Americans of their right to vote, simply because those Americans "don't own land/property." 3) The fact you are on DP record as professing you "don't care if a 17 year old male briefly gropes a 15 year old teenage child against her will "as long as there is no physical harm." ( Still waiting for you to tell 'the board' what constitutes "physical harm" during a sexual assault in your world view ) 4) bragging about shooting another human being for whatever reasons. There are several other similar, outrageous wants, desires, wishes, and personal POVs you've "posted" about.. Would you like those presented also? You asked a fair question, you got a fair answer. So please try to keep the "whining" to a minimal for giving a direct response to a direct question. Now you won't have to ask that question again, as you received a fair and direct response to the question.. Happy?
Yeah and that dude in the video's wife needs a shelter.
you were infatuated with my posts-following me, long before I made the post that you misinterpreted about starving people. WE all know why the Kavanaugh issue caused you so much mental turmoil. You're obsessed
"Shocked and disgusted." Not "infatuated." That applies to 'some' other posters here at DP. Still having trouble with the written word, I see, as well as telling the board as to what you personally deem to be "physical harm" during a sexual assault you claim you "don't have a problem with." Why do you refuse to "tell the board" why you refuse to answer such a fair and simple question, considering you were a former prosecutor? There was no "misrepresenting" your "starving" post. You keep making the claim, but not 'once' have you even attempted to explain as to how your post was "misrepresented." Probably because you know I'll debunk that bullshit claim in short fashion also.
just stow the lies. there are plenty of posters who said the same thing when the lefties tried to undermine Kavanaugh with that nutty two door Ford. I am really happy that I seem to have caused you to essentially demonstrate some really whacko behavior
Just stow the dodges and deflections, which is clearly the only 'rebuttal' you have to defend those outrageous words you chose of your own accord to put forth on DP record. That you, again, choose to admit you derive pleasure from using your words to hurt "others' speaks volumes about your "character." " Many "others" have most certainly noticed your 'contributions' here at DP in that regard. And still, not 'one' example put forth by you to validate any "lies" were attributed to 'your' posted words on DP record, which pretty much settles the score as to who is actually "lying."
Well, please tell the board how I am going to tell you how much I "envy your money" you didn't hit a lick to personally earn yourself, your "boyish good looks", and that you were "almost an Olympian", if I don't "follow" your posts, using a feature DP provides for each and every member to use.
why were you following my posts Logician Man?Well, tell the board how I am going to tell you how much I "envy your money" you didn't hit a lick to personally earn, your "boyish good looks", and that you were "almost an Olympian", if I don't "follow" your posts, using a feature DP provides for each and every member to use.
You answer my question, I'll answer yours. I've answered your "Why don't you tell the board" question above, as is clearly visible for all to see. Now, if you man-up and "tell the board" as to what you, a self-professed, former, hot shot federal, highly intelligent, federal prosecutor deem to constitute "physical harm" during a sexual assault, I'll give another fair, honest, and direct response your question posed in this post. If you choose not to, don't expect an answer to your question(s). My educated guess is you will continue to keep running from answering that fair question.
Really? Present those posts in which "plenty of other posters said the same thing." ( that ain't gonna happen----guaranteed )
well since you want to revisit one of the most traumatic things you have experienced: the seating of Justice Kavanaugh again, let's do it. My comment was in reference to the bogus claims that a nutty perjurious witness made about Kavanaugh and I said I didn't care about her unsupported claims of being a 15 year old who was groped by a 17 year old when it comes to whether Kavanaugh was suited to be on the USSC
And here you are, still running from answering the question posed in post# 567 as to what, in your worldview, constitutes "physical harm" ( part of your post you conveniently failed to mention )during a sexual assault, which, by your own admission, is where you start "caring" about any given sexual assault perpetrated upon a defenseless female.
Well, my main argument is I don’t believe the state should have a monopoly on violence.
irrelevant, I explained my post-as I did to you at least three dozen times when it was relevant. we understand you fixate on ancient posts and hold what appear to be mentally suspect grudges over them. If you want to term the fraudulent charges against Kavanaugh as "sexual assault" so be it.
Hey, former Ivy League educated, former federal prosecutor. It's not "irrelevant." Just say you refuse to answer a fair question any prosecutor with an I.Q. above single digits should be able to answer definitively, as to what constitutes "physical harm" during a sexual assault. It's becoming more and more evident you either don't possess the intelligence to answer the fair question, or you just can't bring yourself to summon up the courage to answer such a fair, non-antagonistic question, or both.
there was no physical harm visited on the perjuring Two Door Ford. No one could confirm her story. Her story had dozens of contradictions. SO you are making lies up yet again. Intelligent people understand that. You, of all people, should not talk about answering fair questions or the intelligence of other posters
Stop hiding behind the Ford/Kavanaugh crap, TurtleDude. The question is a general question about "any given" sexual assault, perpetrated by "anyone". Now that you no longer have any valid excuse to dodge the fair and simple question, answer the question, or not. Your decision will speak for itself.