[W:83]I'm Allowed to Rob You!

[TU Curmudgeon]

They have to convince everyone that both parties are exactly the same.

Sports fans do the same thing.

The "Republicans" (whatever that means) and thee "Democrats" (whatever that means) are NOT "exactly the same".

One is

"The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"
​

and the other is

"The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"
​

and the vast difference between the two is obvious.

 

[danielpalos]

I suppose that it is "factually correct" to say that when "Meaningless Term A" is always used in conjunction with "Meaningless Term B" both "Meaningless Term A" and "Meaningless Term B" are "all in context".



You probably didn't notice it, but I HAVE asked you (repeatedly) to provide your definitions for your self-invented terms.

When a person IS asked to define a term, and when that request has been repeated several times, and then the person who HAS BEEN asked to define the term is told that they have failed to ask for a definition, the questioner is tempted to conclude that the person who WAS asked is either:

1. delusional;
   *
2. babbling;
   *
3. suffering from a massive short term memory deficit;
   *
4. confabulating;
   *
5. lying;
   *
6. intellectually dishonest;
   *
7. mentally unbalanced;
   *
8. unable to think rationally;
   *
   or
   *
9. a combination of two or more of the above.

When a person advances as a "justification" of their position ("Statement A") that "Those who chose not to work SHOULD BE paid." an authority that states ("Statement B") "Those who chose not to work SHOULD NOT BE paid.", another person reading those statements would be tempted to conclude that anyone who would believe that actually constituted a "justification" would fall into the same category as someone who, after being repeatedly asked to define some self-invented term accuses the person who has been asking them to define those self-invented terms of ever having asked what those self-invented terms mean.

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law. Only illegals do that. Employment is at the will of either party for any benefits administered by a State agency.

Why do You care if the poor work or not? If You have to care about the Poor then then Poor have to care about the Rich who may have difficulty getting into Heaven under Capitalism.

 

[CaughtInThe]

The "Republicans" (whatever that means) and thee "Democrats" (whatever that means) are NOT "exactly the same".

One is

"The MORE Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"
​

and the other is

"The LESS Reactionary Wing of the American Oligarchic Capitalist Party"
​

and the vast difference between the two is obvious.

yes. of course. there is only one difference in the two parties and it's what you want it to be.

makes complete sense.

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

lol. There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

Indeed, there is absolutely none in my posts.

To be technically correct, there is none in your posts as the "appeal" set out in the "logic" of your posts is not limited to "law".

Only illegals do that.

Really? Would you please provide a coherent and rational definition (in grammatically correct English devoid of self-defined terms (the definition of which you don't choose to share) of the term "illegals"?

Employment is at the will of either party for any benefits administered by a State agency.

If one reads ONLY "Employment is at the will of either party" your sentence makes sense (and is also trite). Unfortunately the additional words deprive that sentence of any discernible meaning since there is no logical connection between the two halves.

Why do You care if the poor work or not? If You have to care about the Poor then then Poor have to care about the Rich who may have difficulty getting into Heaven under Capitalism.[/QUOTE]

 

[TU Curmudgeon]

yes. of course. there is only one difference in the two parties and it's what you want it to be.

makes complete sense.

Your "... and it's what you want it to be." would imply that if I were to describe a Crow as a "black bird" and a Swan as a "white bird" then you would have to assume that that is a difference that I wanted to exist.

I can scarcely credit that you believe that I have such power and control over reality.