Conservatives...

More with the "but someone else lied too!!" nonsense.

The rule for elected officials should be simple, if you knowingly lie to the public you lose your job. No gray area and no bullshit.

You don't want to answer the question I asked Dixie, because you know the answer...the first one is nobody's business and the second one should be a crime.
 
You don't want to answer the question I asked Dixie, because you know the answer...the first one is nobody's business and the second one should be a crime.

The man lied to the public. Why is that ok with you? If he had made the claim that it was his personal life I would be fine with that. But he chose to lie instead.

And for you to berate someone else for not answering questions is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
 
The man lied to the public. Why is that ok with you? If he had made the claim that it was his personal life I would be fine with that. But he chose to lie instead.

And for you to berate someone else for not answering questions is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?

HELLO...is their even a pea inside your cranium? I ANSWER all questions.
 
Projecting again I see WB...

Hey, WB WHY didn't you answer my question???

"Why is it OK to get rich by making other people poor? You like to 'talk' about ethics, I guess that is just bullshit."

First you would have to show me where I said anything about it being ok to get rich by making people poor.

And I laughed because you claimed to answer all questions, but didn't answer the question in the previous post. Nor did you answer SF's question. Nor have you answered numerous questions asked of you.
 
If you can't comprehend, that is your problem WB. I have answered every question. Again, you can't comprehend.

Why is it OK to get rich by making other people poor? You like to 'talk' about ethics, I guess that is just bullshit.

Who here said it was ok to get rich by making other people poor?
 
Who here said it was ok to get rich by making other people poor?

You dismissed it, didn't you WB? You prefer to blame the victim. EVERY dirty energy corporation is getting rich by making other people poor. Not only poor, but sick and dead.
 
First you would have to show me where I said anything about it being ok to get rich by making people poor.

And I laughed because you claimed to answer all questions, but didn't answer the question in the previous post. Nor did you answer SF's question. Nor have you answered numerous questions asked of you.

I did answer SF's question about slander. You are such an anal retentive authoritarian type. You demand submission and yes/no answers. I won't play along, sorry.
 
You dismissed it, didn't you WB? You prefer to blame the victim. EVERY dirty energy corporation is getting rich by making other people poor. Not only poor, but sick and dead.

I dismissed the idea that the poor are that way thru no fault of their own. More often than not, it is about bad choices, not some oppressive corporation.

Exactly what are you calling "dirty energy corporations"?

And as for your answering all questions, you never answered SF when he asked what was slanderous in what he said.
 
I did answer SF's question about slander. You are such an anal retentive authoritarian type. You demand submission and yes/no answers. I won't play along, sorry.

You accused him of making slanderous remarks. SF asked you what remarks were slanderous and why. The fact that you spouted nonsense does not mean you answered the question.
 
You accused him of making slanderous remarks. SF asked you what remarks were slanderous and why. The fact that you spouted nonsense does not mean you answered the question.

It was clearly SF's intent was to smear the Kennedy family. Are you saying you're oblivious to that fact WB?
 
It was clearly SF's intent was to smear the Kennedy family. Are you saying you're oblivious to that fact WB?

It was his intent to prevent you from claiming they were saints, but that was not the question.

You accused him of making slanderous remarks. Are you now saying they were not "slanderous"?


Also, in the "America the Beautiful" thread, you said "BTW...NEVER Yurt. You right wing Monica Lewinskys for corporations NEVER call out polluters or dirty energy cartels. NEVER....". I asked who you were talking to or about on that. And you conveniently never answered.
 
I dismissed the idea that the poor are that way thru no fault of their own. More often than not, it is about bad choices, not some oppressive corporation.

Exactly what are you calling "dirty energy corporations"?

And as for your answering all questions, you never answered SF when he asked what was slanderous in what he said.

Here's your problem, you are using 'poor' as a class of people. I am using 'poor' as a consequence of malfeasance.
 
Here's your problem, you are using 'poor' as a class of people. I am using 'poor' as a consequence of malfeasance.

I am using "poor" as an economic condition, nothing more and nothing less.

"Poor" means they have no money.


So your definition of "poor" is being broke as a result of malfeasance?? So someone who is broke because of their own actions are not poor?
 
It was his intent to prevent you from claiming they were saints, but that was not the question.

You accused him of making slanderous remarks. Are you now saying they were not "slanderous"?


Also, in the "America the Beautiful" thread, you said "BTW...NEVER Yurt. You right wing Monica Lewinskys for corporations NEVER call out polluters or dirty energy cartels. NEVER....". I asked who you were talking to or about on that. And you conveniently never answered.

I never said the Kennedys were saints. Again, you are projecting or misrepresenting what I said. Do you deny SF was trying to smear the Kennedy family?

I stick by my NEVER...I would be thrilled if you or any of you right wing Monica's for the elite prove me wrong.
 
I never said the Kennedys were saints. Again, you are projecting or misrepresenting what I said. Do you deny SF was trying to smear the Kennedy family?

You are dancing around the topic. Let me try and ask it again: You accused SF of making "slanderous remarks". What exactly was "slanderous"?

I stick by my NEVER...I would be thrilled if you or any of you right wing Monica's for the elite prove me wrong.

Nice answer. Its a pity it isn't an answer to the question I asked. I asked who you were aiming that remark at?
 
I am using "poor" as an economic condition, nothing more and nothing less.

"Poor" means they have no money.


So your definition of "poor" is being broke as a result of malfeasance?? So someone who is broke because of their own actions are not poor?

I am not talking about people who 'are' broke, I am talking about people being made poorer money wise or poorer health wise.

Example. Here is what we know about fine particle pollution from coal burning power plants...

Fine particle pollution:

* causes premature death in people with heart and lung disease, accounting for more deaths in the U.S. each year than either drunk driving or homicide (23,600);

* triggers thousands of heart attacks each year;

* worsens respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, triggering over 20,000 asthma attacks per year in Indiana;

* increases hospital admissions, emergency room visits and clinic visits for respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases;

* causes lung function changes, especially in children and people living with lung diseases such as asthma;

* causes changes in heart rate variability and irregular heartbeat;

* is associated with the development of chronic respiratory disease in children.

The dirty energy corporations pays none of the cost incurred by people and families who suffer the consequences of fine particle pollution. They continue to increase their profits by externalizing their costs. They are getting rich, by making other people poor.
 
I am not talking about people who 'are' broke, I am talking about people being made poorer money wise or poorer health wise.

Example. Here is what we know about fine particle pollution from coal burning power plants...

Fine particle pollution:

* causes premature death in people with heart and lung disease, accounting for more deaths in the U.S. each year than either drunk driving or homicide (23,600);

* triggers thousands of heart attacks each year;

* worsens respiratory symptoms such as coughing, wheezing, and shortness of breath, triggering over 20,000 asthma attacks per year in Indiana;

* increases hospital admissions, emergency room visits and clinic visits for respiratory diseases and cardiovascular diseases;

* causes lung function changes, especially in children and people living with lung diseases such as asthma;

* causes changes in heart rate variability and irregular heartbeat;

* is associated with the development of chronic respiratory disease in children.

The dirty energy corporations pays none of the cost incurred by people and families who suffer the consequences of fine particle pollution. They continue to increase their profits by externalizing their costs. They are getting rich, by making other people poor.

So when you talk about "dirty energy corporations" and people who "get rich by making other people poor", you are referring to coal companies and their customers?
 
So when you talk about "dirty energy corporations" and people who "get rich by making other people poor", you are referring to coal companies and their customers?

It is an example of what I mean. Is it possible you could take that example and expand on it, or do you need me to do that for you too?
 
Back
Top