Sam, you do yourself a disservice by putting yourself in the same vein of political thinking as Scott. You're able to forward a cohesive argument and address points with a tone and structure appropriate for discussion. I disagree with you that we're regressing toward a state of feudalism, because freedom is an inclusive and complex concept that evolves with a rapidly changing society, and as we become less free in some ways, we become more free in others. Some change is bad, some is good. We tend to make the mistake of putting our rose colored glasses on when we look at all that was right with this country back in the day. I can agree or disagree with you on any myriad number of points, but in doing so that discussion would be mutually respectful.

Scott, on the other hand, is a blithering idiot and liar who has no qualms about ignoring evidence, failing to supply evidence, taking things out of context, and directly contradicting his prior claims. He has no backbone, and will say whatever he needs to say to feel/look good.

In short, he is a liar.

I don't get the impression you're cut from that mold.

For the third or fourth time, what evidence have you ever provided. I am looking at every single on of your posts and it is all talking points from your drone establishment or opinions. Where are your precious facts.

On the other hand, you can clearly see where I put evidence forward, but your bias and anger skews your perception.

FYI, just because I point out that you are a mindless drone doesn't make you right : ) fluff off kid, go suck a republican or democratic fluff, doesn't matter because they are the same fluff.

No class.

I guess being a gentleman is about as tall an order for you as, well, telling the truth.

Anyway, the garbage you inject into every one of your posts aside, you linked to an article discussing Sanger's support of eugenics. That is evidence that you can Google search two terms in one field: Sanger, and Eugenics. It doesn't do a thing to further your argument that Clinton supports eugenics. Keep twisting that truth, liar.

Also, why is it that you can be pretty well relied upon to respond within mere minutes of each of my posts, when I'm able to swing by here just about once a day?

I'm kind of curious to see if you keep that pace up over Memorial Day weekend, quick draw. I'd like to know if you really are using the work computer to spam AT instead of actually working, or if you've simply got nothing better to do with your time in general.

I guess, hey, if it makes you feel good Scott. Whatever fills the hole.

sadf

Show me where I ever lied. Please do (perhaps it is you who does not understand how evidence works, all I see are your retarded opinions).

Nice job only reading half my comment about Mrs Clinton supporting eugenics. Let me break it down Barney style for you.

Mrs Clinton said I admire Sanger. This was evidenced by the fact she was recorded saying it and I showed evidence of that via YouTube. Sanger is MOST known for starting the eugenics movement (especially within the black community). This was also evidenced by a Washington post reference, but you can google her biography (if you can read, clearly you cannot).

Let's make this easier on you Clinton>>Sanger>>Eugenics

[/quote]


As for me not being a gentleman, you are merely a fluff without a backbone.


Your bias is showing once again with you enfatuation with carry out your masters wishes (think slave, because you are! A slave to your party master).





Do you own a cell phone? They are pretty nifty, you should try it! Does a work cell count as a work computer? Does that make you mad? I would figure you have 4-5 Obama phones by now because you are a leach on society.



True

Just because a person admires someone does not mean they agree with every single thing the other person agrees with, nor even means they have any of the same philosophies and ideas.

For example I admire Trump .. however I would never vote for Trump as Pres of the US. There are also many multitude of ideas and ways that Trump thinks that I do not concur with. I have also been known to admire and even respect my enemies as well. Once again that does equate to same thing nor provide proof that I agreed with them.


I would technically refer to it more as Slander than lying. But anyway, you keep stating that Hilary is eugenics supporter without providing any factual proof of such. Unless for some odd reason I was not aware of, Hillary has changed her name to Margaret.

I am glad you pointed out that I dropped no facts. If you look at my earlier post you would see the video of Clinton saying she admired Sanger. I thought people would actually watch it before opening their suck, but I guess not... Unfortunately for you she elaborated on why she admired Sanger---> courage, Tenacity, VISION... In Margaret's own words, her vision described eugenics.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=r4o4WizW2mQ

Fortunately for you, many of us don't support eugenics like Clinton.

Also, the libertarian party has been growing every year. I actually need to thank trump once he was clear to get the nomination. We saw a huge spike in membership. This election hopefully will clear some ballot access issues for us as a party in all the states. Oklahoma has the biggest hurdles for third parties to even get on the ballot.


Anyway, change the system vote libertarian. If you are in a non swing state your vote really does not matter; however, you can make it matter. Vote against the system, let's shake things up.

Yes, I think this might be a watershed year for the libertarian ticket Red. Both candidates' unfavorable ratings are so high, people are being driven to vote libertarian. But the cause in itself belies the transience of the effect - history shows us that while third parties enjoy their time in the sun when the circumstances are sufficiently progenerate, for one reason or another (and I don't know why this is so), their viability recedes and we default to the binary status quo.

But I hope that your hope is well founded. Maybe this will be the cycle to defy hundreds of years of two party process. I want voters to have more choices, and choose with diligently applied reason toward the goal of effecting positive change in the long term. I want people to see far down the road and meta-analyze the voting process itself to build a more inclusive and substantive debate.

The sad reality, however, is that attention spans are waning. Immediate gratification is not just the norm in the news cycle, it's the norm by which people selectively choose and internalize information to confirm presupposed interpretations. Absent a critical and sustainable mass of voters willing to vote for a third party over many cycles, the exigencies of the present require us to vote pragmatically. How do we cross that threshold? I don't know. What I do know is that people like Scott abound. While we deal in soundbites as a result of these turds, our political process can never mature.

I had a girlfriend in college tell me regarding her abusive father: "You can't reason with crazy."

It's very, very tempting to try to use logic with these people. Logic is no antidote. A carefully reasoned argument against their slander will be partly ignored and in other part misquoted out of context. The only answer? Ignore them. They thrive on the attention. They use their employer's cell phones to obsessively check AT for any opportunity to get it.

If they weren't so easy and entertaining to fluff around with, they might go away.

Still avoiding proving facts for the 6th time? It must be hard to be that stupid.

*posted from company paid cell phone- dat make u mad?

Equating Clinton's stated admiration of Margaret Sanger with support for eugenics is either something grabbed off a crazy uncle's chain email, a deliberate attempt to deceive, or just ignorant buffoonery.

First you need to put this into historical context and to do that you can do some basic effin research w/out crying tl:dr
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics

Then you need to do some research on Margaret Sanger and you'll find that her 'vision' was to give women information about, and make available, birth control to women during a time in which it was illegal to do so in America, under archaic obscenity laws such as the federal Comstock law and many other state laws.
You know, like back in the time when it was widely considered a man's right to take his wife at his whim and she had no right to say NO. Sanger realized that no woman could truly have freedom unless she had the ability to prevent unwanted pregnancies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margaret_Sanger

Her views on eugenics were complex, never racial, and rather mild for the prevailing views of the time.
http://rewire.news/...ploads/2015/08/Sanger.pdf

After a bit more education on the subject you will realize that calling Hillary Clinton a supporter of eugenics because of her admiration for Margaret Sanger is as ridiculous as calling anyone who has respect and admiration for George Washington or Thomas Jefferson or Ben Franklin a fire-eater, or pro-slavery.

I'm no Hillary fan but jeebus cripes try to stop this convulsive vomiting of bullfluff.

I did my research thank you very much. Nice to see you ate up Clintns excuses after she realized what she had admitted.

Also, your definition f her vision contradicts her own words... I love when people try to rewrite history :)~
http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

From your own link:

Her goal in life:
Sanger admitted her entire life's purpose was to promote birth control. An Autobiography, p. 194

Cherry picking... Birth control to control the types of individuals in society...


"human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Margaret Sanger, Pivot of Civilization, referring to immigrants and poor people"



On the purpose of birth control:
The purpose in promoting birth control was "to create a race of thoroughbreds," she wrote in the Birth Control Review, Nov. 1921 (p. 2)


Context is a fluff

Context is a fluff? Then you must trash anyone that admires Washington, Jefferson or Franklin as well, eh? Slimey slave owners, all three of them, eh? Because context is a fluff

I can't make you read this

https://sangerpapers.wordpress.com/...and-the-eugenics-movement

Sanger stressed that people should reproduce only when they were mentally and economically fit to do so. Sanger’s main goal was to help people who did not want children. For many, poverty and ill health made it much more difficult to have and care for children. She sought to provide information and access to contraceptives for those individuals, but the impetus generally came from the patient. Since a majority of those unable to afford children were lower class people, including African Americans, people assume she was racist; however, this applied to ANYONE unable to mentally, physically, and economically support their children, and wanted birth control knowledge.

Sanger disagreed with many in the American Eugenics movement who wanted “racially fit mothers” to reproduce as much as possible. As stated above, Sanger felt that women should have the choice to decide to procreate. Though she did not support sterilization based on race, she did agree with the Eugenics movement that people who were not mentally competent to make reproductive decisions, e.g. “morons,” (given the terminology commonly used at the time), should be sterilized. This was also a concept supported by various religious groups and even President Roosevelt..

you would be a better person taking Hawkster's observation to heart:


Some horses are really crazy. They insist on wearing blinders and can be standing on the shore of a calm lake and will die of dehydration.

Jefferson, Franklin, and Washington's sole purpose in life was not to own slaves. Again, context goes right over your head and you are merely repeating the talking points of your democrat master.

FYI she also thought killing a child post birth was acceptable as well... So keep spinning

Still wrong.

I do not waste my bandwidth on watching youtube crud. However I did read what you said as well as have read many news articles on exactly what Hilary said in regards to Margaret.

Once again you still have not provided any actual proof, just some mere allusion and YOUR interpretation of what someone else meant. An employer quite often will commend by using term vision. An employers use of that term will almost certainly be different than that actual persons. But w/e, you can keep trying to draw lines between things all day long, you apparently dont know what actual proof really means. Hell anyone can do that with anything.

I love how ZoSo takes the time to offer a well versed and well researched rebuttal of Scott's slander, only for Scott to ignore the entire thing and post a one line epithet.

I guess all well reasoned positions are just part of the vast conspiracy against the right.

theytukkerjerbs

I am glad you read and are told what to think drone. The YouTube video is merely Clinton speaking. No spin.

I guess thinking is not your thing.

I love how you have yet to show me any evidence of anything you have claimed. Keep drinking the kool-aid kid.

If you are referencing the South Park about taking jobs, why would you bash your own republican/democrat party? I believe in no borders and the best man for the job with no protectionism policy... As for you, not so much. Good job Tard.

I do enjoy DT because of how mad he make you folks, even though holds 99% of the same positions as you retards.


***posted from a work phone, HA! Guess you wouldn't grasp the concept of being salaried.

Gary Johnson / Bill Weld 2016

Open borders is a fantastic idea, abolishing the IRS 8s fantastic as well.

Scott reminds me of a raccoon backed into a corner :)

yall be cray cray.

vote kang, 2016.

Don't forget the Federal Reserve!

Says the little kid demanding evidence yet has posted none himself.

Don't you have a hillary/sanders meeting to attend? I am pretty sure all they do is fluff in your mouth, yet you oddly like it.

Have some class.

You've been so thoroughly rebutted in this thread that it's embarrassing. The only reason you're still posting here is anger and embarrassment at having been outed as a manipulator and crackpot.

Drumph= Just NO

Rebutted, excuse me? You mean you tards didnt even read any evidence presented. How is it my fault you are retarded and blindly follow people for free fluff?

Manipulator, no... I presents solid evidence where you are your little gang just circle jerked on each other.

Hopefully you follow through with Clintons wishes and get sterilized before any more of the human gene pool is contaminated.

Then who, and why?

My work here is done. You have sufficiently exposed yourself as a fraud. You are incapable of patient, well reasoned, fact based discussion, and it has been amply demonstrated that you ignore material as necessary for reasons that I must assume are more willful manipulation than crackpot ignorance.

I hope that old age will one day temper your hate.

Lol - says the kid whom presented ZERO evidence to the contrary. Please show me where I ignored any evidence presented by you on your circle jerk partners... That was actual evidence to the level which you demanded(your bias and anger got the best of you:)~ )

It's ok, you won't find it. You and zero can get back to eating each other's truffle butter.

So does this mean your paraphrased quote "Unfortunately for you she elaborated on why she admired Sanger---> courage, Tenacity, VISION..." had spin to it? Obviously it does since it was not direct actual quote and you attempted to take it out of context. Also news articles (even ones on the web) normally have video with them. I HAVE already heard exactly what Hilary said with no spin, just her own words. So whom is the one not thinking now.

Besides there is no need for me to think when you have not actually provided shred of proof to even consider.

Nobody has proven fluff here. The only undisputed fact is hillary clinton is a pile of fluff. Along with every politician. Its like you all regurgitate simple fluff then twist it until one of yous is angry. Then one claims victory and calls the other a fraud for name calling. Its all double talking bullfluff. Just make your points, back them up or do not, then call eachother names until one tattles to the mods. Thats how ee works. The display above is a cluster fluff embarrassment for all sides. More name calling please and thanks.

Sure I have, but I have no control over the fact that 7 year olds with Down syndrome process more logic and reasoning ability than you.


Keep on reporting to your political master!

Nope Heston, it doesn't work that way. You don't get to swing in, denounce everyone, and play the impartial man. Scott claimed Clinton supports eugenics. His claims and the two links he has clung to as his sole attempt to justify those claims were then thoroughly discredited by multiple respondents. He has reacted by dodging questions, twisting the truth, and crassly flaming each and every person who has refuted him. His posts are a prime example of why liars like him are destroying productive political forum in this country. I have always fought for truth in my life, and I never shy away from calling out a proven liar when I see one.

We each have a responsibility to fight against deception, malice, and ignorance. I think that's naturally why you've seen so many posters refute Scott in this thread.

Stand by - Heston will be by to fire-for-effect.

"I have always fought for truth in my life, and I never shy away from calling out a proven liar when I see one." show me evidence - you cant. You and your your circle jerk are trying to smear for political gain. You have no evidence, go away kid. Sucks you were born retarded, but it was the hand you were dealt. At least no one will judge you for gluing macaroni to construction paper.

Only person dodging evidence is you - you have yet to provide any even though you claimed you only deal with facts and evidence. All i see is your crying.

Pfft, Hillary is not my political master. She is a conniving, power hungry, liar whom I would never vote for if she was last person on earth. Sadly that means I would vote for Trump before her, thankfully there are other choices or even write in if I were to vote.

Just because when ever I hear someone spouting BS and I call them out on it, does not mean I support the opposite of w/e BS is being said. You certainly like to draw lines between 2 points mighty quickly with no basis in fact. Is everything just black and white to you?

I'm not going to read the rest of this thread, so take what I say with that in mind.

It is proven that Hillary Clinton used a private email server in contravention of the law and President Obama's executive directive. It is proven that Hillary Clinton was involved in telling the American people one thing about Benghazi while telling her own daughter something different.

On the other side, it is proven that several Trump related companies have used bankruptcy laws to protect and enrich his position. It is proven that he has played the political-economic game from the big money business side of it.

Right now, the choice is between a criminal (regardless of what the Justice Department may or may not say) and a braggart. That's my opinion right now.

https://garyjohnson2016.com/

You didn't make a convincing argument - at all. The three of you just circle jerked. The bais of facts were there and you didnt even look at them before running your suck.

LOL, the only fact you have provided is that Margaret might be supporter and that Hillary has her employed and stated she admires Margaret. But this debate isnt about IF Margaret is supporter or not, it is about IF Hillary is.

So where are all these facts you supposedly provided about HILLARY that needs to be looked at? Show me one example of Hillary saying she supports it or even one example of her attempting to pass laws in support of it. Or heck I would even settle for one example of Hillary donating to organization or company that has verifiable claims to be supporters. Why do keep expecting everyone here to provide facts to contradict what you have said when you have not shown any facts at all other than just simply your opinion I will never understand.

But than I noticed you ignored my last question so dont really expect to get any real substance from you other than more BS.

I understand you are slow - look up. You clearly are part of the reason this country is fluffed. You only read what you are fed by the talking heads of the two political parties.

Also - a vote for Hillary or Trump is the same vote : ) They are virtually identical.

When you guys start actually holding your self to the same standard, I will start anwering your questions. Your pals avoid providing any substance and I plan to do the same because you guys are too retarded to actual read, use your god given ability to apply reason and logic... Go play in traffic.

Thats what i did though. Kinda like you running your mouth just to bump turtle heads with scott over the great liar and fraud hillary clinton. Its not to defend hillary, its to try to fluff with scott. It makes you look like a wanna be intellectual fluff tard truther throwing fluff at the wall to see what will piss him off to make you look smarter.

Calling me a liar, fraud, etc without any substance hasn't even pissed me off. It has pointed out that he is a desperate loser that lacks anything resembling a backbone, intelligence, or ability to apply reasoning to a level I would expect from a 3-4 year old child.

I am starting to think this is one of Celpi's Alts. In that case...

#WhiteLivesMatter

If marshal trolled using more than a sentence, what you would have is rook. The overall argument here is as action packed as two butch sloths scissoring. I understand the want to change things up and have some actual discussions.. But gawd damn this is lame. Its like talking to cyref on the phone........
NO U
NO U
NO U R
NO U
NO U R

lol, ya got me. I'm marshall.

I don't try to sound smart. I just make the points that need to be made. I value truth and reason.

I understand truth and reason offend a lot of people. Like I've said, I have fought hard in my life for what is right. Those people who can't find it within themselves to make the difficult choice to be honest and direct in spite of their egos do not deserve respect.

Just saying you fight truth and reason a fluffload really doesnt equate to a fluffing thing. (Like most of my posts) Hillary clinton and bernie say that fluff over and over. Its an asexual progressive meaningless blanket statement. I almost wish i was as jaded.

Ok, if you value truth and honestly, you should start with your posts which are full of opinions, not facts or truth. Clearly you were lieing when you called me a fraud and liar because you have zero evidence, that you have provided, to prove such.

Go suck a donkey fluff, probably closer to your real set of values than your unsupported oppinions.

Take your social justice warrior bullfluff elsewhere. Try to get laid from time to time, it will make you less of a whiny fluff. While you are at it, do society a favor and go hand out with Whitney.

this