Occupy organizer calls for guaranteed income: Cost of poverty greater than eliminating it

[Tearloch7]

You are being trolled .. another form of anarchy .. sort of like debating a T-party member who depends on SS and Medicare, but 'whines' about all them Government hand-outs .. there be no winning ..

[Mr. Ambien]

Let's just put it this way, he's going far out of his way to ask dumb questions because facing up to the fact that he has many choices requires introspective reasoning that many like him refuse to utilize. That's the only way to maintain the logic that one really has only two choices.

[freebuddy]

What if somebody asks you a reasonable question and you dodge it with ridiculous comparables?

I think we know the answer: When the going gets tough, the tough get going...to Canada, and complain remotely how bad American politics are.

[Hugor Hill]

What you typed:

Let's just put it this way, he's going far out of his way to ask dumb questions because facing up to the fact that he has many choices requires introspective reasoning that many like him refuse to utilize. That's the only way to maintain the logic that one really has only two choices.

What you are actually saying:

I don't really have a credible counter argument so I'm just going to type something that sounds deep but is really meaningless so hopefully I can get out of the debate on a high and might even fool a few people into thinking I know what I'm talking about.

[Mr. Ambien]

What you typed:

What you are actually saying:

Wrong. It's clear what his tactic is, if you've read his posts, you'd understand why he's trying to find the extremely few circumstances where there's limited choices, which is a dramatic escape from the argument being made, which includes federal and state level governments, where there are myriads of choices. There's a reason why someone shouldn't simply answer stupid questions like that, but clearly this is too much thinking for you.

[freebuddy]

What you are actually saying:

Correct!

[freebuddy]

Wrong. It's clear what his tactic is, if you've read his posts, you'd understand why he's trying to find the extremely few circumstances where there's limited choices, which is a dramatic escape from the argument being made, which includes federal and state level governments, where there are myriads of choices. There's a reason why someone shouldn't simply answer stupid questions like that, but clearly this is too much thinking for you.

Not at all. You brought the subject up, and I merely pointed out that in a lot of elections, there's only 2 parties running, sometimes only 1 if the office is unopposed.

[Mr. Ambien]

Not at all. You brought the subject up, and I merely pointed out that in a lot of elections, there's only 2 parties running, sometimes only 1 if the office is unopposed.

Here's an example of the third parties alone from the 2012 election (and the ballot cut off write-ins):

Here's an example of the Gray Davis Recall/gubernatorial election in California:

While you may have more of a point with "local" elections, we weren't at all talking about those.. so justify your "only two parties" comment. Which US Senate, US House, US President elections were there only "two choices", and I'm not even counting the myriad of other choices within the two main parties either besides the most popular candidate.

Once we get past your clearly laughable assertion, we can then get to why people blatantly ignore all those other choices. But I fully expect you to keep playing your questions game while dodging the point being made.

[freebuddy]

Here's an example of the third parties alone from the 2012 election (and the ballot cut off write-ins):

Here's an example of the Gray Davis Recall/gubernatorial election in California:

While you may have more of a point with "local" elections, we weren't at all talking about those.. so justify your "only two parties" comment. Which US Senate, US House, US President elections were there only "two choices", and I'm not even counting the myriad of other choices within the two main parties either besides the most popular candidate.

Once we get past your clearly laughable assertion, we can then get to why people blatantly ignore all those other choices. But I fully expect you to keep playing your questions game while dodging the point being made.

When I said across the board, that means ALL elections, that's what I was discussing and for which you had no answer for, but then you think OWS was "absorbed" by the Democrats, which is hilarious.