There was before you replied and edited it away. Are you familiar with the concept of reading?
lol
We don't need to educate voters as much as we need them to just get out an vote.
Let me guess: After you confirm a bunch of things I've written via your own comments, you'll still turn around at the end and make some sort of comment to the effect that I don't know what I'm talking about. ;-)
Hmnn. Well said.
Thank you, assuming you're being sincere.
VYAZMA translated: "Ouch."
Yeah-ouch! Let's get back to the Free-will thread. You can tell us all how god gave us the power of free-will to fight evil.
If I remember correctly, you were going to settle the issue once and for all with a handful or so of short and simple posts. I don't see why you'd need me to complicate your simple agenda by bringing God into it.
Right, confirming my point that educating voters is tough. Most are like you. They vote for the party and don't really care much about the facts. Give them studies and they'll lean toward Obama's 77-cent statistic.
Yeah you are bright. Educating people to vote Republican must be difficult.
How do you educate people to vote against their own interests?
That's a problem you'll have to worry about. The Republicans are having an image problem...
Must be because you guys suck at educating voters.(to vote against their own interests.)
The average Republican voter is better informed than the average liberal voter. Democrats have the advantage with a highly educated minority (some might call this an "elite") and among low-information voters. Republicans have the advantage in the in-between. Statistically, that suggests that a better informed electorate will favor Republican policies ... unless we go too far and give them multiple PhDs and grant them tenure, in which case they'll vote Democrat. ;-)
Why would I need proof of unfairness?
Because you claimed the Ledbetter Act was unfair. That's why. Did you have any proof?
Where did I say the Ledbetter Act was unfair? Do you have any proof?
No? That's what I thought.
You took the words right out of my mouth.
I said the Ledbetter law makes it possible to easily win civil lawsuits because of the way it sidesteps the statute of limitations. Are you the one I questioned about the statute of limitations? Did you skip the question?
You confirmed for me that you don't care whether the law is unfair, so long as it advances your liberal/leftist causes. So why do you need proof if you don't care? Answer: You need it for the sake of your interminable word games. Play on, Democrat voter.
If you make a claim it's nice to have proof. But you don't have to have it. You're OK.
It's nice that you occasionally grant me the free ride you regularly take advantage of yourself.
Logical extension: A law that makes it unfairly easy to sue over gender-based pay discrimination is good...
See right here. How do you prove your statement? I don't think it's unfair.
Given that you've claimed it's fair, I'd say the burden of proof rests on you to prove you've sincerely changed your mind. Prove it. What led you to change your mind, other than a sincere aspiration to see yourself as a successful gadfly?
Did you have any specific points you wanted to discuss Bryan?
I made my points. Did you find any specific points I made unreasonable?
Just point them out. You’re starting to digress into your normal attack/ and misquote mode.
It’s tiresome.
What points of mine didn’t you agree with?
Go ahead, I’ll be waiting.
Did you have any specific points you wanted to discuss Bryan?
Yes. I'm addressing President Obama's misleading rhetoric during his SOTU speech, and the associated problem of the uninformed voter. I'm discussing both those things.
I made my points. Did you find any specific points I made unreasonable?
Yes. Your points are off-topic. The diversionary nature of your points is unreasonable.
Just point them out. You're starting to digress into your normal attack/ and misquote mode.
I didn't misquote you, and it's appropriate to attack your arguments (at least those that are interesting enough to address when they're not off-topic).
Do you need evidence that you've been misquoted (see what I mean?)?
Given that you've claimed it's fair, I'd say the burden of proof rests on you to prove you've sincerely changed your mind. Prove it.
What are you claiming was my "change of mind" Bryan?
I'm waiting.
I quoted you (accurately) and linked the source document (your post). Try reading instead of waiting.
We're likely to get another example of the difficulty with informing people.
Given that you've claimed it's fair, I'd say the burden of proof rests on you to prove you've sincerely changed your mind. Prove it.
What are you claiming was my "change of mind" Bryan?
I'm waiting.
I quoted you (accurately) and linked the source document (your post). Try reading instead of waiting.
We're likely to get another example of the difficulty with informing people.
What did I change my mind about Bryan? You said I changed my mind about something.
What was it?
Yes. I'm addressing President Obama's misleading rhetoric during his SOTU speech, and the associated problem of the uninformed voter. I'm discussing both those things.
What are the associated problems of the uninformed voters?
That's on topic right? You just said that's what you are addressing.
I don't see any problems with so called "uninformed" voters.
Go ahead. Let's stay on your topic.
Please elucidate.
What did I change my mind about Bryan? You said I changed my mind about something.
What was it?
You refuse to read, eh?
I asked you a question based on the premise that the Ledbetter law would allow plaintiffs to win lawsuits against defendants who had done no wrong. I asked if you thought that was a good thing. You said yes, approving the unfair result in the service of your greater good.
Then you decided the law was fair.
And along the way you're avoiding the critical discussion of the use and purpose of the statute of limitations.
Twist in the wind, VYAZMA. You're an ongoing proof of the difficulty of informing people about stuff.
I asked you a question based on the premise that the Ledbetter law would allow plaintiffs to win lawsuits against defendants who had done no wrong. I asked if you thought that was a good thing. You said yes, approving the unfair result in the service of your greater good.
Then you decided the law was fair.
And along the way you're avoiding the critical discussion of the use and purpose of the statute of limitations.
I don't care. Do you want to believe I think the law is unfair? Do you want to think I believe the law is fair?
Whichever suits you Bryan. :lol:
So if you would like to continue on under the premise of whether I think the law is fair or unfair go right ahead.
Your choice. I'm just glad that laws like that are in effect. I love those laws.
Let me know under what premise you want to continue on...fair or unfair? :lol:
To the second part of your post here....I don't consider the statute of limitations issue critical.
Whatever it takes to give the law real teeth is what I'm for. So discussing the critical nature as you see it sounds pretty boring.
Like I said, I'm for laws that level the playing field, no matter what it takes.
Read "level" as...redistribution.
The uninformed voters are all voting Republican. The more uninformed they are, the further right they are.
Lois
Yes exactly. The ironic thing is Bryan is bellyaching about how hard it is to inform voters.
I said, I bet it is when you have to somehow educate voters to vote against their own interests.
That must be a real pain in the butt! :lol: They're running out of ideas, and fast!
"How do we get our message across to the middle class voters?"
Use the "socialist" line again. Turn the whites against the blacks. Turn the males against the females.
Ughh, they're clueless.
I asked you a question based on the premise that the Ledbetter law would allow plaintiffs to win lawsuits against defendants who had done no wrong. I asked if you thought that was a good thing. You said yes, approving the unfair result in the service of your greater good.
Then you decided the law was fair.
And along the way you're avoiding the critical discussion of the use and purpose of the statute of limitations.
I don't care.
Coincidentally, that's the key problem with the low-information voter.
Do you want to believe I think the law is unfair? Do you want to think I believe the law is fair?
Whichever suits you Bryan. :lol:
I'm just reading what you write.
So if you would like to continue on under the premise of whether I think the law is fair or unfair go right ahead.
Your choice.
The issue is your staking out positions on both sides of the fence.
To the second part of your post here....I don't consider the statute of limitations issue critical.
Whatever it takes to give the law real teeth is what I'm for. So discussing the critical nature as you see it sounds pretty boring.
Coincidentally, low-information voters are often bored about the ideas underpinning political ideologies.
Like I said, I'm for laws that level the playing field, no matter what it takes.
Read "level" as...redistribution.
Except if fairness requires unfairness, you mean. ;-)
Except if fairness requires unfairness, you mean. ;-)
I like how you put the wink smiley there. As if I you think you are calling me out.
Haven't I stated as much already? You oafish mind.
How 'bout you define what's fair and we'll all follow your rules?
What else you got?