A poke in the right side RE: CRT

[Taichiliberal]

She reminds me of someone here....

Doubt it....she's talking straight to the issue...something YOU and your brethren have a problem with. Mind telling us EXACTLY how she is wrong without al the dodgy MAGA BS and smoke blowing. We'll wait.

 

[RB 60]

Doubt it....she's talking straight to the issue...something YOU and your brethren have a problem with. Mind telling us EXACTLY how she is wrong without al the dodgy MAGA BS and smoke blowing. We'll wait.

Doesn't matter what I say, you libturds stick together like stink on shit.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Doubt it....she's talking straight to the issue...something YOU and your brethren have a problem with. Mind telling us EXACTLY how she is wrong without al the dodgy MAGA BS and smoke blowing. We'll wait.

Doesn't matter what I say, you libturds stick together like stink on shit.

translation of RB60: I can't logically or factually refute or fault the content of the OP, so I just bluff and bluster like a typical intellectually impotent MAGA mook.

Now, let's watch the little dope regurgitate the SOS with circle jerks from his like minded brethren.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

translation: T.A. Gardner (saying nothing yet talking loud) cannot logically or factually refute what she says, so he responds like an ignorant teenager....sad.

Yea, right.

CRT comes from a combination of Bell's Critical Legal Theory, based on Critical Pedagogy, and Kimberley Crenshaw's theory of Intersectionality. Crenshaw, a Marxist, applied Marxist didactic to Bell's CLT to get CRT.
What CRT does is convert Marxist class struggle into a race struggle. That is each race becomes either a victim / oppressed or an oppressor. In CRT, Whites are oppressors and Blacks are oppressed. Thus, if you are White, you are classified as a racist even if you personally do not exhibit any particular racist traits. By that same ill-logic, if you are Black you are not racist and cannot be racist even if you exhibit overt racist tendencies.

As an academic exercise, CRT is taught in colleges to indoctrinate various degree field students into its version of Marxism. These graduates then take CRT and apply it--not teach it--to curricula, textbooks, lesson plans, etc., and use it in K to 12 education widely today.

It's obvious you have the memory of a goldfish as I've beaten you to death more than once over CRT. It is also obvious that the bitch in that video doesn't know shit about it and is just reciting talking points spewed by those that want to keep CRT from becoming the obvious radicalizing, shit-for-brains, Marxist theory--such as it is--that is being used to indoctrinate students in pubic--public?--schools into becoming good little Marxist haters, racists, and violent thugs for the revolution.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Are you drunk or just a willfully ignorant MAGA wonk ranting because you can't logically or factually refute anything the woman says. I DARE you to take JUST ONE aspect of what she says and debate it using FACTS & LOGIC. Anything less from you just proves her point all the more.

See my post above. I completely shot down her claim about CRT because she doesn't recognize the difference between it being taught as a theory and applied as one to things like lesson plans or writing textbooks. She's an idiot. YOU are an idiot.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

translation of RB60: I can't logically or factually refute or fault the content of the OP, so I just bluff and bluster like a typical intellectually impotent MAGA mook.

Now, let's watch the little dope regurgitate the SOS with circle jerks from his like minded brethren.

Maybe RB 60 can or can't, but I can and just did.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Yea, right.

CRT comes from a combination of Bell's Critical Legal Theory, based on Critical Pedagogy, and Kimberley Crenshaw's theory of Intersectionality. Crenshaw, a Marxist, applied Marxist didactic to Bell's CLT to get CRT.
What CRT does is convert Marxist class struggle into a race struggle. That is each race becomes either a victim / oppressed or an oppressor. In CRT, Whites are oppressors and Blacks are oppressed. Thus, if you are White, you are classified as a racist even if you personally do not exhibit any particular racist traits. By that same ill-logic, if you are Black you are not racist and cannot be racist even if you exhibit overt racist tendencies.

As an academic exercise, CRT is taught in colleges to indoctrinate various degree field students into its version of Marxism. These graduates then take CRT and apply it--not teach it--to curricula, textbooks, lesson plans, etc., and use it in K to 12 education widely today.

It's obvious you have the memory of a goldfish as I've beaten you to death more than once over CRT. It is also obvious that the bitch in that video doesn't know shit about it and is just reciting talking points spewed by those that want to keep CRT from becoming the obvious radicalizing, shit-for-brains, Marxist theory--such as it is--that is being used to indoctrinate students in pubic--public?--schools into becoming good little Marxist haters, racists, and violent thugs for the revolution.

Fascinating how you MAGA mooks create your own reality, repeat it ad nausea and then try to present it as FACT. You take SOME facts and consistently attach other excerpts of information to formulate your stance.



For those truly interested in the subject, here is a more comprehensive view that's apropos to the video:


What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?



..... In the early and mid-20th century,the concern was about socialism or Marxism. The conservative American Legion, beginning in the 1930s, sought to rid schools of progressive-minded textbooks that encouraged students to consider economic inequality; two decades later the John Birch Society raised similar criticisms about school materials. As with CRT criticisms, the fear was that students would be somehow harmed by exposure to these ideas.

... CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process.

Here’s a helpful illustration to keep in mind in understanding this complex idea. In a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court school-assignment case on whether race could be a factor in maintaining diversity in K-12 schools, Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion famously concluded: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” But during oral arguments, then-justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “It’s very hard for me to see how you can have a racial objective but a nonracial means to get there.”

... Thus much of the current debate appears to spring not from the academic texts, but from fear among critics that students—especially white students—will be exposed to supposedly damaging or self-demoralizing ideas.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
translation of RB60: I can't logically or factually refute or fault the content of the OP, so I just bluff and bluster like a typical intellectually impotent MAGA mook.

Now, let's watch the little dope regurgitate the SOS with circle jerks from his like minded brethren.

Maybe RB 60 can or can't, but I can and just did.

Only to the joker you see in the mirror, son. I just added a more lengthy explanation that follows up to the OP. Of course, you threat through it pick out what parts you think supports your supposition and conjecture laden screed, but the smart, objective reader will see your folly.

Hint: if you're going to pick up the gauntlet for someone, try to be smarter and better than them.

 

[Taichiliberal]

See my post above. I completely shot down her claim about CRT because she doesn't recognize the difference between it being taught as a theory and applied as one to things like lesson plans or writing textbooks. She's an idiot. YOU are an idiot.

You completely parroted the SOS that all MAGA mooks with delusions of intelligence squawk...you mix in your personal supposition and conjecture with a FEW facts, then parade your conclusions based on that erroneous and revisionist mish mosh.

I posted a better, more detailed take on why you're wrong.

Only the joker you see in the mirror applauds you...and the usual gang of MAGA mooks here will circle jerk you. Carry on.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Fascinating how you MAGA mooks create your own reality, repeat it ad nausea and then try to present it as FACT. You take SOME facts and consistently attach other excerpts of information to formulate your stance.



For those truly interested in the subject, here is a more comprehensive view that's apropos to the video:


What Is Critical Race Theory, and Why Is It Under Attack?



..... In the early and mid-20th century,the concern was about socialism or Marxism. The conservative American Legion, beginning in the 1930s, sought to rid schools of progressive-minded textbooks that encouraged students to consider economic inequality; two decades later the John Birch Society raised similar criticisms about school materials. As with CRT criticisms, the fear was that students would be somehow harmed by exposure to these ideas.

... CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process.

Here’s a helpful illustration to keep in mind in understanding this complex idea. In a 2007 U.S. Supreme Court school-assignment case on whether race could be a factor in maintaining diversity in K-12 schools, Chief Justice John Roberts’ opinion famously concluded: “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” But during oral arguments, then-justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said: “It’s very hard for me to see how you can have a racial objective but a nonracial means to get there.”

... Thus much of the current debate appears to spring not from the academic texts, but from fear among critics that students—especially white students—will be exposed to supposedly damaging or self-demoralizing ideas.

https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-attack/2021/05

You really are retarded... From YOUR article:

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

Exactly... EXACTLY... what I said it is.

Interestingly, it then says this:

Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.

An admission that the article's author never refutes or even tries to refute.

It admits in so many words, that what I said about oppressor and oppressed groups is true too:

Does critical race theory say all white people are racist? Isn’t that racist, too?
The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.

It argues for exactly what I said it does:

Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified.

You are still an idiot, and you don't have a clue what CRT is or does, nor how it is used and applied. I do.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You completely parroted the SOS that all MAGA mooks with delusions of intelligence squawk...you mix in your personal supposition and conjecture with a FEW facts, then parade your conclusions based on that erroneous and revisionist mish mosh.

I posted a better, more detailed take on why you're wrong.

Only the joker you see in the mirror applauds you...and the usual gang of MAGA mooks here will circle jerk you. Carry on.

So, now comes the ad hominem...

 

[Taichiliberal]

You really are retarded... From YOUR article:

Critical race theory is an academic concept that is more than 40 years old. The core idea is that race is a social construct, and that racism is not merely the product of individual bias or prejudice, but also something embedded in legal systems and policies.

The basic tenets of critical race theory, or CRT, emerged out of a framework for legal analysis in the late 1970s and early 1980s created by legal scholars Derrick Bell, Kimberlé Crenshaw, and Richard Delgado, among others.

Exactly... EXACTLY... what I said it is.

Interestingly, it then says this:

Critics charge that the theory leads to negative dynamics, such as a focus on group identity over universal, shared traits; divides people into “oppressed” and “oppressor” groups; and urges intolerance.

An admission that the article's author never refutes or even tries to refute.

It admits in so many words, that what I said about oppressor and oppressed groups is true too:

Does critical race theory say all white people are racist? Isn’t that racist, too?
The theory says that racism is part of everyday life, so people—white or nonwhite—who don’t intend to be racist can nevertheless make choices that fuel racism.

It argues for exactly what I said it does:

Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified.

You are still an idiot, and you don't have a clue what CRT is or does, nor how it is used and applied. I do.

As I said in another post, you'll just skim through the article, excerpt parts of it and LEAVE OUT THE REST. Comprehensive reading is NOT your strong suit. But as I tire of your predictable antics, let me just shut you down here point for point:

1. Actually, you emphasized Crenshaw, a Marxist, applied Marxist didactic to Bell's CLT to get CRT. NOT ALL INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THIS THEORY WERE MARXIST, NOR DID MARXISM BECOME THE LEAD POINT IN THE CRT CURRICULUM. To date neither you or your brethren can prove that...you just repeatedly say it is. But as the excerpts pointe out in MY last response, that fear of marxism was blended in with a fear of students (white) would be harmed by the ideas of CRT.

2. Of course, you leave out what preceded your excerpt, "...CRT also has ties to other intellectual currents, including the work of sociologists and literary theorists who studied links between political power, social organization, and language. And its ideas have since informed other fields, like the humanities, the social sciences, and teacher education.

This academic understanding of critical race theory differs from representation in recent popular books and, especially, from its portrayal by critics—often, though not exclusively, conservative Republicans.

And what came immediately after, "... Thus, there is a good deal of confusion over what CRT means, as well as its relationship to other terms, like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” with which it is often conflated.

To an extent, the term “critical race theory” is now cited as the basis of all diversity and inclusion efforts regardless of how much it’s actually informed those programs.

One conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, recently attributed a whole host of issues to CRT, including the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, LGBTQ clubs in schools, diversity training in federal agencies and organizations, California’s recent ethnic studies model curriculum, the free-speech debate on college campuses, and alternatives to exclusionary discipline—such as the Promise program in Broward County, Fla., that some parents blame for the Parkland school shootings. “When followed to its logical conclusion, CRT is destructive and rejects the fundamental ideas on which our constitutional republic is based,” the organization claimed.


3. & 4. Again, here's what you left out, "... Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process. This preceded the paragraph regarding the exchange between Roberts and Ginsburg.

It all boils down to how what you state in various is NOT the finale definitive statement, and how it does not stand up to logical scrutiny. You constantly claim "it's just like I said". But all one has to do is just READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY (damn, I'm tired of trying to teach you right wing jokers that all these years) to see that the conclusions drawn by the article are the opposite of what you contend. But I suspect you'll hold onto your myopic interpretations with insipid stubbornness as usual. Carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
You completely parroted the SOS that all MAGA mooks with delusions of intelligence squawk...you mix in your personal supposition and conjecture with a FEW facts, then parade your conclusions based on that erroneous and revisionist mish mosh.

I posted a better, more detailed take on why you're wrong.

Only the joker you see in the mirror applauds you...and the usual gang of MAGA mooks here will circle jerk you. Carry on.

So, now comes the ad hominem...

That's a hot one coming from YOU. The chronology of the posts clearly shows YOU constantly taking personal shots in many of your responses. Here's a thought....don't dish it out if you can't take it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

As I said in another post, you'll just skim through the article, excerpt parts of it and LEAVE OUT THE REST. Comprehensive reading is NOT your strong suit. But as I tire of your predictable antics, let me just shut you down here point for point:

You really like intellectual abuse don't you?

1. Actually, you emphasized Crenshaw, a Marxist, applied Marxist didactic to Bell's CLT to get CRT. NOT ALL INVOLVED IN THE CREATION OF THIS THEORY WERE MARXIST, NOR DID MARXISM BECOME THE LEAD POINT IN THE CRT CURRICULUM. To date neither you or your brethren can prove that...you just repeatedly say it is. But as the excerpts pointe out in MY last response, that fear of marxism was blended in with a fear of students (white) would be harmed by the ideas of CRT.

Yes, I did, because that is where it comes from. Darrel Bell isn't a Marxist, just a radical Leftist. The Delgado's and Crenshaw are Marxists.

A MARXIST CASE FOR INTERSECTIONALITY
https://socialistworker.org/2017/08/01/a-marxist-case-for-intersectionality

WATCH: Joy Reid asks founding CRT scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw 'is critical race theory Marxism?

In an interview with MSNBC's Joy Reid Tuesday, Kimberlé Crenshaw, the activist turned Columbia University law professor who came up with the concept of intersectionality, if critical race theory is Marxism. Crenshaw could not deny it, and chose instead to dance around the question.

Reid asked Crenshaw: "…what people are calling critical race theory. 'Marxism, racism, bigoted.' Lets start with the Marxism, that's their favorite one. They're using that every single time. I hate to ask you, I hate to ask dumb questions so please don’t think that I’m dumb, is critical race theory Marxism?"
https://thepostmillennial.com/reid-crenshaw-crt-marxism

Critical race theory is 'grounded in Marxism,' professor confirms
https://thepostmillennial.com/critical-race-theory-is-grounded-in-marxism-professor-confirms

https://twitter.com/x/status/1398640267956305921

2. Of course, you leave out what preceded your excerpt, "...CRT also has ties to other intellectual currents, including the work of sociologists and literary theorists who studied links between political power, social organization, and language. And its ideas have since informed other fields, like the humanities, the social sciences, and teacher education.

That's just empty rhetoric. It means nothing. It's devoid of facts, evidence, or rational argument.

This academic understanding of critical race theory differs from representation in recent popular books and, especially, from its portrayal by critics—often, though not exclusively, conservative Republicans.

And what came immediately after, "... Thus, there is a good deal of confusion over what CRT means, as well as its relationship to other terms, like “anti-racism” and “social justice,” with which it is often conflated.

To an extent, the term “critical race theory” is now cited as the basis of all diversity and inclusion efforts regardless of how much it’s actually informed those programs.

This is more empty academic drivel. It explains nothing, it means nothing.

One conservative organization, the Heritage Foundation, recently attributed a whole host of issues to CRT, including the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, LGBTQ clubs in schools, diversity training in federal agencies and organizations, California’s recent ethnic studies model curriculum, the free-speech debate on college campuses, and alternatives to exclusionary discipline—such as the Promise program in Broward County, Fla., that some parents blame for the Parkland school shootings. “When followed to its logical conclusion, CRT is destructive and rejects the fundamental ideas on which our constitutional republic is based,” the organization claimed.

Anecdote. This is trying to use an isolated example to refute what I'm claiming without ever addressing any of it. I don't give a shit what the Heritage Foundation said about CRT.

3. & 4. Again, here's what you left out, "... Fundamentally, though, the disagreement springs from different conceptions of racism. CRT puts an emphasis on outcomes, not merely on individuals’ own beliefs, and it calls on these outcomes to be examined and rectified. Among lawyers, teachers, policymakers, and the general public, there are many disagreements about how precisely to do those things, and to what extent race should be explicitly appealed to or referred to in the process. This preceded the paragraph regarding the exchange between Roberts and Ginsburg.

It all boils down to how what you state in various is NOT the finale definitive statement, and how it does not stand up to logical scrutiny. You constantly claim "it's just like I said". But all one has to do is just READ CAREFULLY AND COMPREHENSIVELY (damn, I'm tired of trying to teach you right wing jokers that all these years) to see that the conclusions drawn by the article are the opposite of what you contend. But I suspect you'll hold onto your myopic interpretations with insipid stubbornness as usual. Carry on.

It boils down to you trying to refute facts with rhetoric. You're still and idiot, and CRT is exactly what I claimed it to be.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

That's a hot one coming from YOU. The chronology of the posts clearly shows YOU constantly taking personal shots in many of your responses. Here's a thought....don't dish it out if you can't take it.

So? I can toss in an insult or two after thoroughly refuting your bullshit with facts.

 

[Taichiliberal]

You really like intellectual abuse don't you?



Yes, I did, because that is where it comes from. Darrel Bell isn't a Marxist, just a radical Leftist. The Delgado's and Crenshaw are Marxists.

A MARXIST CASE FOR INTERSECTIONALITY
https://socialistworker.org/2017/08/01/a-marxist-case-for-intersectionality

WATCH: Joy Reid asks founding CRT scholar Kimberlé Crenshaw 'is critical race theory Marxism?

In an interview with MSNBC's Joy Reid Tuesday, Kimberlé Crenshaw, the activist turned Columbia University law professor who came up with the concept of intersectionality, if critical race theory is Marxism. Crenshaw could not deny it, and chose instead to dance around the question.

Reid asked Crenshaw: "…what people are calling critical race theory. 'Marxism, racism, bigoted.' Lets start with the Marxism, that's their favorite one. They're using that every single time. I hate to ask you, I hate to ask dumb questions so please don’t think that I’m dumb, is critical race theory Marxism?"
https://thepostmillennial.com/reid-crenshaw-crt-marxism

Critical race theory is 'grounded in Marxism,' professor confirms
https://thepostmillennial.com/critical-race-theory-is-grounded-in-marxism-professor-confirms

https://twitter.com/x/status/1398640267956305921

That's just empty rhetoric. It means nothing. It's devoid of facts, evidence, or rational argument.



This is more empty academic drivel. It explains nothing, it means nothing.



Anecdote. This is trying to use an isolated example to refute what I'm claiming without ever addressing any of it. I don't give a shit what the Heritage Foundation said about CRT.



It boils down to you trying to refute facts with rhetoric. You're still and idiot, and CRT is exactly what I claimed it to be.

Once again for the cheap seats...CRENSHAW WAS NOT THE LEAD NOR THE FINAL EDITOR REGARDING the final drafts of CRT. As history shows, there were several other academics involved. All you've done is just parrot right wing myopia while substituting what you perceive as to what actually happens. The man doesn't give you the answer you want, so he's avoiding the question. A reality check for you and your dim witted compadres; https://www.lpm.org/news/2021-07-09/fact-check-3-common-claims-about-critical-race-theory

You can inundate this site with every joker on earth that parrots what you want to hear...but they all fall victim to the exact same problem....they can't change history, they can't create a curriculum were there is none https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/...or-elect-glenn-youngkin-from-vowing-to-ban-it

But the topper is your childish response to how I point for point prove your previous conjecture wrong with the FACTS. You just out right dismiss ANY logical, fact based contradiction as drivel or anecdote or rhetoric. Mind you, YOU CAN'T LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY POINT FOR POINT PROVE YOUR ASSESSMENT, but in your mind, that's all you need. Talk to a high school English or History teacher...they'll school you otherwise.

Another gem is when faced with the sheer absurdity of a highly regarded conservative think tanks assessment (proven logically), you state that you "don't give a shit".

A rational, intellectually honest and informed adult can't have a debate with folk like you. You have your talking points, your blinders wearing analyzing skills, and your proud, willful ignorance. No wonder Trump and the MAGA GOP loves people like you (aka "suckers"). You're done. Go blather with your buddies.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
That's a hot one coming from YOU. The chronology of the posts clearly shows YOU constantly taking personal shots in many of your responses. Here's a thought....don't dish it out if you can't take it.

So? I can toss in an insult or two after thoroughly refuting your bullshit with facts.

Sorry toodles, you can't whine about being bested in a debate after calling someone else names when posting your reality denying, self aggrandizing BS.

Don't start none, won't be none. Now, stop whining like a little bitch and go circle jerk with your buddies on your "win".

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I follow her on Twitter, she nails a lot of current issues.

lol.....don't you mean 'off topic'?...

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Once again for the cheap seats...CRENSHAW WAS NOT THE LEAD NOR THE FINAL EDITOR REGARDING the final drafts of CRT. As history shows, there were several other academics involved. All you've done is just parrot right wing myopia while substituting what you perceive as to what actually happens. The man doesn't give you the answer you want, so he's avoiding the question. A reality check for you and your dim witted compadres; https://www.lpm.org/news/2021-07-09/fact-check-3-common-claims-about-critical-race-theory

You can inundate this site with every joker on earth that parrots what you want to hear...but they all fall victim to the exact same problem....they can't change history, they can't create a curriculum were there is none https://www.newswise.com/factcheck/...or-elect-glenn-youngkin-from-vowing-to-ban-it

But the topper is your childish response to how I point for point prove your previous conjecture wrong with the FACTS. You just out right dismiss ANY logical, fact based contradiction as drivel or anecdote or rhetoric. Mind you, YOU CAN'T LOGICALLY OR FACTUALLY POINT FOR POINT PROVE YOUR ASSESSMENT, but in your mind, that's all you need. Talk to a high school English or History teacher...they'll school you otherwise.

Another gem is when faced with the sheer absurdity of a highly regarded conservative think tanks assessment (proven logically), you state that you "don't give a shit".

A rational, intellectually honest and informed adult can't have a debate with folk like you. You have your talking points, your blinders wearing analyzing skills, and your proud, willful ignorance. No wonder Trump and the MAGA GOP loves people like you (aka "suckers"). You're done. Go blather with your buddies.

OMFG do I have to go through that article too and kick you in the crotch repeatedly again? That article only ends up supporting my positions on this--AGAIN. How stupid can you be to not parse through it and know that?

 

[ptif219]

Translation: another MAGA mook who can't logically or factually refute ONE aspect of what she says. Let's watch him blow more smoke and bluster.

She is a typical liar Democrat