Elections Elderly MSNBC Viewer Tells Them She Voted for Bernie Because They HATE Him

[HeffDoesWant]

I know you are but what am I type of shit. Grow tf up loser.

So you read the bit in brackets and do not understand?

 

[D3thr0n3d K1ng]

Perhaps it was the maple syrup drenched Canadian pancake breakfast?

Or maybe because single payer really is just that awesome. Thats why the oligarchs in Murka are so deathly scared of it. They know once the cat is out of the bag theres no going back.

 

[rob mafia]

Look it up in an actual dictionary (not wiki) and then tell me how it applies.

lefty logic, ladies and gentlemen. he expects others to do his work for him.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

lefty logic, ladies and gentlemen. he expects others to do his work for him.

I gave you the Oxford dictionary definition yesterday, i thought you would be able to remember back that far.

If you can't remember yesterday, can't think for yourself and are intimidated by dictionaries id suggest you keep focusing on pointing out typos (seems more your level).

 

[rob mafia]

I gave you the Oxford dictionary definition yesterday, i thought you would be able to remember back that far.

If you can't remember yesterday, can't think for yourself and are intimidated by dictionaries id suggest you keep focusing on pointing out typos (seems more your level).

*sigh*

what exactly is your problem/argument? you just ramble on about "facists" and trump and you seem to take issue with "incremental" communism, despite the facts that:

i posted the shit from bernie's own platform, on his own webpage
i posted the bigass definition/explanation from wiki, and even highlighted the relevant parts - re: 'incremental' or "transformation of society towards communism."
ie: my argument contained citations from the source, itself, as evidence for my (obvious) argument. which then was even backed by a further cache of evidence.

vs you - not a single argument/explanation about "facists," not a single argument/explanation about trump. a singular, one-lined definition (with no source, btw - and it does not appear to be from oxford, like you just now claimed) about communism that didn't even refute anything i said... moved goalposts, false equivalence, strawman, and conclusion jumping fallacies. you don't meet your burden of proof, you don't even try, you blame me for your lack of doing so and expect me to research your own (non/failed) argument for you - while you have the audacity to mention logic and logical fallacies.

then you said "forget the definition," because apparently what you falsely believe should be correct and facts are just wrong. and now you're pretending the single definition you posted ~2 days ago that didn't retort a single thing i said is somehow relevant?

 

[HeffDoesWant]

*sigh*

what exactly is your problem/argument? you just ramble on about "facists" and trump and you seem to take issue with "incremental" communism, despite the facts that:

i posted the shit from bernie's own platform, on his own webpage
i posted the bigass definition/explanation from wiki, and even highlighted the relevant parts - re: 'incremental' or "transformation of society towards communism."
ie: my argument contained citations from the source, itself, as evidence for my (obvious) argument. which then was even backed by a further cache of evidence.

vs you - not a single argument/explanation about "facists," not a single argument/explanation about trump. a singular, one-lined definition (with no source, btw - and it does not appear to be from oxford, like you just now claimed) about communism that didn't even refute anything i said... moved goalposts, false equivalence, strawman, and conclusion jumping fallacies. you don't meet your burden of proof, you don't even try, you blame me for your lack of doing so and expect me to research your own (non/failed) argument for you - while you have the audacity to mention logic and logical fallacies.

then you said "forget the definition," because apparently what you falsely believe should be correct and facts are just wrong. and now you're pretending the single definition you posted ~2 days ago that didn't retort a single thing i said is somehow relevant?

My point dear boy is that a dictionary is a better source for a definition than wiki is.

You should know this.

I did go the long around trying to show the problems with the wiki definition as i thought it was pretty much self evident. I overestimated you and for that I am sorry.

 

[rob mafia]

My point dear boy is that a dictionary is a better source for a definition than wiki is.

ah, yes. a one-liner from an uncited dictionary (with all other definitions omitted, too) is a better source for a economic-political theory than an encyclopedia. said only morons.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

ah, yes. a one-liner from an uncited dictionary (with all other definitions omitted, too) is a better source for a economic-political theory than an encyclopedia. said only morons.

You think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia????

Fuck me, that's extremely concerning!!

You really don't know much about sourcing do you.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

This is the source quoted on wiki, and oh look it agrees with me (like every proper source).

 

[rob mafia]

You think Wikipedia is an encyclopedia????

Fuck me, that's extremely concerning!!

You really don't know much about sourcing do you.

https://www.britannica.com/topic/communism

This is the source quoted on wiki, and oh look it agrees with me (like every proper source).

from your source:

the first would be a transitional system

i guess you didn't bother to read it... as it supports my claim. what. a. surprise. /s



edit: for maximum irony - here's the definition of "encyclopedia" from a dictionary:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/encyclopedia

1. a book, set of books, optical disc, mobile device, or online informational resource containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.

ie: yes, wiki is an encyclopedia. hurr durr.

 

[HeffDoesWant]

from your source:


i guess you didn't bother to read it... as it supports my claim. what. a. surprise. /s



edit: for maximum irony - here's the definition of "encyclopedia" from a dictionary:

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/encyclopedia

1. a book, set of books, optical disc, mobile device, or online informational resource containing articles on various topics, usually in alphabetical arrangement, covering all branches of knowledge or, less commonly, all aspects of one subject.

ie: yes, wiki is an encyclopedia. hurr durr.

Yeah I read it, i even the full sentence you misleadingly quoted a part of. Here it is in full
"the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people"
And wow look at that, it doesn't apply to Bernies policy. Hands up who is surprised.

As to Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, true I suppose it does fit. However its validity as a reference is roughly equivalent to quoting a blog as a source. So the point stands Oxford dictionary > Wikipedia.

 

[rob mafia]

Yeah I read it, i even the full sentence you misleadingly quoted a part of. Here it is in full
"the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people"
And wow look at that, it doesn't apply to Bernies policy. Hands up who is surprised.

As to Wikipedia being an encyclopedia, true I suppose it does fit. However its validity as a reference is roughly equivalent to quoting a blog as a source. So the point stands Oxford dictionary > Wikipedia.

........seriously. you're seriously still pretending?

fine. here's the whole paragraph. notice anything? ffs.

Like most writers of the 19th century, Marx tended to use the terms communism and socialism interchangeably. In his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875), however, Marx identified two phases of communism that would follow the predicted overthrow of capitalism: the first would be a transitional system in which the working class would control the government and economy yet still find it necessary to pay people according to how long, hard, or well they worked, and the second would be fully realized communism—a society without class divisions or government, in which the production and distribution of goods would be based upon the principle “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” Marx’s followers, especially the Russian revolutionary Vladimir Ilich Lenin, took up this distinction.

so not only are you pretending the previous sources and citations don't exist to pretend that the one you cherrypicked is the only one that matters - but it says the same fucking thing, just with synonyms. "transformation" -. "transitional." "ultimate" -> "fully realized."

yeah, totally fucking different. /s

i like how you're pretending this doesn't apply, while forgetting your own insinuation - that focused on the word "incremental." and btw, forcibly giving the workers ownership IS what bernie's advocating. but i guess "ownership" magically isn't control, eh?

 

[HeffDoesWant]

........seriously. you're seriously still pretending?

fine. here's the whole paragraph. notice anything? ffs.



so not only are you pretending the previous sources and citations don't exist to pretend that the one you cherrypicked is the only one that matters - but it says the same fucking thing, just with synonyms. "transformation" -. "transitional." "ultimate" -> "fully realized."

yeah, totally fucking different. /s

i like how you're pretending this doesn't apply, while forgetting your own insinuation - that focused on the word "incremental." and btw, forcibly giving the workers ownership IS what bernie's advocating. but i guess "ownership" magically isn't control, eh?

You don't have to like your teacher just remember the lesson.

Class dismissed.

 

[rob mafia]

You don't have to like your teacher just remember the lesson.

Class dismissed.

...you were wrong on every part.