Trump to NFL owners: Fire players who kneel during anthem

So did absolutely crushing you.

 

You can use any definition of creating you want. That doesn't change the fact that you have yet to provide any evidence that the Democratic party creates poor people. If your prefer you can post your evidence that the Democratic party brings poor people into existance. Or you can supply evidence that the Democratic party led to more poverty. No matter what definition you choose you should not make statements that you claim are fact without being able to provide evidence.

 

I think the Democrat Party would like to take credit for creating the welfare system we have today

You could trace the beginning back the LBJ and the War on Poverty of the 1960's

Since then America has spent trillions fightiing poverty yet alfter 50 years we have just as many poor people as when we started

Welfare breeds poverty by promoting the welfare mentality in marginal people and removing their incentive to move up in the world

 

I think kneeling for the anthem is an ok way of peacefully protesting that isn't disrespectfully and football fans agree on a 54% - 41% margin. Football fans agree more with the NFL position than Trump's on a 67% - 27% margin.
http://www.pollingreport.com/trump_ad.htm

 

Well, the police do shoot whites. In fact more whites than blacks. Soooo not sure of your point.

 

I can't believe those numbers are accurate but I don't have any evidence to dispue them either

We'll see as time goes on

What I already see is the black NFL players teaching a new generation of black kids to grow up with a chlp on their sholder hating whites

 

The point is that proportionate to the population the police do shoot way more unarmed black people than white People. To a lot of people that suggest a racial bias.

 

Actually they make sense. The percentage that disapproves mirrors the percentage that is Republican/support Trump and the percentage that does not interpret kneeling as a sign of disrespect mirrors the percentage that doesn't approve of Trump. Its all political.

 

The doctionary is contradicting your claim. According to the dictionary, the meaning of "race" stayed the same.

 

bounces right off.

Is "race" as defined no longer considered a scientific concept? If yes then the definition has changed.
does "race" now include describing non-racial groups? If yes then the definition has changed.

You seem to think that expansion of a word's meaning or the reclassification of the concept the word describes is not a change in definition.

I get it, tho. ciao

 

I'm only following the definition as it was written in the dictionary, and as you directed me to look at. According to the dictionary, the definition of "race" has not changed.

 

get a better dictionary.

 

That dream happens as well. Dream on.

 

The alleged Americans who do not see the players as being disrespectful could be a myth

I think the NFL is going to lose a lot of real American viewers and probably will not be able to replace them with illegal aliens from Mexico

 

Yeah, the link I supplied provided such evidence. Denying it till the cows home just means you're stubborn. not correct.

 

Here is the link you provided. Says absolutely nothing about the Democratic party creating poor people. That is unless your reading comprehension is so poor that you think the one sentence about Clinton gutting the safety net for poor people somehow is equivalent to creating poor people.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/column-the-democratic-party-is-not-what-it-seems/

Pretending it does has to be one of the more significant acts of intellectual dishonesty you have comitted. Al least so far.

 

That's because police shootings have no relation to the size or color of the population and are instead related to the commission of a crime. The rate the police shoot blacks is proportionate to the rate blacks commit crimes. Just as proportionate to the population, the police do shoot way more unarmed men than they do women, not because they are sexist against men but instead because it is the men involved in the crime.
AND to a lot of people that suggests a racial bias because there has been a concerted effort by the media, ever since Trayvon Martin was shot, to convince you it is because of racial bias. Its BS propaganda. Don't so eagerly eat it up.

 

Yes, "gutting the safety net for poor people" OBVIOUSLY "creates" or "leads to" MORE poor people, you stubborn fool.

When Clinton was first elected back in 1992, the Democrats enjoyed "a majority in the House and Senate."
Exactly like when Obama got elected in 2008 "The Democratic Party controlled a majority in both chambers for the first time since the end of the 103rd Congress in 1995."
Both soon pissed it all away by advocating for things more Republican than the Republicans themselves had been proposing. And what did Democrats do? They were both easily reelected. Why? Because, just like Trump, "winning" is all they(you) really care about. Winning presidential elections. Not so much congressional ones. Not local ones. Not Puerto Rican ones either. So much "winning" evident this past week, month, year, decade. Make no mistake, you and your duopoly defending ilk are fully responsible. Got another clever little comeback? Blow it out your behind.

 

You do realize how stupid that sounds right. They are already poor or they wouldn't need the safety net. You can't even comprehend the meaning in a sentence that simple. Very sad. So I am afraid you still have to supply any evidence that Democrats create poor people.

And yes of course I am stubborn in demanding that when you make unsupportable statements and pretend they are fact that you provide evidence. So far you have failed.

And the rest of your post is irrelevent to the subject under discussion and a rather pathetic attempt at Diversion.

 

Tell it to stupid here:

Got any more clever comebacks? I've provided at least two links and quotes now backing up my statements to satisfy your silly demands. You've countered with nothing but simple minded denial and ad hom attack. Creating MORE poor people is creating poor people. Now sit down and quietly think on it real hard if you must, putz.

 

Now, now, name calling will not salvage your failure to prove your point. Already debunked one of your links. So you despite your pathetic whinings you lose.

Oh, and what was your other irrelevent link you pathetic right wing mindless parrot.

 

Ah, well done! Who just lost? That would be you, twinkle toes.

 

How Did I lose since you have been totally unable to provide any evidence to support your " Democrats create poor people " statement.

Of course that includes the only actual statement you have posted to prove the claim. To quote your proof which is so obviously irrelevant as to almost exceed belief.

" Yes, "gutting the safety net for poor people" OBVIOUSLY "creates" or "leads to" MORE poor people"

Hilarious that anyone with any degree of intelligence could think that proves that Democrats create poor people. But I do thank you for the compliment?

twin·kle·toes
ˈtwiNGkəlˌtōz/
noun
informal
noun: twinkle-toes

1. a person who is nimble and quick on their feet.

 

I've provided plenty and logical argument. You? Zero. Repeatedly denying the obvious only counts against you. If anything, you may have held the higher ground in terms of name calling but no more. You've lost your silly contest. Now piss off. Unless you have some logic or evidence to back your apparent contention that the Democrats have not been responsible for creating poor people in Puerto Rico. Some being poor to begin with means nothing. 1 = 1. More are poor now. 1 + 1 = 2. Someone's obviously created more poor people in Puerto Rico. Who do you hold responsible? Why not any Democrats? What are you afraid of?

 

It's nice to read that you think Cambridge has a bias dictionary.