That's a non sequitur. Spreading lies about a person's reputation in written form is actually called libel, and is in most cases not protected by the First Amendment.
That's a non sequitur. Spreading lies about a person's reputation in written form is actually called libel, and is in most cases not protected by the First Amendment.
What are you? A research scientist? Member of the Pakistani debate team? Do you need evidence that the sky is blue?
What are you? A research scientist? Member of the Pakistani debate team? Do you need evidence that the sky is blue?
Thank you, Glocktogo. I considered making a comment to Golfwhiskey, but yours is SO much better.
You are really not doing anything to further the discussion, but I'm amused that you honestly believe posting pictures is a valid form of argument.
No you didn't. You decided that backing up your false claim would not only be impossible, but require mental effort and so decided to let a joke do your talking for you. Bravo.
Can we just all cool down a bit perhaps? I would love for a serious conversation on the merits of whichever candidate you like to be availiable when I can access a proper PC, but at this rate, this thread might not remain open much longer. Chill out people and stay classy 
Pot, meet kettle. Your incessant demands for empirical evidence in socio-political discussions is merely mental masturbation. It's not even worth the time it takes to supply "evidence", because you're in it for the debate rather than the results.
But I do have just enough time to challenge your ineffective challenges.
I'm looking back over my posts to find the word empirical. Nope, not there.
What I did say was "some sort of evidence". Your straw men burn particularly well this morning.
What I did say was "some sort of evidence". Your straw men burn particularly well this morning.
By definition, evidence derived by a process other than theory is empirical.
Similar threads
