(06-04-2019 09:57 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 07:45 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-04-2019 06:28 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 11:21 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-03-2019 10:43 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Apparently DeLaney was previously booed for the temerity of stating: "Medicare for all may sound good but it's actually not good policy nor is it good politics."

I wonder if the crowd booed because 'the argument is specious and playing into the right’s mischaracterization of [it]'. That must be the reason.....

Here is the video of Delaney's comments.

I wonder when the crowd realized the argument 'is specious and playing into the right’s mischaracterization of [it]'. lad? at what point is that?

That’s a totally different quote that what I was referring to, no?

Ah, so in order not to admit you are completely wrong, we now have a amazingly connoisseur audience who boos a comment about 'socialism' because it is specious, and boos another comment about 'medicare for all' in the same timbre and ferocity for another reason altogether. Does that sum up your position?

man the lad two-step band is warming up here...... lolz.

Tanq - I’m the one who is completely wrong in this instance?

You just intentionally used my comment about one speaker and applied it to another. That’s an incredibly disingenuous and rather slimy move.

At least be honest about what I was talking about and stop misattributing my quotes.

I found it amusing you stick your head in the sand on the first set of boos. Then you change the rationale behind the boos for a very related topic (i.e. the idea of free **** for everyone and collectivism to do it with) is somehow completely different.

But I can see you have dug your Verdun trench on your (somewhat ignorant) characterization of the first 'boo'.

I am using your 'first comment' and deliberately holding your feet to the fire because of the relatedness and because of how (even more) intransigent the second round of boos makes that comment.

But true to lad form, 'dig in' and warm up that 'cha cha cha' machine.

Yes, the second comment is *so* totally unrelated..... lolz. Funny it gets the same response, isnt it?

I dont know which is weirder, your odd methodology of the characterization of the first comment, or your (now) explanation that the second comment and the first comment are so entirely different. Most people with an ability to analyze and discern figured it out on the first comment that was booed -- the second solidified it. Yet you feel not just the obdurate need to say that that the first comment was booed for a pretty much asinine reasoning, but absolutely double down by claiming 'how different' the first and second comments are. Comedy gold.

Hey, *your* convention booed two speakers -- one that said collectivism isnt a fing bright idea and another that said mass social benefits with no apparent way to pay for them isnt such a bright idea. Most people can see the thread that hangs between the two -- and most can realize why your people booed both of them. That is, pretty much everyone except you. Cha cha cha.