Sacramento Gives Free Cars to Public Housing Residents. Free Cars!
PeterS wrote:
Smells like victory? You guys are phony pricks. Red states lead the nation in welfare and there are more w****s on the public dole than any other race. An ad hominem attack, attacks the messenger to deflect from the t***h. I didn't do that but simply called you what you are. Conservatives talk tough but any time I've had to lay anyone off they run after public assistance as fast as anyone else. And the question is--why not? Why let your family suffer when there are avenues to soften the blow and if anything, is a little payback for all the taxes you been paying up to this point?
Oh, and by the way, if you read the article provided by moldy you totally mischaracterized what was actually taking place--and my bet is you did so on purpose. The only thing free was the use of the cars. The cars them selves remained property of the government. You made it sound like the government was sitting there handing out cars as if they were popsicles. My question is why couldn't you start a thread that represented the t***h? Why are you trying to slander people who's only crime was trying to take advantage of a program that bettered their quality of life, if for only a moment, and did nothing at all to diminish yours? Talk about being a phony prick that would pretty much be the definition right there--you are lying in an effort to diminish those who are less fortunate than you. If that's not being a prick just what would be?
Smells like victory? You guys are phony pricks. Re... (
show quote)
You just do not get it. You always use pro liberal sites. This statistic goes by the number of people on government assistance. One can not go by just what way the state has v**ed because that has changed during most e******n years. Here is another site you look at. "Welfare Statistics and Demographics-Statistic Brain"
Larry the Legend wrote:
Free
cars. Seriously. If it was anywhere but California, I would never have believed it.
Free. Freaking. Cars."The $1.3 million used to pay for what the Sacramento Bee calls a "mini fleet," came from the state's California Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn got the money by
blackmailing local businesses with cap-and-trade fines."
And the State is paying for the electricity it runs on, maintenance, repairs and even insurance. This is, literally, free. As in not costing the entitled little government teat-sucker a freaking penny, because local businesses are being blackmailed by their own State government EPA. How
sick is that?
Here's the rest of it, if you can hold your food down:
http://www.dailywire.com/news/16158/sacramento-gives-free-cars-public-housing-john-nolte?utm_source=dwemail&utm_medium=email&utm_content=050817-news&utm_campaign=position7Free b cars /b . Seriously. If it was anywhere ... (
show quote)
You cannot expect them to walk to the welfare office or lower themselves to use public t***sportation!!
PeterS wrote:
Is there a reason that you care what the city of Sacramento does with those on public assistance? Move to Sacramento and get a free car too...
Yes. I know those people are to sorry to walk to my state for vacation. They might drive though.
Larry the Legend wrote:
Ad hominem:
Adverb. (Of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining. In other words; deflection by name-calling. Therefore, by default, Victory! But still, let's take a look at your name-calling prowess, shall we?
"Phony":
Noun. A fraudulent person or thing
"Prick":
Noun. Vulgar slang, a penis.
A 'fraudulent penis'. Hmm... Dildo, perhaps? Not possible. Based solely on the fact that I am typing this, I can categorically deny the veracity of that statement. That should have been patently obvious to you even before you made that assertion, ergo, Victory! again. Two victories on one topic, and it's not even 5AM yet. I must be on a roll...
Ad hominem: br Adverb. (Of an argument or reactio... (
show quote)
And again, ad-hominem attacks the messenger to deflect from the message. I didn't do that but simply called you what you are. You are looking at the literal meaning not when it is used as slang--Prick: term used to sum up the existence of a worthless asshole. Understand?
The Sacramento Bee wrote a story and then a right wing nut took that story and created a h**e piece. This is a perfect example of how the right gets misinformed. The facts are twisted, the t***h is buried, all kinds of assumptions are inferred, and the facts are obscured.
PeterS wrote:
And again, ad-hominem attacks the messenger to deflect from the message. I didn't do that but simply called you what you are. You are looking at the literal meaning not when it is used as slang--Prick: term used to sum up the existence of a worthless asshole. Understand?
Now you're just making up your own language to justify your lack of education. You reverted to ad hominem attacks, hence - Victory!
Larry the Legend wrote:
Now you're just making up your own language to justify your lack of education. You reverted to ad hominem attacks, hence - Victory!
Can we add harmony and argue the facts?
moldyoldy wrote:
Can we add harmony and argue the facts?
I tried that already. Go back and look at how this whole discussion got started. You immediately defaulted to the name-calling because you know what I'm saying is factual and you can't refute it. Then you attempted to redefine 'ad hominem' to suit your narrative. Then you figured you could go even lower and use derogatory slang as a backup. When I point out the error of that strategy, you then try to redefine the slang terms you used to try and justify the original ad hominem attacks.
Fact: The facts were being
harmoniously argued until you showed up and poked your big, rude, unreasonable, ad hominem slinging, logic-free nose in. I squish you like a bug and now you want to "add harmony"?
Do us all a favor. Step away from the keyboard. Don't touch anything, just stand up and step away and nobody will notice your absence until you show up again and the harmony gets disrupted all over again.
Larry the Legend wrote:
I tried that already. Go back and look at how this whole discussion got started. You immediately defaulted to the name-calling because you know what I'm saying is factual and you can't refute it. Then you attempted to redefine 'ad hominem' to suit your narrative. Then you figured you could go even lower and use derogatory slang as a backup. When I point out the error of that strategy, you then try to redefine the slang terms you used to try and justify the original ad hominem attacks.
Fact: The facts were being harmoniously argued until you showed up and poked your big, rude, unreasonable, ad hominem slinging, logic-free nose in. I squish you like a bug and now you want to "add harmony"?
Do us all a favor. Step away from the keyboard. Don't touch anything, just stand up and step away and nobody will notice your absence until you show up again and the harmony gets disrupted all over again.
I tried that already. Go back and look at how thi... (
show quote)
I see the problem. You have no idea who you are talking to.
moldyoldy wrote:
I see the problem. You have no idea who you are talking to.
Your avatar tells me all I need to know.
If you want to reply, then
register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.