Bot of our comments were what we would like to have seen some people not voting, the reasons for our desire for some people not voting were not the same, but our desire was exactly the same. Anything else you try to say is semantics designed to hide the truth Joe. I was just wishful thinking just like you were wishful thinking. I know you did not really want to stop anyone from voting, just like I never really wanted that, we both were just voicing frustrations. We are both human and both allowed to delve into a little bit of wishful thinking now and then without being a monster.
can't explain it any better than that. apparently TJ is more of a progressive/liberal than we would like to let on...
We said the exact same thing, I gave wishful thinking, IWS gave wishful thinking that some people should not vote. Any other attempt to paint it any other way is just semantics. By the way eddo, I said people who don't pay taxes should not vote, how is that liberal or progressive? My reason for it was that people who don't pay taxes don't concern themselves with the cost of operating a goverment or paying for the programs. If my want came true, not one liberal or progressive would ever get into public office again. Poor eddo, failed attempt to flame once again, lol. I see your back on that bandwagon crap again eddo, bored?
No. You said people who pay taxes should not be "allowed" to vote. That is the difference and why it isn't just a case of semantics.
You didn't say the same thing, you lunatic. You said you wanted to limit the ability of certain people to vote. IWS supports everyone being able to vote. He things a certain group shouldn't because it's not in the best interests of America, but he isn't trying to stop them. You keep falling back on "semantics" because you're a dumbass, Times. Semantics has nothing to do with this, you just can't admit you're wrong.
I think "we" all know by now that TJ deeply desires the heavy hand of the government, 15 imaginary friends, or whatever else it takes to manipulate his surroundings to advance his agenda. All whilst claiming the opposite.. as he judges, labels, and looks down on everyone else for being what he in fact, is. Truth be damned.. TJ is on the case.. What is ok for me to do to another human being is not ok for any other human being to do to me, I'm a hypocrite. ~ TJ
And all along I thought I said people "who don't" pay taxes should not vote........imagine that. You see Joe, the more you try to dance around semantics, the more mistakes you make. The point is and way my wishful thinking that some people not vote. You was also entertaining the wishful thinking that some people not vote. It is the exact same thing and every attempt you or anyone else try to paint my wishful thinking as somehow different from your wishful thinking prove they only take issue with what I say because I say it and not because you don't also think the same exact way. Niether one of us truly wanted to stop people from voting by force, it was just both of us shooting off our mouths. Yes, the glorious and perfect IWS shared a similar 'wishful thinking' moment with Times, it must be the end of the world to have to admit that for you.
Do you not remember the original discussion? Yes, I messed up in that quote but at the time you jumped me for it, I said people who do not pay taxes should not vote because they are not paying for what those elected officials enact. You keep trying to confuse the issue Joe. Yes, I said some peopel should not vote, you said some people should not vote, the reasons for our wishful thinking are not the same, but the wish some people not vote is exactly the same. Neither one of us thought for a second it would ever happen Joe, so no reason to make either one of us sound like a bad guy, I was just pointing out that you also want some peopel not to vote, but you called me bad names when I said the same thing you said.
I, for one, have no idea about the original discussion, so all I have are the very words typed here in this discussion: I really do not understand how this is so difficult for you to see TJ. This is what was said. plain and simple.
What about this part that came first eddo: You have the belief "not everyone should vote" then you have the justification or explanation of the belief that comes next. You only showed his explanation, not his belief and that is an intentional misrepresentation of what was said. Joe said not everyone should vote there is no other way to take that but the way he said it and my point is I agree with him completely, I just have a different reason than he does, lol.
Not sure what the confusion is. You seem to be the one who is lying/misleading what your true intentions are. Here is a quote from you from a past topic... Your words. Seems to be a trend. You want to limit certain people's rights. I never advocated for this. I only made a suggestion. But look! You were trying to cry "victim" back then, when presented with your own desires, too. I don't know if I've ever seen anyone who fits the label of "Victicrat" more than you. I think you even passed the Revs. Jackson and Sharpton.
But Joe, still all you have is both of us wishful thinking, in that same thread I said exactly that too but you would not accept wishful thinking as a reasonable reason to say some people should not vote. But then a long time later you say some people should not vote and that is supposed to be somehow different? We said the same thing Joe, we both said some people should not vote, only now it is you saying some people should not vote so that makes it okay. You see, I tend to remember most discussions I have, it is a gift of being trained in interrogations and I find it useful in sales on a regular basis. You on the other hand forget what you say and contradict yourself every now and then, lol. I don't mind, I am used to guys like you intentionally adjusting your position just so you can have an excuse to disagree with me and talk trash.
You said some people shouldn't be allowed to vote, Times. As in, they should not have the RIGHT to vote. It's as simple as that. You can scream semantics like the boy who cried wolf, but you said something, and instead of saying "I misspoke, I meant this", you say "No, I really said this, and it's the same exact thing". You are WRONG.
I want Alyssa Milano to be in my house and have dinner ready for me when I get home today. I can say that I wish for that. or I can go kidnap her and force her to be in my house and have dinner ready for me when I get home today. One is hoping she will do it on her own, and the other is me forcing her. semantics play a pretty big role in differentiating the two. no, I have no intentions of kidnapping Alyssa Milano, but I bet she makes an awesome fruit pizza. and if not, I'll just spend dinner time staring at her.
