2024 PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES

[rothschild]

* * * Blah, Blah, Blah . . . Yadda, Yadda, Yadda  * * * - [Tiki synthesizing RC's response]

Let me know if I left something unanswered.

OK.

Every one of my questions was unanswered, by you.

I think I addessed every single one of them. Clearly it wasn't in the manner you expect. Take your question re the distinction between different types of corporations: I explained why I didn't make the distinction you referenced. Large-scale corporations and those which have stragegic significance are the only ones I think are relevant with respect to this discussion. The rest are left to their own devices. And I explained in detail why compliance is mostly a done deal.

Browse through the list of WEF partners and you'll appreciate that it's an alliance that can easily impose crippling sanctions on nations and corporations alike.

https://www.weforum.org/partners#search

BlackRock alone has the wherewithal to force compliance in many cases. The alliance goes far beyond what BlackRock can bring to bear, touching every sector that is key to the maintenance of human institutions, irrespective of scope and composition.

Clearly you and I have differing perspectives as to what constitutes an "answer".


For the record, I have no desire for you to "get on board" with my take on this. The objective for me is the thoughtful exchange of thoughts and ideas. Disagreement is to be expected, and is perfectly acceptable as far as I'm concerned.

[rothschild]

Me?

Doubtful.

[rothschild]

Whatta weirdo you've turned into.

I make it up on the fly, Duchess. It's all in my head.

[BlueTiki]

I think I addessed every single one of them. Clearly it wasn't in the manner you expect. 

These were my exact questions/requests for response.  

Regarding corporations:

However, you just identified (and according to your premise) a potential and critical “moving part”, but fail to give any explanation to why, once a country controls all the corporations, they would now yield this incredible power and control, to another ?

Regarding the global population accepting the New World Order and Global Government:

What would unite different countries into abandoning their individual cultures, religions, political structures, and governance, and not only welcome, but embrace a new monolithic Global Government?

Regarding the US population's willingness to accept the New World Order and Global Government:

Give me an example that would unite all of America’s population into abandoning our current government in favor of a new Global World Order.

Easier still . . . why haven’t we unified our population into one unified and acceptable mindset . . . regarding anything that divides us?

Regarding the effectiveness of Nazi Germany and the path to a New World Order and Global Government:

What thwarted and derailed the grand design of a pure-blooded Aryan Nation, ruling the world?

Quite simply:  Why did it fail and what is preventing the same failure from happening again?


Clearly you and I have differing perspectives as to what constitutes an "answer".  Yes. I like answers that specifically addresses the question . . . not dodging and avoidance, by narrative or bullshit.


The objective for me is the thoughtful exchange of thoughts and ideas.  No exchange without directly answering questions, to help me understand.

[rothschild]

Regarding corporations:

...you just identified (and according to your premise) a potential and critical “moving part”, but fail to give any explanation to why, once a country controls all the corporations, they would now yield this incredible power and control, to another?

How do you get from this:

The only major obstacle I see is the obedience of subordinates in the globalist hierarchy, hence the need for characterizing it's behavior as "emergency management". They're subject to coercion, reprisal, and if necessary, replacement.

--> To me implying that a country could gain control of "all the corporations"?

I referenced subordinates within the globalist hierarchy -- a great deal of which is listed in the WEF partner list I linked to. You will not find any nations in that list.

Your question is akin to asking me if I'm still beating my wife and children, when I don't have a wife and children, and then criticizing me for not answering your question.

[BlueTiki]

Regarding corporations:

...you just identified (and according to your premise) a potential and critical “moving part”, but fail to give any explanation to why, once a country controls all the corporations, they would now yield this incredible power and control, to another?

How do you get from this:

The only major obstacle I see is the obedience of subordinates in the globalist hierarchy, hence the need for characterizing it's behavior as "emergency management". They're subject to coercion, reprisal, and if necessary, replacement.

--> To me implying that a country could gain control of "all the corporations"?

I referenced subordinates within the globalist hierarchy -- a great deal of which is listed in the WEF partner list I linked to. You will not find any nations in that list.

Your question is akin to asking me if I'm still beating my wife and children, when I don't have a wife and children, and then criticizing me for not answering your question.

Because that was not the the entire statement upon which I based my premise.  Let me refresh your memory, from your Post #194, where YOU stated:

"How is "the populous" -- which is rife with divisions -- of serious consequence when they're dependant on corporations for their survival -- which is, and will continue to be, leveraged for maximum coercion?

If "too many moving parts" is indeed a fact, perhaps you could quantify it and provide a brief explanation of why they're an insurmountable obstacle.

The only major obstacle I see is the obedience of subordinates in the globalist hierarchy, hence the need for characterizing it's behavior as "emergency management". They're subject to coercion, reprisal, and if necessary, replacement."

I used your three lines (not just the one you offered as an explanation) for my disagreement and basis for my question.

Your third line made no sense as to who were the subordinates and the globalist hierarchy.

"The populous" and corporations are BOTH global AND subordinate.  "Emergency Management" is declared, ordered, and imposed by governments . . . not by the populous or corporations. 

It was a logical assumption (on my part), as you did not specify who or what was the "globalist hierarchy", I presumed you were referring to governments as the "globalist hierarchy".  If you were suggesting a Corporatocracy scenario, you failed miserably . . . by conspicuously being vague.

You never raised the issue that I was mistaken or misunderstood, your position, until I called you out.

However, you had an opportunity to raise this issue when you replied to me, in your post #196, and chose not to do so . . . either by design or oversight . . . and continued an attempt to support your position, as an answer to my question.

Instead (it bears repeating), you attempted to support your position . . . never stating or considering that I (possibly) misunderstood your position. 

So . . . what did you do?

You ignored my direct question and instead, directed me to an "explanation" IN YOUR POST #189 about the "corporations" Blackrock and Vanguard, as an answer . . . remember, I was specifically addressing statements IN YOUR POST #194.  YOUR POST #189 was irrelevant, to me, as it wasn't the basis for me to reject your premise or pose my questions.

(Just out of curiosity . . . what type of corporations are Blackrock and Vanguard?  Are they publicly traded?)

Remember . . . I was specifically referencing statements you made IN YOUR POST #194 . . . NOT YOUR POST #189.

If I misunderstood your rambling, it was unintentional.  If you're pushing a Corporatocracy theory, then just say it.  

Additionally, I noticed you still failed to answer or acknowledge my other questions, in your response.  There's really no need.  

I don't want to read rambling bullshit, that beats around the bush, and avoids a direct and coherent response.

[rothschild]

...That was not the the entire statement upon which I based my premise.  Let me refresh your memory, from your Post #194, where YOU stated:

"How is "the populous" -- which is rife with divisions -- of serious consequence when they're dependant on corporations for their survival -- which is, and will continue to be, leveraged for maximum coercion?

If "too many moving parts" is indeed a fact, perhaps you could quantify it and provide a brief explanation of why they're an insurmountable obstacle.

The only major obstacle I see is the obedience of subordinates in the globalist hierarchy, hence the need for characterizing it's behavior as "emergency management". They're subject to coercion, reprisal, and if necessary, replacement."

I used your three lines (not just the one you offered as an explanation) for my disagreement and basis for my question.

Your third line made no sense as to who were the subordinates and the globalist hierarchy.

"The populous" and corporations are BOTH global AND subordinate.  "Emergency Management" is declared, ordered, and imposed by governments . . . not by the populous or corporations. 

It was a logical assumption (on my part), as you did not specify who or what was the "globalist hierarchy", I presumed you were referring to governments as the "globalist hierarchy".  If you were suggesting a Corporatocracy scenario, you failed miserably . . . by conspicuously being vague...

I assumed it was clear that globalist institutions exist for the express purpose of liquidating national governance and consolidating it into a unified governing body. My bad.

The CDC -- and it's counterparts around the globe -- responded to a declaration made by WHO, which is a UN agency. I think this clearly indicates that the UN is the defacto shot-caller with respect to pandemics. National deference to this global authority entails relinquishing sovereignty for the ostensible purpose of serving the "greater good". In a better world that makes sense; in a world governed by amoralists dedicated to the advancement of special interests, rather than general interests, it makes no sense at all in terms of legitimate public health.

Does a fox care about the "public health" of the chickens in the proverbial henhouse?

Is a person such as Bill Gates a benevolent philanthropist, or a fox pretending to be a benevolent philanthropist?

I'm clear in my mind as to what sort of person Gates is. If you aren't, let me know. His pecuniary interests are fairly easy to document.

Except in rare cases, I see the general populations of nations as having marginal influence on governance -- at best. The subordinates I referenced are those tasked with carrying out specific functions that fall under the rubric of "public health", and are a subset of the general population, but not the general population per se.

Is the CDC a globalist institution, and therefore a component of what I refer to as the globalist hierarchy? To my mind it has behaved as such, so I conclude that it is, and the rest of HHS, as well -- most especially the FDA.

I referenced Nazi Germany because it has been documented that hierarchical structure was a large factor in why the German civil service participated in the atrocities that were committed, the most significant component of which is compartmentalization. In hierarchies, people are informed on a need-to-know basis. Those who comprise the bulk of a pyramid know very little. Moving up there is a point at which compliance can be problematic. Germany's ultimate failure had nothing to do with that. It was the result of egregious blunders -- most notably those of Hitler and Goering -- and a war machine that was beyond what the German economy could maintain.

Corporate dependency relates to food, energy, communications, transportation, banking, etc., all of which can intentionally be interrupted and made to appear as sabotage. As you correctly noted, problem-->reaction-->solution. Politics plays an important role as to who will and will not accept predetermined "solutions". Those who don't are characterized as dangers to society.

Corporatocracy is the defacto reality in the Western World, but that doesn't necessarilly imply a unified globalist order; what does, IMO, is an institution such as the WEF, which is aligned with every major corporation and NGO in the world, and has been grooming "Young Global Leaders" since 1993.

If you'd like to attend the WEF's annual Davos shindig so you can see for yourself what it's all about, it'll cost you in excess of 23k for one week. Or you can save yourself some money and buy Schwab's book, The Fourth Industrial Revolution. Pretty sure the Davos shindig is by invitation only, which isn't terribly inclusive or equitable. I'd love to see the look on their faces if a BLM caravan showed up demanding to be let in so they could collect their reparations.

I'm not going to go much further unless this meets the smell test. Re the globalist hierarchy per se, I place the Western central banking system near the top, the hub of which is the Bank for International Settlements. The City of London also looms large -- not to be confused with London. It's a corporate city within a city, and a very good example of where real power resides. Control of national money supplies is the ultimate power. Those who have the gold make the rules, and decide who does and doesn't go to war, and for how long. Financing wars was instrumental to gaining that power. Over time, financing destruction was coupled with financing reconstruction, wash, rinse, and repeat. "Globalism" is really just global oligarchy. If you think competing interests preclude this, John D. Rockefeller stated that "competition is a sin". He was a made man in the Rothschild syndicate, and probably it's greatest asset, then and now. A team player for a team that has attained the pinnacle of human achievement in terms of conquest.

Who, or what, lies at the very top, I don't know, and probably never will -- which is fine by me. I know enough to know where I stand in relation to this hierarchy.

[rothschild]

Re BlackRock and Vanguard, They're both publically traded asset management firms but are structured differently, with Vanguard being owned by the shareholders of it's funds.

I'm aware that asset management is a generic term, I'll defer to you to provide a more in-depth description and elucidate the significance of your question.

[BigMark]

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6oTWr0S19...ture=share

[cannongal]

Half of these people aren't even running for president,  and a couple of them are dead.  
I wonder about my state sometimes....

[Duchess]

[rothschild]

That number should be 155,485,078.

[BlueTiki]

Re BlackRock and Vanguard, They're both publically traded asset management firms but are structured differently, with Vanguard being owned by the shareholders of it's funds.

BlackRock, Inc., is a publicly traded company (sells shares of stock and is traded on an exchange); Vanguard does neither.  Therefore, Vanguard is NOT a publicly traded company.  The "publicly traded" difference IS the reason why Vanguard is structured differently.


I have neither the time nor energy to discuss the nuances with the labels, “stockholder” and “shareholder”.

Suffice it to say, BlackRock, Inc., has both, while Vanguard can only have one.

I'm aware that asset management is a generic term, I'll defer to you to provide a more in-depth description and elucidate the significance of your question.

A simple and working definition of Asset Management is the combining of funds (usually from many sources) to invest in existing market opportunities, and then managing the portfolios.  Both firms provide this service.

The significance (of my question) is that you made and continued to make a false and careless statement.  It is obvious that you did not research your answer before stating this originally . . . and now . . . once again (when you had the opportunity to check your answer) . . .  you repeated the same falsity.

To satisfy your request for elucidation and significance for my question:  IT’S A TRUST ISSUE REGARDING YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND ACCURACY WITHIN YOUR POSTS.

If I can’t trust the information contained within your posts (being accurate and truthful), why should I trust your opinions and conclusions . . . based on any information or analysis you post? 

Answer:  I can't and won't.

[rothschild]

BlackRock, Inc., is a publicly traded company (sells shares of stock and is traded on an exchange); Vanguard does neither. Therefore, Vanguard is NOT a publicly traded company. The "publicly traded" difference IS the reason why Vanguard is structured differently.

I have neither the time nor energy to discuss the nuances with the labels, “stockholder” and “shareholder”.

Suffice it to say, BlackRock, Inc., has both, while Vanguard can only have one.

A simple and working definition of Asset Management is the combining of funds (usually from many sources) to invest in existing market opportunities, and then managing the portfolios. Both firms provide this service.

The significance (of my question) is that you made and continued to make a false and careless statement. It is obvious that you did not research your answer before stating this originally . . . and now . . . once again (when you had the opportunity to check your answer) . . . you repeated the same falsity.

To satisfy your request for elucidation and significance for my question: IT’S A TRUST ISSUE REGARDING YOUR KNOWLEDGE AND ACCURACY WITHIN YOUR POSTS.

If I can’t trust the information contained within your posts (being accurate and truthful), why should I trust your opinions and conclusions . . . based on any information or analysis you post?

Answer: I can't and won't.

Would you trust the opinions and conclusions of a person who engages in logic chopping?

I answered that question with a high degree of certainty that you'd respond in this manner. You didn't disappoint.

[BlueTiki]

Would you trust the opinions and conclusions of a person who engages in logic chopping?

I answered that question with a high degree of certainty that you'd respond in this manner. You didn't disappoint.

Just to be clear . . . I believe you meant to state:  "I asked (not, I answered) that question with a high degree of certainty . . . ", to solicit an answer from me.

As such, that is the assumption, upon which, I am basing my response. 

Questioning one's truth, or accuracy in statements, facts or terms, has nothing to do with logic chopping.  Neither is asking for a definition of a term used.

You and Piggy declared America is Fascist . . . without providing an example to support your claim.  And . . . when asked to do so, your pedantic response was along the lines of it really can't be defined and therefore, its irrelevant.
  
You're kinda like Justice Jackson.  No doubt, in her court tenure, she will deliberate on a case involving women's issues . . . and yet she can't define what a woman is!   
 
My question was not logic chopping . . . as I never challenged your use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), nor implied it was a fallacious component to support any of your arguments.
 
Remember, it was you who asked me, in a roundabout way to respond ("I'll defer to you to provide . . .") regarding Asset Management and the significance of my question . . . and I did.

By doing so, I learned another thing about you . . . you misunderstand, misapply and assert the concept of logic chopping (just like publicly traded companies), to fit YOUR narrative.

Plus the fact you can't admit your error(s) in your posts.

Just like a good and obedient, liberal stooge!   

[Duchess]

Just like a good and obedient, liberal stooge!   

[rothschild]

Would you trust the opinions and conclusions of a person who engages in logic chopping?

I answered that question with a high degree of certainty that you'd respond in this manner. You didn't disappoint.

Just to be clear . . . I believe you meant to state:  "I asked (not, I answered) that question with a high degree of certainty . . . ", to solicit an answer from me.

As such, that is the assumption, upon which, I am basing my response. 

Questioning one's truth, or accuracy in statements, facts or terms, has nothing to do with logic chopping.  Neither is asking for a definition of a term used.

You and Piggy declared America is Fascist . . . without providing an example to support your claim.  And . . . when asked to do so, your pedantic response was along the lines of it really can't be defined and therefore, its irrelevant.
  
You're kinda like Justice Jackson.  No doubt, in her court tenure, she will deliberate on a case involving women's issues . . . and yet she can't define what a woman is!   
 
My question was not logic chopping . . . as I never challenged your use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), nor implied it was a fallacious component to support any of your arguments.
 
Remember, it was you who asked me, in a roundabout way to respond ("I'll defer to you to provide . . .") regarding Asset Management and the significance of my question . . . and I did.

By doing so, I learned another thing about you . . . you misunderstand, misapply and assert the concept of logic chopping (just like publicly traded companies), to fit YOUR narrative.

Plus the fact you can't admit your error(s) in your posts.

Just like a good and obedient, liberal stooge!   

I can do semantics if you insist, but it isn't going to go any better for you than treating our discussion as an audit.

I answered your question per your request. That I then asked for your professional perspective has no bearing on that. That you claim it does shows you either intentionally engage in sophistry, or are ignorant re fallacies. Since you're clearly implying that it's an either/or proposition, feel free to try and substantiate it.

In the bolded statement you get it backwards: if you *had* challenged my use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), or implied it was a fallacious component to support any of my arguments, there would be no basis for claiming you had engaged in logic chopping. Instead, you used one minor error that has no bearing at all on my premise that the establishment of a global government is sucessfully being advanced by people I describe as globalists, to discredit everything I've presented, and my general credibility. That's an extreme example of logic chopping, coupled with ad hominem. I'm somewhat surprised that you'd engage in reasoning that is so blatantly fallacious. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

For the record, I did a quick search and the source I relied on for Vanguard was inaccurate. I wasn't concerned with rigor, I merely wanted to see how you'd respond. You've now provided a sufficient number of examples that this can fairly be said to be your modus operandi.

[BlueTiki]

I can do semantics if you insist, but it isn't going to go any better for you than treating our discussion as an audit.

This is or was not a semantics issue.  You made a mistake; I pointed it out . . . and now you’re acting like an emotional, pissy, and triggered, liberal stooge claiming I rejected your premise based upon your error. 

Not true.

I never challenged your argument, based upon your mistaken misclassification of two companies. I questioned your ability to report factual information . . . and if I could rely on what you post, as such.  Period.

I answered your question per your request. That I then asked for your professional perspective has no bearing on that. That you claim it does shows you either intentionally engage in sophistry, or are ignorant re fallacies.

That is not true or accurate. 

I never claimed that my “professional perspective” has any bearing on the accuracy of your mistaken misclassification.  I never asserted or claimed a “professional perspective” when answering your question.  

In fact, quite the opposite.  I declined to differentiate the nuances between stock and shareholder . . . either as a layman or in my capacity as a licensed securities dealer.

Since you're clearly implying that it's an either/or proposition, feel free to try and substantiate it.

I already substantiated the differences in my previous response.
 
It appears it is you who does not understand the difference, between the two asset management companies, their ownership and how income is distributed to those who are “invested” in each.

Simply and non-professionally:  BlackRock stockholders benefit from dividends based on the company’s overall performance.  Vanguard shareholders benefit from revenue generated by the specific fund in which they are invested . . . NOT by overall company performance.
 
Additionally, the same is true with BlackRock (as it is with Vanguard) that investors in funds benefit from revenue generated by the fund in which they are invested. 

Therefore:  BlackRock offers an investor the potential of two revenue streams (as publicly traded AND an asset management company) whereas Vanguard (a non-publicly traded asset management company) can only offer one.

In the bolded statement you get it backwards: if you *had* challenged my use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), or implied it was a fallacious component to support any of my arguments, there would be no basis for claiming you had engaged in logic chopping. Instead, you used one minor error that has no bearing at all on my premise that the establishment of a global government is sucessfully being advanced by people I describe as globalists, to discredit everything I've presented, and my general credibility.

That is not true.  

I never discredited, challenged, or supported your globalist premise based upon your error, regarding Vanguard. 

Show me where I stated, that because you misstated the corporate structure of Vanguard, I discounted and invalidated your premise regarding the role of asset management companies and their relationship and position, with the global elitists.  THAT is an example logic chopping.

What I did is question your ability and credibility to be accurate with facts and statements . . . when you offer a premise or post anything . . . and strictly MY confidence for MY reliance upon them. MY confidence and MY reliance . . . no one else's . . . they can freely choose for themselves.

I never promoted or encouraged anyone from discounting your opinions or posts, snowflake.   

That's an extreme example of logic chopping, coupled with ad hominem. I'm somewhat surprised that you'd engage in reasoning that is so blatantly fallacious. Did you think I wouldn't notice?

No.  This was not logic chopping.  I questioned your ability to provide factual information for me to unquestioningly rely upon . . . regarding anything you post. 
Just like I do with your beloved MSM.

I hope your globalist handler is proud of you, for following the liberal stooge playbook, and redefining a term to fit your narrative!

For the record, I did a quick search and the source I relied on for Vanguard was inaccurate.

Good for you!  Checking and verifying accuracy and not relying on what someone posts!

And I bet you gave that source a lucid, well-deserved, and a right-solid scolding, for being shamefully inaccurate, too!  Damn those bastards who tricked you!

However, I can only imagine as to the number of other sources you’ve used, that were both incorrect and you failed to verify before posting.

I wasn't concerned with rigor, I merely wanted to see how you'd respond. You've now provided a sufficient number of examples that this can fairly be said to be your modus operandi.

Glad to be of service! 

If or when rigor becomes a concern, may I suggest you consider ED medication?

Only after doing a quick web search . . . naturally.

My response, to your post is above, in red.

Please try and not take it personally . . . I know it's tough not to do as you've just you've entered the liberal stooge apprenticeship and your emotions and hormones are elevated.

For the record, I am not prone to accepting anything I read, as fact.  Except Stop signs.

I never question them.

XOXO

[rothschild]

I can do semantics if you insist, but it isn't going to go any better for you than treating our discussion as an audit.

This is or was not a semantics issue.  You made a mistake; I pointed it out . . . and now you’re acting like an emotional, pissy, and triggered, liberal stooge claiming I rejected your premise based upon your error. 

Not true.

I never challenged your argument, based upon your mistaken misclassification of two companies. I questioned your ability to report factual information . . . and if I could rely on what you post, as such.  Period.



I answered your question per your request. That I then asked for your professional perspective has no bearing on that. That you claim it does shows you either intentionally engage in sophistry, or are ignorant re fallacies.

That is not true or accurate. 

I never claimed that my “professional perspective” has any bearing on the accuracy of your mistaken misclassification.  I never asserted or claimed a “professional perspective” when answering your question.  

Just to be clear . . . I believe you meant to state: "I asked (not, I answered) that question with a high degree of certainty . . . ", to solicit an answer from me.

As such, that is the assumption, upon which, I am basing my response.

I meant to state precisely what I did state. That you chose to assume otherwise is indication that your response was a straw man. Nor did I claim that your “professional perspective” had bearing on the accuracy of what I said.


In the bolded statement you get it backwards: if you *had* challenged my use of BlackRock or Vanguard (or other global asset managers, in general), or implied it was a fallacious component to support any of my arguments, there would be no basis for claiming you had engaged in logic chopping. Instead, you used one minor error that has no bearing at all on my premise that the establishment of a global government is sucessfully being advanced by people I describe as globalists, to discredit everything I've presented, and my general credibility.

That is not true.  

I never discredited, challenged, or supported your globalist premise based upon your error, regarding Vanguard. 

Show me where I stated, that because you misstated the corporate structure of Vanguard, I discounted and invalidated your premise regarding the role of asset management companies and their relationship and position, with the global elitists.  THAT is an example logic chopping.

What I did is question your ability and credibility to be accurate with facts and statements . . . when you offer a premise or post anything . . . and strictly MY confidence for MY reliance upon them. MY confidence and MY reliance . . . no one else's . . . they can freely choose for themselves.

I never promoted or encouraged anyone from discounting your opinions or posts, snowflake.   


Two synonyms for discredit are: disprove, and invalidate.

That post was your rebuttal, consisting entirely of an attempt to discredit, disprove, invalidate (take your pick) what I'd written on the basis of a minor error concerning something that had nothing at all to do with my premise. That you did that in lieu of addressing my premise is a clear indication that you thought it was invalidated.

You seem to be trying to have your cake and eat it, too. Good luck with that.


That's an extreme example of logic chopping, coupled with ad hominem. I'm somewhat surprised that you'd engage in reasoning that is so blatantly fallacious. Did you think I wouldn't notice?
[medium]
No. This was not logic chopping.  I questioned your ability to provide factual information for me to unquestioningly rely upon . . . regarding anything you post. 
Just like I do with your beloved MSM.

I hope your globalist handler is proud of you, for following the liberal stooge playbook, and redefining a term to fit your narrative!


I never expressed a desire for you to "unquestioningly rely upon" anything I've posted, nor would I, as the thought is repugnant to me.


For the record, I did a quick search and the source I relied on for Vanguard was inaccurate.

Good for you!  Checking and verifying accuracy and not relying on what someone posts!

And I bet you gave that source a lucid, well-deserved, and a right-solid scolding, for being shamefully inaccurate, too!  Damn those bastards who tricked you!

However, I can only imagine as to the number of other sources you’ve used, that were both incorrect and you failed to verify before posting.

I wasn't concerned with rigor, I merely wanted to see how you'd respond. You've now provided a sufficient number of examples that this can fairly be said to be your modus operandi.

[size=medium]Glad to be of service! 

If or when rigor becomes a concern, may I suggest you consider ED medication?

Only after doing a quick web search . . . naturally.

Why would I invest more effort than I did to answer a question that was clearly intended as a "test"?

The only reason I bothered to answer it at all was to confirm what I already knew, that you think a gotcha point is a valid rebuttal.


My response, to your post is above, in red.

Please try and not take it personally . . . I know it's tough not to do as you've just you've entered the liberal stooge apprenticeship and your emotions and hormones are elevated.

For the record, I am not prone to accepting anything I read, as fact.  Except Stop signs.

I never question them.

XOXO

Why would I have hurt feelings when you've painted yourself into a corner, leaving me to watch as you try to squirm out of it by means of straw men and the like?

The only difficulty for me lies in slogging through the butchered format of your posts, but that's a small price to pay. ; )

[Duchess]

Librul stooge.