A little something I have found.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012...;utm_medium=RSS

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/...been-put-food-/

I usually don't personally touch such obvious bullshit, but...



Metric for "worked" is that caseloads dropped 70 percent. The rest of US population that still identify with humanity acknowledge that it was an unmitigated disaster.

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/08/did-welfare-reform-work/244038/

The mere fact that you equate the "rest of US population" with the opinion of The Atlantic should be all anyone needs to know.

Yes, The Atlantic, that communist rag.

I find it amusing how you quickly dismiss anything someone posts that doesn't agree with you based on the claim that their sources are not credible or non-partisan, yet every time you attempt to refute one with a link of your own, its to something that is itself highly partisan. This link is a good example, yet all it does is prove the original post true while later attempting to pass blame on the cause to the previous administration (pretty original, yes?). By speculating on what might have happen had Obama not come to the rescue, they are able to convince themselves that this isn't his fault.

So this works both ways. Until you can find a non-partisan source that refutes this claim, I'm going to have to assume that its correct, especially since your partisan source agrees with me.

Politifact and The Atlantic are partisan? Well, I am afraid with definitions like that only Fox would be "balanced". I am not linking, for example huffington, or any other source that I would consider openly left-leaning. Even if you think my sources are biased, feel free to point out where they are wrong. I am always open to "lets check facts" debate.

In closing - it is intellectual surrender borderline on intentional denial to attempt to dismiss everything I say because it is partisan.

Sinij, in this case I think it was more along the lines of pointing out your own predilection to dismiss/ignore partisan sources while relying on your own that it was to necessarily knock the Atlantic or Politifact.

Oh, and your assertion (that actually is not made in the Atlantic Article) that "The rest of US population that still identify with humanity acknowledge that it was an unmitigated disaster." which was 1) not in the article, and 2) obviously intended to be insulting and demeaning to the people you were discussing the issue with.

P.S. I actually like Atlantic. Occasionally they have an off article, but no more than anywhere else.

How do you expect me to react when someone seriously suggests that yes, we should just let a bunch of people rot. You do understand that we are discussing people, not some abstract population units?

And this is what I was saying, and is exactly what you did in another thread that Derid started.

That time with the guy with the thing? Next time, can you please be more specific?

You mean like you do when you make undocumented references to ideas that have been "discussed and disproven in another thread," which you have a penchant for doing.

Rule #4: make the enemy live up to his own set of rules

I have noticed you have been posting a lot in that other thread where you were completely wrong about everything.