Sorry, missed that. When did SCOTUS declare income tax is unconstitutional?

Ironically?

Again, you are entirely missing the point. Is it possible the facts I cited are erroneous, and subject to having been rewritten? Sure. Absolutely.

But you don’t get to just blindly SAY they are wrong because they don’t agree with your assertions. The ‘ everything that disagrees with me is a conspiracy‘ argument is just lazy.

Not arguing, just puzzled: I googled the Hebrew alphabet and the sixth letter is D.

Keep posturing and pretending, maybe you were leaving convince yourself that you matter to anyone.

And you keep posting infantile, one-liner insults, and I’ll keep reporting. You really are an embarrassment aren’t you?

Oh, another wild assertion you’re going to scurry away from when called upon to justify it? I’d ask you to explain that strange comment but we both know you won’t.

And your last 20 comments have been nothing but desperate, whining one-liner insults, do you think that will impress the mods? Because they’ve all been reported.

You think being humiliated in public by your betters is fun?

Come on, squeal some more for me: let me guess your clever, verbose response is going to revolve around the words troll and Hasbara, you irrelevant little stereotype.

No, you are just trolling at this stage. It’s pretty common among adolescents who live in the basement of the Internet, they throw tantrums when you call them out on their nonsense and then quickly degenerate to irrelevant, whimpering one-liner insults. Sound familiar?

Do you seriously think you are impressing anyone with these avoidant, cowardly insults?

Sure, why not? I’d be happy if you made even the slightest effort to justify or explain any of your wild assertions and insults, but you never ever do do you?

Just more shrill insults, and whining.

And now you are down to attacking typos.

Just like every garden-variety embarrassed nobody on the Internet, whose desperate flailing has gotten them nothing. Nowhere else to turn? Humiliated at every junction? Well you can always attack typos. Right?

What is too complicated about this for you? You made a claim about me and I am asking you to justify it and please be specific.

Do I need to write it out and simpler words for you? Is there a specific point about that you don’t understand?

Tax cuts. That’s all he did. Permanent for the ultra rich, temporary got everyone else.

The right to try law was great, genuinely a great bill, and good for him.

That’s it.

Take your childish insults elsewhere ‘son’. Those belong in high school.

Of course you did, you read them all. Don’t even pretend otherwise. Poor little you: all this over me calling you out on your craven avoidance tactics. How furious you must have been to obsessively search all through my comment history, as you admitted you did. How very sad.

And by the way, you didn’t answer my question. Please tell us all exactly how you determined I was not a conspiracists, and be specific.

Well?

You still whining about me? Your obsession is not productive.

And look at you, still answering with nonsense. Every time. All while loudly proclaiming you ‘don’t care’.

Yes. Obsession.

Or need I remind you that you openly admitted to searching through my comment history, and posting insulting irrelevancies on posts of mine from over a month ago?

So, yes: textbook obsession. Thanks.

Oh, I’m not a conspiracist? Really?

Do tell. Please tell me how, in your vast and unchallengeable wisdom, you have determined that.

I dare you.

Do you think?

Odd prediction considering you are the one who is literally stalking me from thread to thread, posting irrelevancies on comments I made over a month ago, all in a desperate and futile attempt to solve your fragile ego. Or possibly feed your unrequited obsession, or maybe both.

“Someone contradicted me on the Internet with evidence, therefore they must be a glowie!”

How boring.

You are entirely missing the point. Is it possible that books on the topic are in error, or have a political bent? Of course it is, very possible.

That can be reduced, but not eliminated, by dealing with reputable historians who deal with primary sources, but even then you never really know.

But the point here is that actual professional history written by primary source historians, despite all of its potential flaws and weaknesses, it’s still not false just because you claim it is without any basis or evidence.

And when actual researched primary source history contradicts your baseless, uneducated assertions, hiding behind wild conspiracies is just silly.

I cited actual laws, and dates, which are easily verifiable, and proved you wrong. Your response was to assert that anything out there which contradicts your baseless assertion must be rewritten conspiracies. That’s not an argument, it is hiding in embarrassment.

As far as I can tell, and if I am in error please correct me with actual substance, you made something up and then asserted that any evidence to the contrary must be rewritten conspiracy lies simply because it contradicted what you made up.

Talk about what? The cheap distraction topic you came up with to avoid discussing the point of the actual thread and all of the previous comments?

If you have some thing you wish to discuss, then start a thread about it. Seriously, feel free. I’ll even contribute to it, and you might be shocked to find that I actually agree with you, but what I won’t do is just change the topic as an act of Craven distraction.

But stop trying to pretend that changing the topic to utter irrelevancies because you cannot handle the actual topic under discussion is anything other than the act of a complete coward

I have not lied yet, as you well know, and now your desperate need to distract from your own deficiencies has devolved into childish slander, and cowardly avoidance, and you are fooling nobody.