I did answer the quesiton you stupid asshole.
Try following the thread.
Now YOU need to answer for your absence from DC on 1/6.
Ongoing gas shortage leaves nearly 90% of DC pumps without fuel
- Thread starter Legion
- Start date
I did answer the quesiton you stupid asshole.
Try following the thread.
Now YOU need to answer for your absence from DC on 1/6.
Again, it's your stupid misperception that you think I "tacitly agreed" to anything yesterday.
But I get why you need to frame it that way; I've run circles around you in this debate, so the best you can do is try to play "gotcha" over something you've already misunderstood.
No, it's not. Your failure to challenge the definition stipulates assent. Now, answer the question according to the definition you tacitly accepted yesterday
If consumers cannot obtain a commodity upon demand, is there a shortage of that commodity?
Yes, it is.
You are a "short bus" person who is "fucking retarded" and has "brain damage".
LOL!
I answered your stupid leading question about a dozen posts ago. It looks like you ignored that post because it made you look like an ass.
Not necessarily.
If consumers cannot obtain the commodity because there's no supply, then that's a shortage.
If consumers cannot obtain the commodity because the seller is holding the supply back, then that's capitalism.
Answer the question according to the definition you tacitly accepted yesterday
If consumers cannot obtain a commodity upon demand, is there a shortage of that commodity?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
let's assume this twits spin is correct.......is it LV's contention that they should have just given gas away for free?.....
Let's not, because he's weaseling.
So people could actually fill their vehicles. Why then the lines?
He/she/alphabet appears to be just another stubborn clueless leftie.
A problem for the little people, not the power elite.
Also, please unban APL - he's said he'll be less disruptive, and is one of the few (mostly) sane liberals here.
No, they couldn't fill their vehicles because Colonial wouldn't release the gas they were holding.
You keep saying I tacitly accepted something, but I never did that...you are just pretending I did because you're desperate and pathetic.
Not necessarily because a shortage would mean there's no supply.
But there was plenty of supply, it was just being held back by Colonial.
Repeating the same failed assertion doesn't make it valid, you know.
You didn't object to the definition, therefore, you accepted it. Silence is assent.
If I place a plastic bag over your head, will you experience a shortage of oxygen, or will you say there's no shortage because there's plenty of oxygen that you aren't able to breathe?
I'd be willing to try the experiment.
A shortage is when there is no supply.
But there was plenty of supply, Colonial was just holding it back.
So that's not a shortage, that's more like an embargo than anything.
Not according to the definition that you tacitly accepted. Go back and read it again.
I didn't accept any definition...you are pretending I did for the sake of your pathetically weak argument that a private company embargo is the same thing as a shortage of supply.
You tacitly accepted the election wasn't stolen because you didn't show up to DC on 1/6 to do anything about it.
You certainly did. Since you cannot provide any evidence that you objected to the definition at the time you commented on it, your acceptance is established.