170 replies to this topic

[Lysistrata]

So because I believe in the people choosing the President... I'm supposed to support his agenda as well? You failed to continue reading... "we just have to cope the best we can with our choices". My opposition to Obama is me coping the best I can with the people's choice. If the people choose poorly, that doesn't mean I'm suddenly changing my position. Obama has been a complete failure to my country, and Republican opposition has prevented him from inflicting much more damage. Anyone has the right to disagree with me... but that's politics in America.

[onbekende]

I am pointing out your apparant inability to see the other side of the argument. You can agree to disagree all the time, but I like to know what I am disagreeing with. The reasoning might be illogical but should be funded past a mere emotion of love/hate.

 

You dislike Obama, fine. You dislike the laws he put forth, fine. You can agree that a majority (of like what, 53%) wants something you dislike, fine. But can you stop and think that mere love/hate is whats driving your country is a bigger divide then ever healthy for a nation?

 

Debates should be about vocalizing your standpoint and getting to know your fellow debaters positions, not about badmouthing for the sake of appeasing realityTV standards of audience.

 

You don't fall for the whole farçe, and it suits you to notice that its turning into a farçe. But atleast stop using the farçe to continue the farçe itself. Eventually this will boil down to 4y of each sides president veto'ing every law the previous 4y got issued. That isn't governing, thats pre-school bullying.

[davidrbr]

Oh Lys you really have to pick on one word "rights" don't you? Have you ever heard of the Bill of "Rights"? Rights are something that has to be provided because they are rights!!! You have a voting right unless you are a felony then it can be provoked. I didn't say anything about  Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps or Obamacare because I know those things are not rights. You know at the time of Abraham Lincoln the Republican party is actually the modern day Democrats, so don't take credit for that. Yes I'm talking about abortion along  with equal pay and equal treatment, just because the Supreme Court approved of it doesn't mean the Republican party does because they don't and they want to defund Plant Parenthood which is all about women's health. Democrats are not afraid of tough questions from FOX because if they were then Sanders wouldn't be willing to do a debate on FOX, they just don't want to waste time with a ridiculous "news" channel.  

 

Hello David! So nice to see you again.

 

I'm a Republican David... we believe in Constitutional rights for all Americans... not special rights carved out, or created, for specific people. We Republicans abolished slavery, David... because all Americans have the same rights. There are no special rights because you're a woman, a Greek, an Asian, a blonde, a Jew, or a man... just plain Constitutional rights... for all.

 

Rights are not something that has to be provided... you are confusing rights with entitlements and privileges. You didn't specify what "rights" for women you say we are against. Are you talking about abortion? The Supreme Court has ruled that it is within the law for a woman to seek, and have an abortion performed. It is not a "right".... in the eyes of the law... it's not murder. There are many that believe that abortion is murder... many of these people follow a religion... they have the "right" to believe that.

 

No one has a "right" to vote... it's a privilege. Like a driver license, it can be regulated and revoked. Your ability to vote requires you to register, qualify, and be "provided" with the proper license to exercise the legal action.

 

Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, Food Stamps, Obamacare... and all the rest are "entitlements"... not "rights".

 

Democrats don't go on Fox News because they are scared to death of answering the hard questions. Bernie Sanders was on Chris Wallace's show this morning, and Chris confronted him on the fact that Fox News was boycotted from hosting a debate for them... he responded that he would be willing to do a Fox hosted debate if they had an agreement on the questions that would be asked, and if the DNC agreed to it. Your description of Fox News was not in his response whatsoever... they are frightened of any questions that Conservatives want to ask them.

 

I create these threads because politics is my hobby... like computer games, bowling, and Tacate fueled jacuzzi's with my wife. I have a passion for it... I also happen to be a Conservative. I really don't care if it bothers you, but if you learn something from it... even if you learn that you just hate me more... then I have succeeded in my objective.

[Lysistrata]

Hello David!... The U. S. "Bill of Rights" are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, they are not "provided" by anyone, all United States citizens are born with them... freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, right to keep and bear arms, right to a speedy trial, right to have regulated search and seizure... you know? Stuff that doesn't cost money, and no one has to provide a service for them.

 

If you wish to continue believing that somewhere in time the Republican Party switched places with Democrats, then enjoy your ignorance. If I was a Democrat... I would want to run away from the past as well. In typical Democrat fashion, you refuse to take responsibility... and blame Republicans.

 

Planned Parenthood is a private business... they are not a government agency. They are in the business of abortion. It's illegal to use taxpayer money for abortions. They don't need to be subsidized by taxpayers. They don't need taxpayer money to conduct their business. I don't care how many abortions Planned Parenthood performs... it's not illegal. I care about who is paying for it, and this bullshit that they "use the money for other things", is a lie. It's illegal to continue government funding of Planned Parenthood. I can't help you see the difference more than that.

 

So you want equal pay? Does that mean you wish to do away with all employment contracts? I really can't see your problem.

[Sir Robert de Dudley]

Umm the Progressives were formed out of the Republican party.. wouldn't that there were liberals in the Republican party. Now yes the parties back then didn't used our modern terms of Liberal vs Conservatives.. Actually the term liberal was what was debated Classical vs what became neo-Liberalism, so really all parties have a liberal element in the broader definition of it. But if you just want to say which party by name only yea it was the republican party and yea most modern Democrats would be Republicans back then as many Democrats who were anti-slavery back then did join the Republican party when it was founded.

[Lysistrata]

Umm the Progressives were formed out of the Republican party

YES! You are correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to inject the U.S. Federal Government with a big government progressive platform. When Teddy left office, William Howard Taft rejected the Progressive movement and began reversing the damage. Progressives found a new home with the easily manipulated, and horribly dysfunctional, Democrat Party. Teddy didn't like that and came back to run against Taft with the new Progressive Party... nicknamed the Bull Moose Party. This split the Republican vote and Woodrow Wilson won with 43% of the vote. The Progressive Party dissolved shortly after, and they have been firmly encamped with Democrats, and destroying the Republic, ever since. Class dismissed.

[Decide R Inchief]

 

Umm the Progressives were formed out of the Republican party

YES! You are correct. Theodore Roosevelt was the first President to inject the U.S. Federal Government with a big government progressive platform. When Teddy left office, William Howard Taft rejected the Progressive movement and began reversing the damage. Progressives found a new home with the easily manipulated, and horribly dysfunctional, Democratic Party. Teddy didn't like that and came back to run against Taft with the new Progressive Party... nicknamed the Bull Moose Party. This split the Republican vote and Woodrow Wilson won with 43% of the vote. The Progressive Party dissolved shortly after, and they have been firmly encamped with Democrats, and destroying the Republic, ever since. Class dismissed.

 

As I read the above, you'd like to repeal most of the results of the 20th century. Do you care to elaborate?

[Lysistrata]

As I read the above, you'd like to repeal most of the results of the 20th century. Do you care to elaborate?

Wow... this is a cool question. I'll do my best.

 

The Libertarian in me wants to say, "Hello Congress!... if you wish to pass one new law, you must repeal 5 old ones first!"

 

The Federal Government is too big. This is the result of decades of Legislators, Presidents, and Supreme Courts allowing laws to stand that go outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Whenever Progressives pass some big law that further encumbers the people... Republicans have to come in and pass more laws to encumber the encumbering law, that never should have passed to begin with. Whenever Republicans pass some big law that further encumbers the people... I'm repeating myself, just the other way. So really the answer to your question, for the most part... is yes.

 

We have 50 states, and each one of them have the same government as the Federal Government. Each state elects a Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, an Attorney General... each have a House and a Senate... District, Superior, and Supreme Courts. They are all set up to be very strong, and to take care of their state. What has happened over the course of these decades, is more and more power has been shifted to the Federal Government, and it's pretty much made the state governments useless. Thus, the destruction of the Republic.

 

The Federal Government should, in all speed possible, let go of the power, let go of the money, stop playing mommy, stop playing daddy, stop playing social worker, and stop playing psychiatrist to the entire country, and allow these state governments to take care of themselves the way the Constitution, and our Republic, was crafted to operate. If we, the American people, do not change this path we are on... we will go bankrupt, we will separate once again, and the half that doesn't support the military, and the half that chooses to give up their guns, will lose.

[Decide R Inchief]

The Federal Government is too big. This is the result of decades of Legislators, Presidents, and Supreme Courts allowing laws to stand that go outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Whenever Progressives pass some big law that further encumbers the people... Republicans have to come in and pass more laws to encumber the encumbering law, that
never should have passed to begin with. Whenever Republicans pass some big law that further encumbers the people... I'm repeating myself, just the other way. So really the answer to your question, for the most part... is yes.

 

 

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final say on which laws go outside the boundaries of the Constitution. Therefore, under your own standard the above assertion is incorrect.

 

 

 

 

The Federal Government should, in all speed possible, let go of the power, let go of the money, stop playing mommy, stop playing daddy, stop playing social worker, and stop playing psychiatrist to the entire country, and allow these state governments to take care of themselves the way the Constitution, and our Republic, was crafted to operate. If we, the American people, do not change this path we are on... we will go bankrupt, we will separate once again, and the half that doesn't support the military, and the half that chooses to give up their guns, will lose.

                   

 

You're describing a libertarian fantasy land. In the world of today, corporate oligarchy in the name of "ensuring shareholder value" would be the actual result of government abdicating its responsibility. Government is not the boogeyman. Management of the rules and regulations set up to minimize the negative effects of profit-at-all-cost capitalists is and should be the role of government.

 

 

That said, I certainly would like a line-item veto provision included on my 1040 form!

 

 

We have 50 states, and each one of them have the same government as the Federal Government. Each state elects a Governor, a Lieutenant Governor, an Attorney General... each have a House and a Senate... District, Superior, and Supreme Courts. They are all set up to be very strong, and to take care of their state. What has happened over the course of these decades, is more and more power has been shifted to the Federal Government, and it's pretty much made the state governments useless. Thus, the destruction of the Republic.

 

 

Setting aside the outlier of Nebraska's Unicameral Legislature (incidentally, a product of the Progressive Movement), I think we need only look to history to show us that states have certainly proven either unable or unwilling to  'take care of their state', as you suggest. Two easy examples are segregation and voting rights.

[Lysistrata]

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final say on which laws go outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

That is why I included Supreme Courts in the list... it's my assertion that they have all broke the boundaries of the Constitution.

In the world of today, corporate oligarchy in the name of "ensuring shareholder value" would be the actual result of government abdicating its responsibility. Government is not the boogeyman. Management of the rules and regulations set up to minimize the negative effects of profit-at-all-cost capitalists is and should be the role of government.

Where in the Constitution is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to be against corporate oligarchy and limit shareholder value? Are you saying they would be abdicating a responsibility the people never gave them? If you want something like this, it should be done the right way... draw up a Constitutional Amendment, and get it passed... but that's just too hard, it's much easier to bullshit our way into super majorities and stack the courts with judges that refuse to stop it.

 

You asked me a question, and I did the best I could to explain my position. You still have the right to not like it.

[onbekende]

Hello David!... The U. S. "Bill of Rights" are the first 10 amendments of the Constitution, they are not "provided" by anyone, all United States citizens are born with them... freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom to petition the government, right to keep and bear arms, right to a speedy trial, right to have regulated search and seizure... you know? Stuff that doesn't cost money, and no one has to provide a service for them.

 

So the United States Constitution + the first 10 additions are "free"? Nothing about them being written on paper for a government to uphold and enforce? Nothing about the same society seemingly forgetting another 17 "rights" and having to "add" them later? Nothing about the possiblity that you might find #28 being issued in the near future?

 

I did chuckle when I read up on Scalia and his "originalist" (seems like a word I would make up in english tbh) views. Society evolves, hence #1 to 27, and thats ignoring all the other books of law passed between 1776 and 2016.

 

Society evolves, and I have stated before I do count myself a conservative, but in the meaning of the word, as in "to keep what was was", just in so far that I don't see a "better way". Evolution should happen, but revolution nor standstill should be advocated in any form as they ignore the basic notion of time flowing ahead.

[Lysistrata]

When anyone invokes the United States Bill of Rights, they are invoking the first 10 amendments. I didn't bring it up.

 

The U.S. Constitution is a brilliant document. It is telling the Federal Government what they "shall not" do. It's really one of the greatest, and most revolutionary, pieces of law ever created. Those of a selfish nature only invoke it when it serves them.

[Decide R Inchief]

 

According to the Constitution, the Supreme Court has the final say on which laws go outside the boundaries of the Constitution.

That is why I included Supreme Courts in the list... it's my assertion that they have all broke the boundaries of the Constitution.

 

 

In the world of today, corporate oligarchy in the name of "ensuring shareholder value" would be the actual result of government abdicating its responsibility. Government is not the boogeyman. Management of the rules and regulations set up to minimize the negative effects of profit-at-all-cost capitalists is and should be the role of government.

Where in the Constitution is it the responsibility of the Federal Government to be against corporate oligarchy and limit shareholder value? Are you saying they would be abdicating a responsibility the people never gave them? If you want something like this, it should be done the right way... draw up a Constitutional Amendment, and get it passed... but that's just too hard, it's much easier to bullshit our way into super majorities and stack the courts with judges that refuse to stop it.

 

You asked me a question, and I did the best I could to explain my position. You still have the right to not like it.

 

Government that is truly "of, by and for the people" includes ALL people. Not just stockholders.

[Lysistrata]

Government that is truly "of, by and for the people" includes ALL people. Not just stockholders.

I agree, but stockholders are not excluded. Who the hell ever said that stockholders are the only people? Your hatred for people who make money is taking over your ability to think rationally. Am I a stockholder?... No. Do I hate stockholders?... No. Do I want anyone singled out and punished because they are stockholders?... No. Are all stockholders card carrying Republicans?... Hell No.

 

I wish all people would keep their minds on creating a happy life, and stop hating others who have. No one owes you a thing unless you did a service for someone, or you loaned someone something. We need swift legislation called the "Tough Shit Act of 2016"... you want to complain about anything? Tough Shit.

[Decide R Inchief]

I agree, but stockholders are not excluded. Who the hell ever said that stockholders are the only people? Your hatred for people who make money is taking over your ability to think rationally. Am I a stockholder?... No. Do I hate stockholders?... No. Do I want anyone singled out and punished because they are stockholders?... No. Are all stockholders card carrying Republicans?... Hell No.

 

I fear that discussing this with you is a little like discussing the bible with literalists.

 

Point out for me where I said I hate and/or want people who make money to be punished. I make a very good living. However, I expect that living to not be collected at the expense of all others.

 

Furthermore, if you're not a stockholder then you are voting against your own economic self interest. There is no rational reason for this behavior short of Social Darwinism. Unfortunately, you are not alone. This book is relevant to that phenomenon. This Libertarian paradise you espouse has the side effect of allowing the oligarchy to run roughshod over all others.

[Lysistrata]

Government that is truly "of, by and for the people" includes ALL people. Not just stockholders.

Pointing it out... you're implying here that our government is of, by, and for stockholders... you're against that, and on a mission to change it. I'm implying that it's not, and you have some hatred or vendetta against investors. If I am somehow interpreting that wrong, please correct me. I'm not immune to hearing things the wrong way.

 

I am so utterly sick of Progressives telling me that if I'm not a millionaire or a hedge fund manager, that I am voting against my own interests by not supporting their organized theft of wealth. Progressives have no idea what my interests are, and they don't care what my interests are. I tell Progressives all the time that I don't want anything from anyone. I have made my own life, I pay my way, and I don't expect anyone to pay for my healthcare, my kids, what I eat, where I live, who I talk to, or how they talk to me. I love freedom... and if you turn your freedom over to a political idea, you will lose it.

[Decide R Inchief]

If you turn your freedom over to the oligarchy it's gone just the same.

[Lysistrata]

If you turn your freedom over to the oligarchy it's gone just the same.

[Decide R Inchief]

 

I fear that discussing this with you is a little like discussing the bible with literalists.

 

 

Well what do you know, I was right.

 

[Lysistrata]

 

 

I fear that discussing this with you is a little like discussing the bible with literalists.

 

 

Well what do you know, I was right.

 

 

I know exactly what you mean... I'm agnostic