SoxProspects News
|
|
|
|
Legal
Forum Ground Rules
The views expressed by the members of this Forum do not necessarily reflect the views of SoxProspects, LLC.
© 2003-2024 SoxProspects, LLC
|
|
|
|
|
Forum Home | Search | My Profile | Messages | Members | Help |
Welcome Guest. Please Login or Register.
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 18, 2015 7:15:45 GMT -5
Critical reasoning/thinking going with far-left politics...yeah that's not tracking. The ignoring law part makes sense though. "Ignoring law" is certainly not what we did (especially if you have any notion of what law is). What does "tracking" mean? You're right technically the Constitution is not a law, it's simply the document on which all of our laws are supposed to be based. I stand corrected.
Here's a fun question. The "debt limit" debate is on the horizon again because liberals believe we can just keep accumulating debt ad infinitum. What are you going to do when the creditors say "Sorry, we're not lending any more money until you start paying back what you already owe"?
Oh yeah that's right, tax the rich. And tax them some more. Which will NEVER WORK because even IF taxing the rich were able to cover all of Obama's current socialist programs (which it won't but I'm laying aside the point for the moment), as soon as that happened he'd just add more because the only person on the planet who spends money they don't have quicker than a liberal politician is a teenager getting daddy's credit card for the first time.
Now granted, the right side of the aisle isn't much better than the left right now. But they're definitely the lesser of two evils.
When the 2016 election comes around my hope is that Americans remember:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Mar 18, 2015 8:11:17 GMT -5
"Ignoring law" is certainly not what we did (especially if you have any notion of what law is). What does "tracking" mean? You're right technically the Constitution is not a law, it's simply the document on which all of our laws are supposed to be based. I stand corrected.
Here's a fun question. The "debt limit" debate is on the horizon again because liberals believe we can just keep accumulating debt ad infinitum. What are you going to do when the creditors say "Sorry, we're not lending any more money until you start paying back what you already owe"?
Oh yeah that's right, tax the rich. And tax them some more. Which will NEVER WORK because even IF taxing the rich were able to cover all of Obama's current socialist programs (which it won't but I'm laying aside the point for the moment), as soon as that happened he'd just add more because the only person on the planet who spends money they don't have quicker than a liberal politician is a teenager getting daddy's credit card for the first time.
Now granted, the right side of the aisle isn't much better than the left right now. But they're definitely the lesser of two evils.
When the 2016 election comes around my hope is that Americans remember:
"But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
Why did you feel it was necessary to hijack this thread? There are plenty of political forums you can use to spew your vomit. |
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Mar 18, 2015 8:14:26 GMT -5
As a game I wonder how many of the 30 examples given in the original post can be identified above ^^^?
First for clarification the level of debt we are carrying as a country is lower, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in the 1950's. There is no debt crisis in the offing unless the GOP plays games again and threatens a default.
And if anyone thinks that Obama is a socialist, citing his "socialist policies" as the proof, they are disqualified from having an informed debate on the issues. |
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Mar 18, 2015 8:16:26 GMT -5
My reply was directed at redsoxnh2014 and not chavopepe2...
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 8:19:33 GMT -5
As a game I wonder how many of the 30 examples given in the original post can be identified above ^^^?
First for clarification the level of debt we are carrying as a country is lower, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in the 1950's. There is no debt crisis in the offing unless the GOP plays games again and threatens a default.
And if anyone thinks that Obama is a socialist, citing his "socialist policies" as the proof, they are disqualified from having an informed debate on the issues. Nope, he's a fascist, just like Republicans. Just pick your favorite corporations to run the world, most of them overlap no matter who is in office. I don't even understand why there is a debate anymore. You're doing their work for them. This was a terrible derailment of a decent thread. |
|
|
|
Post by libertine on Mar 18, 2015 8:25:37 GMT -5
"Nope, he's a fascist, just like Republicans. Just pick your favorite corporations to run the world, most of them overlap no matter who is in office. I don't even understand why there is a debate anymore. You're doing their work for them."
And most of them think Atlas Shrugged is an economics textbook. But I will refrain from calling them fascists even if I think they show fascist tendencies by trying to characterize people who disagree with them as traitors, or enemies of the state...
|
|
|
|
Post by joshv02 on Mar 18, 2015 10:15:55 GMT -5
I totally thought(given that you quoted my post) that you were somehow responding to me and what I wrote (e.g., my aside about my education) rather than something you had canned as a response regardless of what I wrote (e.g., something random about the constitution).
Whoops!
This is an off-topic forum though, so I don't see the big deal about talking about politics. This is the place for it, no? I mean obviously there are other places for it but if someone where to write about politics on this board this would be the place for it.
It's just obviously an itch rather than a conversation given that it was a complete non sequitur (full circle!)
|
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 18, 2015 11:29:37 GMT -5
As a game I wonder how many of the 30 examples given in the original post can be identified above ^^^?
First for clarification the level of debt we are carrying as a country is lower, as a percentage of GDP, than it was in the 1950's. There is no debt crisis in the offing unless the GOP plays games again and threatens a default.
And if anyone thinks that Obama is a socialist, citing his "socialist policies" as the proof, they are disqualified from having an informed debate on the issues. Nope, he's a fascist, just like Republicans. Just pick your favorite corporations to run the world, most of them overlap no matter who is in office. I don't even understand why there is a debate anymore. You're doing their work for them. This was a terrible derailment of a decent thread. I love how you just jump straight to the name-calling.
Just to be clear I did not "hijack" anything, it was off-topic to begin with. And thank you for proving a point I hadn't even bothered to make, that liberals often resort to name-calling even when it is not warranted. Chavopepe refers to what I say (which in case you forgot your American History is a direct quote from our Declaration of Independence) as "vomit" and Jimed refers to me as a "fascist" simply because you don't agree with me. Then libertine says that I (by implication, he admittedly wasn't referring to me specifically) refer to liberals as traitors and enemies of the state. And of course you certainly have the right to do so, I'm just pointing the fallacy (see we're back on-topic) of doing so. I personally do not think Obama is a bad man in any way, I think he's trying to do what's best for the country and is simply doing it wrong. I don't think the Constitution gives him the power he's trying to wield, I don't think it's right of him to circumvent the legislature, and I think "reducing income inequality" and "redistribution of wealth" are two tags for the same policies. If anyone would like to have a civilized discourse on any of those points I'd love to; I have liberal friends and enjoy friendly disagreements. However, if we're going to continue with just the name-calling, don't forget to refer to me as "redneck" (despite the fact that I'm from NH), racist (despite the fact that I have friends of all races and love all people), a rich guy who just wants to keep it all for himself (despite the fact that I make about $26,000 per year), a war-monger (despite the fact that I never supported the Iraq War)...if there's any more of the typical attacks please let me know.
Just curious what do you all think of the Hillary email debate? I'm genuinely curious
And just a side note libertine I am NOT a Republican, I'm a registered independent because I'm liberal in some areas conservative in others.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 12:08:07 GMT -5
I referred to Obama as a fascist, just like everyone else. I have no idea who you are.
|
|
|
|
Post by chavopepe2 on Mar 18, 2015 13:37:38 GMT -5
Nope, he's a fascist, just like Republicans. Just pick your favorite corporations to run the world, most of them overlap no matter who is in office. I don't even understand why there is a debate anymore. You're doing their work for them. This was a terrible derailment of a decent thread. I love how you just jump straight to the name-calling.
Just to be clear I did not "hijack" anything, it was off-topic to begin with. And thank you for proving a point I hadn't even bothered to make, that liberals often resort to name-calling even when it is not warranted. Chavopepe refers to what I say (which in case you forgot your American History is a direct quote from our Declaration of Independence) as "vomit" and Jimed refers to me as a "fascist" simply because you don't agree with me. Then libertine says that I (by implication, he admittedly wasn't referring to me specifically) refer to liberals as traitors and enemies of the state. And of course you certainly have the right to do so, I'm just pointing the fallacy (see we're back on-topic) of doing so. I personally do not think Obama is a bad man in any way, I think he's trying to do what's best for the country and is simply doing it wrong. I don't think the Constitution gives him the power he's trying to wield, I don't think it's right of him to circumvent the legislature, and I think "reducing income inequality" and "redistribution of wealth" are two tags for the same policies. If anyone would like to have a civilized discourse on any of those points I'd love to; I have liberal friends and enjoy friendly disagreements. However, if we're going to continue with just the name-calling, don't forget to refer to me as "redneck" (despite the fact that I'm from NH), racist (despite the fact that I have friends of all races and love all people), a rich guy who just wants to keep it all for himself (despite the fact that I make about $26,000 per year), a war-monger (despite the fact that I never supported the Iraq War)...if there's any more of the typical attacks please let me know.
Just curious what do you all think of the Hillary email debate? I'm genuinely curious
And just a side note libertine I am NOT a Republican, I'm a registered independent because I'm liberal in some areas conservative in others.
Just because it is a thread in the Off-Topic Subforum, doesn't mean it is the right place for you to go on a wild political tangent. You are welcome to start a new thread the next time you are looking to start a debate on politics - or just post in this one. The original thread is both interesting and humorous and does not need to devolve into the inevitable pissing match that you were dragging it into. Now, since we are posting in the appropriate spot, I would be happy to engage you in a conversation about "redistributing wealth". I'm going to go out on a limb and say you made your $26K by investing your time and not through capital investments, is that right? After all, it really does boil down to there being two ways to make money - money makes money and time makes money. And therein lies the problem with the right-wing fear mongering over "redistributing wealth". Redistribution is inherent in any capitalist society. You see, time is inherently equal. Unless you have slaves, you have 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year to invest. Money on the other hand has no inherent scientific bounds. So what does this mean? In the absence of a government policy (e.g. a progressive tax structure), wealth will concentrate upward at the expense of those with less of it. Unless there are government checks that redistribute the wealth back down, the wealth will redistribute up the economic ladder. So don't be fooled by the talking points. "Wealth redistribution" as is used by the right is actually the exact opposite - the only thing we can possibly do to stop wealth redistribution. |
|
|
|
Post by rjp313jr on Mar 18, 2015 13:43:07 GMT -5
I can't stand Obama because I hate what he's been doing and trying to do and he's either a liar or a coward. I don't blame him as much as I blame the people who elected him in the first place who I don't blame half as much as the people who re-elected him after he failed to do the majority of what he said he was going to do? Is it his fault? Maybe not? Perhaps it's just a sadly broken system. But I'll never forgive the man for proving me right for not voting for him in the first place.
After he was elected, I actually got myself excited that the crap he spewed about a transparent government and cutting the fat and "pork" out of things would actually happen. Would he step up and fight for all that like he said he would for the people? How great that would be. I could even accept the disagreement in his policy of he operated this way and used his time to really make a difference and clean things up and work with both sides and tell the public the brutal truth and force people to stop voting without reading what they were voting on. But no same old crap.
And before anyone says everyone says that stuff, stop because it's not true and certainly not to the degree he did. So I don't know if he's a fascist or a socialist or a capitalist but I do know he's either a liar, a coward or a guy who got caught up in Washington and lost his way, either way he's not a good President.
|
|
|
|
Post by jimed14 on Mar 18, 2015 14:14:20 GMT -5
I love how you just jump straight to the name-calling.
Just to be clear I did not "hijack" anything, it was off-topic to begin with. And thank you for proving a point I hadn't even bothered to make, that liberals often resort to name-calling even when it is not warranted. Chavopepe refers to what I say (which in case you forgot your American History is a direct quote from our Declaration of Independence) as "vomit" and Jimed refers to me as a "fascist" simply because you don't agree with me. Then libertine says that I (by implication, he admittedly wasn't referring to me specifically) refer to liberals as traitors and enemies of the state. And of course you certainly have the right to do so, I'm just pointing the fallacy (see we're back on-topic) of doing so. I personally do not think Obama is a bad man in any way, I think he's trying to do what's best for the country and is simply doing it wrong. I don't think the Constitution gives him the power he's trying to wield, I don't think it's right of him to circumvent the legislature, and I think "reducing income inequality" and "redistribution of wealth" are two tags for the same policies. If anyone would like to have a civilized discourse on any of those points I'd love to; I have liberal friends and enjoy friendly disagreements. However, if we're going to continue with just the name-calling, don't forget to refer to me as "redneck" (despite the fact that I'm from NH), racist (despite the fact that I have friends of all races and love all people), a rich guy who just wants to keep it all for himself (despite the fact that I make about $26,000 per year), a war-monger (despite the fact that I never supported the Iraq War)...if there's any more of the typical attacks please let me know.
Just curious what do you all think of the Hillary email debate? I'm genuinely curious
And just a side note libertine I am NOT a Republican, I'm a registered independent because I'm liberal in some areas conservative in others.
Just because it is a thread in the Off-Topic Subforum, doesn't mean it is the right place for you to go on a wild political tangent. You are welcome to start a new thread the next time you are looking to start a debate on politics - or just post in this one. The original thread is both interesting and humorous and does not need to devolve into the inevitable pissing match that you were dragging it into. Now, since we are posting in the appropriate spot, I would be happy to engage you in a conversation about "redistributing wealth". I'm going to go out on a limb and say you made your $26K by investing your time and not through capital investments, is that right? After all, it really does boil down to there being two ways to make money - money makes money and time makes money. And therein lies the problem with the right-wing fear mongering over "redistributing wealth". Redistribution is inherent in any capitalist society. You see, time is inherently equal. Unless you have slaves, you have 24 hours in a day and 365 days in a year to invest. Money on the other hand has no inherent scientific bounds. So what does this mean? In the absence of a government policy (e.g. a progressive tax structure), wealth will concentrate upward at the expense of those with less of it. Unless there are government checks that redistribute the wealth back down, the wealth will redistribute up the economic ladder. So don't be fooled by the talking points. "Wealth redistribution" as is used by the right is actually the exact opposite - the only thing we can possibly do to stop wealth redistribution. Just wanted to point out that the super wealthy become more and more wealthy because they control the printing of money and get first access to that money a lot more than they could ever "fix" it with a progressive tax code. They shouldn't allow them to rig the system like they do in the first place. Even talking about taxes is what they want you to do because that will always be rigged and it ignores the real problem. But monetary policy is off limits for any politician. The debt is all fake. It can be wiped out with an executive order and they can abolish the Federal Reserve while they're at it. But this is what gets presidents assassinated. The banks own everyone. They don't care who gets elected as long as it is one of the two carefully chosen candidates. |
|
|
|
Post by redsoxnh2014 on Mar 18, 2015 16:01:02 GMT -5
For the record I want to apologize to those offended by my initial posting. I am new to this forum and wasn't fully clear regarding the rules of non-baseball-related threads. I had made a post that was initially intended as a joke and it snowballed out of control.
Now that I've eaten my crow and admitted my mistake can you please change the name of this thread? Talk about vindictive...
|
|
|
|
Post by charliezink16 on Mar 18, 2015 23:51:01 GMT -5
I can't stand Obama because I hate what he's been doing and trying to do and he's either a liar or a coward. I don't blame him as much as I blame the people who elected him in the first place who I don't blame half as much as the people who re-elected him after he failed to do the majority of what he said he was going to do? Is it his fault? Maybe not? Perhaps it's just a sadly broken system. But I'll never forgive the man for proving me right for not voting for him in the first place. After he was elected, I actually got myself excited that the crap he spewed about a transparent government and cutting the fat and "pork" out of things would actually happen. Would he step up and fight for all that like he said he would for the people? How great that would be. I could even accept the disagreement in his policy of he operated this way and used his time to really make a difference and clean things up and work with both sides and tell the public the brutal truth and force people to stop voting without reading what they were voting on. But no same old crap. And before anyone says everyone says that stuff, stop because it's not true and certainly not to the degree he did. So I don't know if he's a fascist or a socialist or a capitalist but I do know he's either a liar, a coward or a guy who got caught up in Washington and lost his way, either way he's not a good President. People hate on Obama for the wrong reasons. "Oh he's a socialist! He's Muslim! Benghazi!" etc. There are reasons why he's a bad president, these just aren't them. He's pulled a 180 on half the things he promised (surprise), such as the whole transparency thing.. His drone strikes are creating 10x the number of enemies they eliminate in countries like Yemen. The TPP is an absolute disaster for workers in this country, and all the citizens of the countries involved. He hasn't done shit about campaign financing, the most important issue and one he said he'd address. Don't look at stuff like Obama failing to salute a soldier because of coffee, look at the real reasons for his failures. |
|
|
