The Inevitable Conclusion

[Avorysuds]

I know, Did you see me say otherwise? If not, why you mad?

You suggest that the problem is caused by Republicans, not Republicans and Democrats alike. You are sounding less and less intelligent as you go on. In trying to "trap" me into saying something stupid you keep pretending you have not made one stupid statement one right after another.

That sir, is the definition of trolling.

But it's fun making progressives look to the public as stupid as they truly are. SO troll away =D

Ahahaha...You're scared of being trapped into saying something stupid? I wonder why, could it be because you are prone to saying something stupid?

I dont have that fear...you do and its telling So when I start a thread ASKING WHY REPUBLICANS DO SOMETHING I should include Dems even when I am not asking them? Because if I dont then I'm lying about Abor...Dem....Something?

See if I'm talking about cats would you run in and call me a liar because I'm talking about cats scratching and didnt include dogs too in a thread about cats?

You're so mad about it you're not even making sense. Why would I bring up Dems when the topic is not about them?

....er.... I didn't say I was scared of being trapped into saying anything, I said that's what your doing, and failing while you in fact keep repeating stupid ignorant things.

I take what I said back about beating you so bad on these boards that it must physically hurt in real life because I don't want to end up on the news for beating up a retard.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I understand that they feel no one should be paid more than what people pay already (which is like...it's happening so just deal with it) but what happens after those people are paid wages that do not sustain them? This is the question republicans refuse to ask because it leads to the very thing they dont like = Welfare.

What if a minimum wage law will force businesses to pack up shop and move to China because it’s cheaper? What if minimum wage laws force McDonalds to replace half of its force with machines? Just because Republicans may disagree with YOUR solution doesn’t mean they’re “against fair wages”.

Sure someone could just go hungry and "tough it out" but they wont. Republicans should know this or at least KNOW its a possibility. But when it happens they howl like welfare is really bad while applauding lower wages which will lead people toward welfare.

MOST people are OK with safety nets to help out our nation’s poorest and people catching bad breaks in life. What I think most Republicans oppose is long-term welfare with no INCENTIVE to get off it.




Killing a tiny living human is not an acceptable solution to solving the “state dependency” problem. You can’t kill your problems; that’s a sick thought.

Republicans are for Citizen United. I understand, you are making this a freedom of speech issue. I get it. But when corps can donate unlimited money, and money is power. How is the bigger or biggest contributor viewed by the recipient? Republicans refuse to ask this questions because it will expose the next thing they dislike. Corruption. Since we all know that money is valuable promoting unlimited money in politics will inevitablely lead to corruption.

I don’t think all Republicans are in favor of the Citizen’s United decision.

Again repubs say we should elect better people. Elect people who will represent us while promoting the candidates being bankrolled by special interests. How will they represent us when they've been propped up by cash that didnt come from you? Is there people that do not value money? Who can run for office on a shoestring budget?

You do realize Barack Obama raised $700,000,000 this last election cycle, right? You do realize a lot of that money is from Special Interest groups, right? You’re describing a problem that both sides of the aisle are guilty of.

1. Any solution will do but republicans have not provided any. Just "no"

2. Theres always incentive to get off its called "providing for oneself". Also they can be against long term welfare all they want. Its not happening but the problem is they see it happening even when its not. So everyone who is on it fits into that category

3. Who said abortion was a solution to state dependency? I said it CAN happen but republicans pretend it shouldnt. Ok, but it does.

4. No not all, anytime someone is talking its a safe bet they dont mean 100% of the people 100% of the time soooo

5. I know but it seems only one side objects to CU and the other side applaudes it. I'll let you guess which is which

 

[ClosedCaption]

Can you even find the words that you quoted from me that would in any way suggest you're idiotic claim? No wonder you hate Republicans yet mindlessly follow all their policies when Dems do them, you're an ignorant anti logic Dem, I almost forgot lol.

Suggest? Sure, you asked why I'm starting this thread when I have baggage of my own. As if I cant or should have trouble doing so. Pretty simple. Why else would you ask the question?

So why would a hyper partisan hack like CC post a thread like this about Republicans when he comes with so much baggage?

That's not what I did at all. In fact you claimed I suggested you should not be allowed to post *and I quote* "until I asked you then you say I should".... Where did I "suggest" you should be asking permission from me to make a post?

My question was to people reading that why would someone make a post while they are being such an obvious hypocrite. I didn't ask you directly and it was clear that the point was you are a hypocritical troll... As I actually said many times during this thread, not suggested, outright said.

Dewd...you're saying the same thing. Nevermind, you're right. Thanks bye

 

[auditor0007]

Heres what I dont understand:

Republicans seem to be for things that inevitably leads to another thing they do not like.

I understand that they feel no one should be paid more than what people pay already (which is like...it's happening so just deal with it) but what happens after those people are paid wages that do not sustain them? This is the question republicans refuse to ask because it leads to the very thing they dont like = Welfare.

Sure someone could just go hungry and "tough it out" but they wont. Republicans should know this or at least KNOW its a possibility. But when it happens they howl like welfare is really bad while applauding lower wages which will lead people toward welfare.

Its sorta like throwing chum in the water the scream at the Sharks

They are against abortion. I understand. But when you are against abortion (pro birth) and oppose it in all circumstances you have to know or at least expect that some of the people are going to have a hard time. Again, they could just starve on principal but most will abandon principle when they're stomach starts growling (Ayn Rand). So they once again go for welfare and Republicans race to the inevitable conclusion to scream at the people who need it.

Republicans are for Citizen United. I understand, you are making this a freedom of speech issue. I get it. But when corps can donate unlimited money, and money is power. How is the bigger or biggest contributor viewed by the recipient? Republicans refuse to ask this questions because it will expose the next thing they dislike. Corruption. Since we all know that money is valuable promoting unlimited money in politics will inevitablely lead to corruption.

Again repubs say we should elect better people. Elect people who will represent us while promoting the candidates being bankrolled by special interests. How will they represent us when they've been propped up by cash that didnt come from you? Is there people that do not value money? Who can run for office on a shoestring budget?

No, but when we get the money grubbers in office and they start acting like....money grubbers. Republicans never saw it coming. Then complain about the corrupt after creating the environment that makes this possible.

Its really strange but you can go on and on...The Patriot Act, Torture, Income Inequality etc etc.

Let me thank Edge, Steph, Katz for calling me an idiot in advance of their comments on the topic at hand

It's simply an economic philosophy that cons have been duped into believing that says that keeping the wealthy super wealthy and giving them all the breaks will lead to greater economic growth for the rest of society. The problem is that we have seen the repercussions of that thinking and policies that have supported that thinking, and they have been devastating to middle and lower income earners. Eventually, if we stay this course, it will end up affecting even the wealthy. Economies grow when the lower 50% of income earners have plenty of money to spend. Businesses do not expand when there is no demand for new or more products, and that demand must come from the bottom up. This is why it is so important to raise wages from the bottom, because it will benefit everyone including the wealthy. Keeping wages low for the bottom half will keep us in a stagnant and declining economy.

 

[ClosedCaption]

You suggest that the problem is caused by Republicans, not Republicans and Democrats alike. You are sounding less and less intelligent as you go on. In trying to "trap" me into saying something stupid you keep pretending you have not made one stupid statement one right after another.

That sir, is the definition of trolling.

But it's fun making progressives look to the public as stupid as they truly are. SO troll away =D

Ahahaha...You're scared of being trapped into saying something stupid? I wonder why, could it be because you are prone to saying something stupid?

I dont have that fear...you do and its telling So when I start a thread ASKING WHY REPUBLICANS DO SOMETHING I should include Dems even when I am not asking them? Because if I dont then I'm lying about Abor...Dem....Something?

See if I'm talking about cats would you run in and call me a liar because I'm talking about cats scratching and didnt include dogs too in a thread about cats?

You're so mad about it you're not even making sense. Why would I bring up Dems when the topic is not about them?

....er.... I didn't say I was scared of being trapped into saying anything, I said that's what your doing, and failing while you in fact keep repeating stupid ignorant things.

I take what I said back about beating you so bad on these boards that it must physically hurt in real life because I don't want to end up on the news for beating up a retard.

You're not understanding the simpliest things. Its ok man really. Thanks for your input

 

[boilermaker55]

This is how MOST of the so-called right wing/libertarians do on this board to try to get a point across.
They resort the childish behavior that is engrained in them.
Consider those and pay no heed.

They are...whats the problem?



Huh? Why cant I post this again?

They are?




So you believe the bullshit coming out of their mouth instead of the actions right before you? You know, we had 8 years of Bush where we had to endure this very type of cognitive dissonance. One you screamed about and still do. Now you're going to actually.....oh, never mind. I forgot, liars and hypocrites.

Aww man...you always stop short of making a point but always seem to get in a hefty amount of name calling. Weird

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I made my point, Poindexter. CC is a hypocrite. As in anyone who makes claims that one party is good and the other is bad. Claiming the democrats are for the things listed and cut out of this quote, simply because they stand up and say it, is just laughable. All evidence points to the contrary on what they are "for" in that regard.

i didn't have to even go far to prove the hypocrisy of the OP. Not to mention the lying, falsifications adn blanket statements.

 

[bendog]

So despite Republicans advocating limited government because politicians are corrupt, you are seriously going to try to claim that Republicans don't see that politicians are corrupt?

The inevitable conclusion of that rant is you don't have a freakin clue what you're talking about.

I knew you would have a simply translated question of confusion waiting.

Yes I said republicans dont see corruption. Yes, go with that. In fact, any conclusion you reach after reading my post dont ask just assume that what you believe is exactly what I was saying.

Therein lies the rub. Avatar and the rel right is NOT for limited govt on issues the RW considers moral issues. The libertarian wing differs, but Rand Paul runs very counter to Sheldon adleslon, the Zionists and neocons. Jeb and the mainstreet can appease the Zionists and are probably fellow travelers of the neocons, yet they are at best distrusted by the teapary, and the teaparty is dependent upon DeMint and the Kochs, who have their own agenda.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I made my point, Poindexter. CC is a hypocrite. As in anyone who makes claims that one party is good and the other is bad. Claiming the democrats are for the things listed and cut out of this quote, simply because they stand up and say it, is just laughable. All evidence points to the contrary on what they are "for" in that regard.

i didn't have to even go far to prove the hypocrisy of the OP. Not to mention the lying, falsifications adn blanket statements.

I know, you'll get around to proving all of that one day. Or maybe you did other people just cannot decipher it. We know, we all know

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I've already shown you that citizens United isn't a corporate blank check to spend in campaigns. That unlimited funding meme is nonsense. Do i really need to pull it up to show you? Or can you manage your search engine this time?


Hypocrite.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I've already shown you that citizens United isn't a corporate blank check to spend in campaigns. That unlimited funding meme is nonsense. Do i really need to pull it up to show you? Or can you manage your search engine this time?


Hypocrite.

Thats how proof works bud. I'm sure you'll get around to it any day now....

 

[bendog]

Citizens United?s Biggest Surprise: The Collapse of Disclosure | ACS

It is unlimited spending, but that isn't really the issue. Money = speech was a radical departure, yet, the dems have donors too. But the real issue is disclosure. . 8 justices voted to uphold disclosure requirements, but that ain't the way it worked out.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Trolly troll troll troll. Fine. I'll make you look like the low information reject that you are. It will take less than two minutes anyway.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), (Docket No. 08-205), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[2]
The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5].........

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22] This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[

 

[bendog]

Trolly troll troll troll. Fine. I'll make you look like the low information reject that you are. It will take less than two minutes anyway.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. ___ (2010), (Docket No. 08-205), is a US constitutional law case, in which the United States Supreme Court held that the First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting political independent expenditures by corporations, associations, or labor unions. The conservative lobbying group Citizens United wanted to air a film critical of Hillary Clinton and to advertise the film during television broadcasts in apparent violation of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (commonly known as the McCain–Feingold Act or "BCRA").[2] In a 5–4 decision, the Court held that portions of BCRA §203 violated the First Amendment.
The decision reached the Supreme Court on appeal from a July 2008 decision by the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Section 203 of BCRA defined an "electioneering communication" as a broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentioned a candidate within 60 days of a general election or 30 days of a primary, and prohibited such expenditures by corporations and unions. The lower court held that §203 of BCRA applied and prohibited Citizens United from advertising the film Hillary: The Movie in broadcasts or paying to have it shown on television within 30 days of the 2008 Democratic primaries.[1][3] The Supreme Court reversed, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[2]
The decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[4] The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.[5].........

The Supreme Court held in Citizens United that it was unconstitutional to ban free speech through the limitation of independent communications by corporations, associations, and unions,[21] i.e. that corporations and labor unions may spend their own money to support or oppose political candidates through independent communications like television advertisements.[22] This ruling was frequently interpreted as permitting corporations and unions to donate to political campaigns,[23] or else removing limits on how much a donor can contribute to a campaign.[24] However, these claims are incorrect, as the ruling did not affect the 1907 Tillman Act's ban on corporate campaign donations (as the Court noted explicitly in its decision[25]), nor the prohibition on foreign corporate donations to American campaigns,[

OK, at this point you've proven you are at best stupid and most likely a liar. Citizens united removed any power for congress to limit dollars going into campaign advocacy groups not tied to specific campaigns. Oh wait you knew that.

Adios.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

he Citizens United decision did not disturb prohibitions on corporate contributions to candidates, and it did not address whether the government could regulate contributions to groups that make independent expenditures.[22] The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited.[28]

Who is stupid?

Yeah, that's what i thought.

 

[ClosedCaption]

So from your wiki it says that corps cant contribute directly to a campaign. Did I say they could? Everyone knows they uses PACs to do that.

So the "big lie" you accuse me of is that Citizens United doesnt allow corps to donate DIRECTLY to campaigns? And the "big lie" is something I never said....just what I thought you proof would be. Something completely unrelated to anything I said fuck face

 

[bendog]

he's a disingenuous waste of bandwidth.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

CU had nothing to do with using PACS. Which were used prior to the CU ruling, fuck face. And guess what? Corporations, and unions could donate and use those PACS prior to CU. What they couldn't do prior was independent expenditures, which still require disclosure, nor engage in electioneering ads.

Jeebus farkin chripes you're numb.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

he's a disingenuous waste of bandwidth.

Actually, fella. I gave the information. You can read ALL about it. There is no "unlimited contributions from corporations into campaigns". As I said before.

 

[ClosedCaption]

After all that bluster when finally backed into a corner to provide proof. He provides more zilch.

But he is good at calling people names tho.

Thanks for almost 5 pages of name calling and not being able to prove anything you say.