Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
Get the fuck over yourself. Have you SEEN what raving lunatics the right has become? Take a look at this forum to see your conservative friends in all of their hostile glory. There is no "rational debate" with at least 50% of you.
There is no rational debate because the vast majority of "liberals"refuse to accept or to acknowledge any facts or information that gets to the basis of any argument that doesn't suit their agenda.
I can't even get a "liberal" to quote, post and accept the current LEGAL definition for what a natural person is, for fucks sake.
If you discount the answers I gave because I don't fit your definition of a liberal disregard below.
Otherwise I refute your accusation no one provided you with a definition. Your problem was I provided you with an effective definition based on how law enforcement and the judiciary enforce laws in real life and you did not like it.
An unlike button would have saved me the trouble of responding in such a harsh manner but I am trying to be concise.
Have a good evening.
Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
Liberals are all huggy and fuzzy...Republicans just cut to the point.
_______________This thread, even on the Polite Board, cannot get a start for the recriminations, the ground rules for a debate can't even be agreed on.
I will try,
We owe $20 trillion.
I m a Conservative. I think that is a bad thing. I also think it was run up mostly by Liberal Democrats whose most reliable constituency are people who like Free Stuff.
Usually, a Liberal comes back with: "Well, I'm tired of buying missiles".
And, I say the the Preamble to the Constitution uses "provide for the common defense" First, because we have to be safe before we can "promote the general welfare"....and I also note that the society known as The Roman Empire...rose to an unmatched pinnacle (until The Great American Civilization) and stayed there for a very long time....following this philosophy:
"The Romans kept peace by a constant preparation for war." Gibbon
But as to the General Welfare, we start with people who really can't work, widows with young children the disabled, and as we grow in wealth, we continue to expand what we do for citizens down on their luck people....and the more we do....the more people there are who get down on their luck (its human nature)...and the less they are responsible for themselves...and the taxes start to get higher to pay for them...until the Working Man, like me, the Productive Citizens.....refuse to pay more....we have our own families to think about.
And so taxes can't be raised any more...and the borrowing commences in earnest...and every time the Debt Ceiling needs to be raised, the Democrats are all for it...and they throw a Granny in a wheel chair off a cliff and the Republicans cave because they are cowards.
This always gets me a "blame the Rich Argument" but that's just Marx coming out of his grave, yet again. There aren't enough rich to pay for all the Porch Sitters we have now in America and all the programs for the Porch Sitters....the Middle Class, the Productive People, like me.....have to carry the load.
Lyndon Baines Johnson crated the first Welfare Queen in about 1965. Affirmative Action, The War on Poverty, The Great Society...destroyed the Black Family. And along the way it created new Welfare Queens like crazy. And why wouldn't it?
A 16 year old unwed mother who has yet another illegitimate baby at 17 years old, sees herself as "getting a raise" financial-wise..and if she puts out four, no man ever to be found...she can qualify for enough benefits to make about what a whole lot of us Productive People make...without the stress of a boss and a job.
What do you expect Human Nature to do? If a Subsistence is assured...a whole lot of people will just sit on the Porch. It has always been so.
The productive people themselves get frustrated, give up...many become Porch Sitters too...a mother load rolls in illegally from Mexico...and now Marx is truly out of his grave.
How Do you Liberals justify loading up our children and grand-children with 20 trillion in debt when you know its unsustainable?
All great societies take care of their people who can't take care of themselves.
Time do get those that DON'T off their Front Porch or out of this country.
___________________
Join with me in your hatred of Nixon, Reagan, Bush 1 & 2 and Obama for while Obama inherited probably the 2nd worse mess of modern times he fixed it in a similar way to how Ronald did.
Democrats are too PC to recognize their problems with voters. You cannot embrace groups that advocate the murder of police officers and expect to win White working class voters.Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
My experience is the reverse. In the 60's and 70's most of the clueless ideologues were on the left. Now they are on the right. Personally, I think that ultimately social media is unsuited for serious discussion of important issues. Civility evaporates with perceived anonymity. Name-calling and repetition of defective logic and false "facts" have replaced any chance of reasonable discussion. Check out just about any thread on this board. Most all of the people, right or left, that I met on this board three or four years ago who had posted in fora in which they had some expertise have left in disgust.
Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
Get the fuck over yourself. Have you SEEN what raving lunatics the right has become? Take a look at this forum to see your conservative friends in all of their hostile glory. There is no "rational debate" with at least 50% of you.
There is no rational debate because the vast majority of "liberals"refuse to accept or to acknowledge any facts or information that gets to the basis of any argument that doesn't suit their agenda.
I can't even get a "liberal" to quote, post and accept the current LEGAL definition for what a natural person is, for fucks sake.
If you discount the answers I gave because I don't fit your definition of a liberal disregard below.
Otherwise I refute your accusation no one provided you with a definition. Your problem was I provided you with an effective definition based on how law enforcement and the judiciary enforce laws in real life and you did not like it.
An unlike button would have saved me the trouble of responding in such a harsh manner but I am trying to be concise.
Have a good evening.
Quote the legal definition for a natural person from a LEGAL DICTIONARY and link to the source.
Then, tell me if you agree that that definition is "common" to all sides in the debate about "personhood" and what constitutes a "natural person."
Can you do that?
I'm betting you can't.
Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
Get the fuck over yourself. Have you SEEN what raving lunatics the right has become? Take a look at this forum to see your conservative friends in all of their hostile glory. There is no "rational debate" with at least 50% of you.
There is no rational debate because the vast majority of "liberals"refuse to accept or to acknowledge any facts or information that gets to the basis of any argument that doesn't suit their agenda.
I can't even get a "liberal" to quote, post and accept the current LEGAL definition for what a natural person is, for fucks sake.
If you discount the answers I gave because I don't fit your definition of a liberal disregard below.
Otherwise I refute your accusation no one provided you with a definition. Your problem was I provided you with an effective definition based on how law enforcement and the judiciary enforce laws in real life and you did not like it.
An unlike button would have saved me the trouble of responding in such a harsh manner but I am trying to be concise.
Have a good evening.
Quote the legal definition for a natural person from a LEGAL DICTIONARY and link to the source.
Then, tell me if you agree that that definition is "common" to all sides in the debate about "personhood" and what constitutes a "natural person."
Can you do that?
I'm betting you can't.
Let me try again.
Green pelican Spencer upload Republican options Liberal reply.
There is a string of words which have no effective meaning together.
The effective, real life in American definition is it is largely up to the pregnant woman in question as she will not be charged with murder for having an abortion and a man assaulting her who causes the death of the fetus will be charged with murder.
That is the common, unifying truth which largely governs Americans and decides if we get to keep exercising our right to a pursuit of happiness or go to jail. Anything else is a game of semantics.
Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
Get the fuck over yourself. Have you SEEN what raving lunatics the right has become? Take a look at this forum to see your conservative friends in all of their hostile glory. There is no "rational debate" with at least 50% of you.
There is no rational debate because the vast majority of "liberals"refuse to accept or to acknowledge any facts or information that gets to the basis of any argument that doesn't suit their agenda.
I can't even get a "liberal" to quote, post and accept the current LEGAL definition for what a natural person is, for fucks sake.
If you discount the answers I gave because I don't fit your definition of a liberal disregard below.
Otherwise I refute your accusation no one provided you with a definition. Your problem was I provided you with an effective definition based on how law enforcement and the judiciary enforce laws in real life and you did not like it.
An unlike button would have saved me the trouble of responding in such a harsh manner but I am trying to be concise.
Have a good evening.
Quote the legal definition for a natural person from a LEGAL DICTIONARY and link to the source.
Then, tell me if you agree that that definition is "common" to all sides in the debate about "personhood" and what constitutes a "natural person."
Can you do that?
I'm betting you can't.
Let me try again.
Green pelican Spencer upload Republican options Liberal reply.
There is a string of words which have no effective meaning together.
The effective, real life in American definition is it is largely up to the pregnant woman in question as she will not be charged with murder for having an abortion and a man assaulting her who causes the death of the fetus will be charged with murder.
That is the common, unifying truth which largely governs Americans and decides if we get to keep exercising our right to a pursuit of happiness or go to jail. Anything else is a game of semantics.
Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
Get the fuck over yourself. Have you SEEN what raving lunatics the right has become? Take a look at this forum to see your conservative friends in all of their hostile glory. There is no "rational debate" with at least 50% of you.
There is no rational debate because the vast majority of "liberals"refuse to accept or to acknowledge any facts or information that gets to the basis of any argument that doesn't suit their agenda.
I can't even get a "liberal" to quote, post and accept the current LEGAL definition for what a natural person is, for fucks sake.
If you discount the answers I gave because I don't fit your definition of a liberal disregard below.
Otherwise I refute your accusation no one provided you with a definition. Your problem was I provided you with an effective definition based on how law enforcement and the judiciary enforce laws in real life and you did not like it.
An unlike button would have saved me the trouble of responding in such a harsh manner but I am trying to be concise.
Have a good evening.
Quote the legal definition for a natural person from a LEGAL DICTIONARY and link to the source.
Then, tell me if you agree that that definition is "common" to all sides in the debate about "personhood" and what constitutes a "natural person."
Can you do that?
I'm betting you can't.
Let me try again.
Green pelican Spencer upload Republican options Liberal reply.
There is a string of words which have no effective meaning together.
The effective, real life in American definition is it is largely up to the pregnant woman in question as she will not be charged with murder for having an abortion and a man assaulting her who causes the death of the fetus will be charged with murder.
That is the common, unifying truth which largely governs Americans and decides if we get to keep exercising our right to a pursuit of happiness or go to jail. Anything else is a game of semantics.
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Which party are you saying "commits 90% of the transgressions"?I am finding it equally difficult to find "conservatives" who will engage in a civil debate with me on topics which we disagree on.
Then you are not looking very hard. Moral equivalency is not a legitimate argument when one party commits 90% of the transgressions.
That's a good start. You framed the problem (as you see it), very generally, but you framed it. Now, what to do about it?This thread, even on the Polite Board, cannot get a start for the recriminations, the ground rules for a debate can't even be agreed on.
I will try,
We owe $20 trillion.
I m a Conservative. I think that is a bad thing. I also think it was run up mostly by Liberal Democrats whose most reliable constituency are people who like Free Stuff.
Usually, a Liberal comes back with: "Well, I'm tired of buying missiles".
And, I say the the Preamble to the Constitution uses "provide for the common defense" First, because we have to be safe before we can "promote the general welfare"....and I also note that the society known as The Roman Empire...rose to an unmatched pinnacle (until The Great American Civilization) and stayed there for a very long time....following this philosophy:
"The Romans kept peace by a constant preparation for war." Gibbon
But as to the General Welfare, we start with people who really can't work, widows with young children the disabled, and as we grow in wealth, we continue to expand what we do for citizens down on their luck people....and the more we do....the more people there are who get down on their luck (its human nature)...and the less they are responsible for themselves...and the taxes start to get higher to pay for them...until the Working Man, like me, the Productive Citizens.....refuse to pay more....we have our own families to think about.
And so taxes can't be raised any more...and the borrowing commences in earnest...and every time the Debt Ceiling needs to be raised, the Democrats are all for it...and they throw a Granny in a wheel chair off a cliff and the Republicans cave because they are cowards.
This always gets me a "blame the Rich Argument" but that's just Marx coming out of his grave, yet again. There aren't enough rich to pay for all the Porch Sitters we have now in America and all the programs for the Porch Sitters....the Middle Class, the Productive People, like me.....have to carry the load.
Lyndon Baines Johnson crated the first Welfare Queen in about 1965. Affirmative Action, The War on Poverty, The Great Society...destroyed the Black Family. And along the way it created new Welfare Queens like crazy. And why wouldn't it?
A 16 year old unwed mother who has yet another illegitimate baby at 17 years old, sees herself as "getting a raise" financial-wise..and if she puts out four, no man ever to be found...she can qualify for enough benefits to make about what a whole lot of us Productive People make...without the stress of a boss and a job.
What do you expect Human Nature to do? If a Subsistence is assured...a whole lot of people will just sit on the Porch. It has always been so.
The productive people themselves get frustrated, give up...many become Porch Sitters too...a mother load rolls in illegally from Mexico...and now Marx is truly out of his grave.
How Do you Liberals justify loading up our children and grand-children with 20 trillion in debt when you know its unsustainable?
All great societies take care of their people who can't take care of themselves.
Time do get those that DON'T off their Front Porch or out of this country.
___________________
_________________That's a good start. You framed the problem (as you see it), very generally, but you framed it. Now, what to do about it?This thread, even on the Polite Board, cannot get a start for the recriminations, the ground rules for a debate can't even be agreed on.
I will try,
We owe $20 trillion.
I m a Conservative. I think that is a bad thing. I also think it was run up mostly by Liberal Democrats whose most reliable constituency are people who like Free Stuff.
Usually, a Liberal comes back with: "Well, I'm tired of buying missiles".
And, I say the the Preamble to the Constitution uses "provide for the common defense" First, because we have to be safe before we can "promote the general welfare"....and I also note that the society known as The Roman Empire...rose to an unmatched pinnacle (until The Great American Civilization) and stayed there for a very long time....following this philosophy:
"The Romans kept peace by a constant preparation for war." Gibbon
But as to the General Welfare, we start with people who really can't work, widows with young children the disabled, and as we grow in wealth, we continue to expand what we do for citizens down on their luck people....and the more we do....the more people there are who get down on their luck (its human nature)...and the less they are responsible for themselves...and the taxes start to get higher to pay for them...until the Working Man, like me, the Productive Citizens.....refuse to pay more....we have our own families to think about.
And so taxes can't be raised any more...and the borrowing commences in earnest...and every time the Debt Ceiling needs to be raised, the Democrats are all for it...and they throw a Granny in a wheel chair off a cliff and the Republicans cave because they are cowards.
This always gets me a "blame the Rich Argument" but that's just Marx coming out of his grave, yet again. There aren't enough rich to pay for all the Porch Sitters we have now in America and all the programs for the Porch Sitters....the Middle Class, the Productive People, like me.....have to carry the load.
Lyndon Baines Johnson crated the first Welfare Queen in about 1965. Affirmative Action, The War on Poverty, The Great Society...destroyed the Black Family. And along the way it created new Welfare Queens like crazy. And why wouldn't it?
A 16 year old unwed mother who has yet another illegitimate baby at 17 years old, sees herself as "getting a raise" financial-wise..and if she puts out four, no man ever to be found...she can qualify for enough benefits to make about what a whole lot of us Productive People make...without the stress of a boss and a job.
What do you expect Human Nature to do? If a Subsistence is assured...a whole lot of people will just sit on the Porch. It has always been so.
The productive people themselves get frustrated, give up...many become Porch Sitters too...a mother load rolls in illegally from Mexico...and now Marx is truly out of his grave.
How Do you Liberals justify loading up our children and grand-children with 20 trillion in debt when you know its unsustainable?
All great societies take care of their people who can't take care of themselves.
Time do get those that DON'T off their Front Porch or out of this country.
___________________
First, how do we decide(more importantly who decides) who needs to "get off the porch"?
Second, how do we get them "off the porch"?
Third, and most important IMHO, what are you doing/willing to do yourself?
This is what happened to them.Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
I'm not sure that I understand what you are saying here. Which party are you saying "commits 90% of the transgressions"?
This is what happened to them.Up through the 1970's, I can remember having lively yet respectful debates with my liberal friends on a host of political issues. After that time, such debates became less and less frequent and more likely to end up in acrimonious responses to the same questions I had previously posed. Nowadays, it is extremely unlikely to find anyone of a liberal persuasion who is willing to discuss any political issue without immediately resorting to personal attacks.
What happened to these people? My theory is that, essentially having won the debate over the size and scope of federal programs, they are now defensive about the lack of societal benefits these programs were supposed to achieve and are seeking to impose ever more radical "solutions" on a recalcitrant public in order to achieve them. In this vein, anyone with contrary views is considered a saboteur of their good intentions.
What is you theory?
[*Corrupt means selling favors or lying to the public for personal or political gain.
[*Corrupt means selling favors or lying to the public for personal or political gain.
Which none of the democrats did, but most of the Republicans did.
The data bears that out. This data is taken from List of federal political scandals in the United States - Wikipedia
The first number is indictments, second number is convictions.
Obama 0 0
Carter 1 0
Clinton 2 1
Bush1 1 1
Ford 1 1
Bush2 16 16
Reagan 26 16
Nixon 76 55
Obama ran the cleanest administration of our lifetimes. The admins of Bush2, Reagan and Nixon were rife with corruption. Those points are not debatable by any honest person.[/QUOT
______________________________________
I am an honest person, and I propose to debate it.
The first thing Obama did as president...the first important thing he did....and one of the most important things..was get his Butt-boy Eric Rice put in charge of the Justice Department.
The paucity of Democrats going to jail in the lat 8 years for corruption...criminal political operatives like Lois Lerner...is directly traceable to the fact threat the Justice Department was corrupted by Barack Obama and Eric Holder and after him Loretta Lynch.
If you can control the Justice department, you are one step away from a Dictatorship.
Don Trump is the biggest Monkey Wrench in the History of Marxists Take-Overs.
One of the consequences is that Democrats will be going to jail....just give Jeff Sessions time.
_______________________________________________
______________________________
The first thing Obama did as president...the first important thing he did....and one of the most important things..was get his Butt-boy Eric Rice put in charge of the Justice Department.
The paucity of Democrats going to jail in the lat 8 years for corruption...
"All the Way With LBJ" has given way to "Resistance Summer" and "wealth redistribution."Mary L speaks the truth. There is no Democratic Party now. Ben not taken over by the Socialist Party USA.
