Challenge: tinydancer to lakhota

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
There are many I would like to debate you on, but sadly at this point in time I am limited to choosing one.

Voter ID in America.

3 hour limit. Now I've got Gambini in my soul, and I'm hot so I really can go longer, but 3 hours is good for me.

yours,

td
Dear tinydancer and Wry Catcher:
As a believer in free speech, I ask not to put restriction on time.
I ask to set up the discussion where it can lead to resolving the root causes of conflict
and reach a healthy constructive resolution.

if it takes talking about additional issues, then lay those out.
That's more important than setting up a straw man or whatever that is not the real problem.

We aren't going to resolve public policies either if we keep limited the laws and discussions
to just what is convenient. We need to base it on what works to resolve grievances and represent the people.

So that usually takes more than 3 hours talking about 1 thing if the issue involves MORE than that.
I say go for resolving the issue.

if you don't have time, if you tell me what the conflict is, I can offer to volunteer to step in,
but I may be on WC side equally as the other. So I may not be able to help all the way, only halfway with some of it.

My issues with voting are the entire set up is FU.
People do not need to be competing by party
which is as bound to fail as voting by religion, to pit Muslims against Hindus
where you encourage bullying. So I say we need to resolve conflicts first
and then elect hire and appoint people who can represent and mediate to defend those interests.

All views beliefs and objections shoudl be included.

tinydancer if we keep running elections and writing legislation to limit choices to
either A or B with only 3 hours to resolve how to write out option A and B,
we continue to fail. so no, I think the whole approach needs overhaul.

and once we set it up right, then it won't matter so much if there is ID or not
because each party will be responsible for its own members. so if you don't
card or track your members, then you will end up paying for a bunch of freeloaders.

Leave it to parties to be responsible financially and legally for policies for their members,
and I bet they will find a way to check membership with or without ID.
I made my point in a clear and concise manner in post 19 above. Voter ID is a canard, it becomes a focus for the right wing only in election years. If The Congress felt a national ID card was a serious issue Boehner would have put a bill before the H. of Rep. when he became speaker in Jan. 2011.

I support voter ID, if and only if it is done in the spirit I proposed in post #19!

And I stand by my observation that Listening is a dumb & partisan POS!
 

emilynghiem

Constitutionalist / Universalist
Joined
Jan 21, 2010
Messages
22,142
Reaction score
3,185
Points
290
Location
National Freedmen's Town District
There are many I would like to debate you on, but sadly at this point in time I am limited to choosing one.

Voter ID in America.

3 hour limit. Now I've got Gambini in my soul, and I'm hot so I really can go longer, but 3 hours is good for me.

yours,

td
Dear tinydancer and Wry Catcher:
As a believer in free speech, I ask not to put restriction on time.
I ask to set up the discussion where it can lead to resolving the root causes of conflict
and reach a healthy constructive resolution.

if it takes talking about additional issues, then lay those out.
That's more important than setting up a straw man or whatever that is not the real problem.

We aren't going to resolve public policies either if we keep limited the laws and discussions
to just what is convenient. We need to base it on what works to resolve grievances and represent the people.

So that usually takes more than 3 hours talking about 1 thing if the issue involves MORE than that.
I say go for resolving the issue.

if you don't have time, if you tell me what the conflict is, I can offer to volunteer to step in,
but I may be on WC side equally as the other. So I may not be able to help all the way, only halfway with some of it.

My issues with voting are the entire set up is FU.
People do not need to be competing by party
which is as bound to fail as voting by religion, to pit Muslims against Hindus
where you encourage bullying. So I say we need to resolve conflicts first
and then elect hire and appoint people who can represent and mediate to defend those interests.

All views beliefs and objections shoudl be included.

tinydancer if we keep running elections and writing legislation to limit choices to
either A or B with only 3 hours to resolve how to write out option A and B,
we continue to fail. so no, I think the whole approach needs overhaul.

and once we set it up right, then it won't matter so much if there is ID or not
because each party will be responsible for its own members. so if you don't
card or track your members, then you will end up paying for a bunch of freeloaders.

Leave it to parties to be responsible financially and legally for policies for their members,
and I bet they will find a way to check membership with or without ID.
I made my point in a clear and concise manner in post 19 above. Voter ID is a canard, it becomes a focus for the right wing only in election years. If The Congress felt a national ID card was a serious issue Boehner would have put a bill before the H. of Rep. when he became speaker in Jan. 2011.

I support voter ID, if and only if it is done in the spirit I proposed in post #19!

And I stand by my observation that Listening is a dumb & partisan POS!
To stop the befuddling and muddying masking the points, if you want to keep your point and context clear, it helps to cut the crap with remarks able people off point.

Stick to your points, your guns, your principles.
People will hear you better if you dont sidetrack their attention with side jabs.

Your points are fine but they must not get lost in the shuffle.

If tinydancer has not the capacity of time and effort it takes to address the whole spiel. I am willing to discuss or debate to what extent the context needs to be changed. What are the most effctive reforms to fix problem with voter fraud and representation .
 
Last edited:

Listening

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
1,647
Points
260
The issue is not voter ID! I don't oppose that. The issue is voter suppression, and the GOP's goal is obvious, too suppress the vote of likely Democratic voters. Only liars and the mentally impaired believe otherwise.

If Voter ID is the only issue, then the congress needs to pass a bill with a specific and defined description of what form of ID is acceptable and fund the means for every citizen to obtain it, in federal, state and local elections.

IMO, such a bill ought to require every polling place in every federal election to open simultaneously on the first saturday after the first Tuesday in November and close on the following Tuesday simultaneously.

Oh, and fuck off Listening, you're one dumb and partisan pos.
It's to bad you can't read and follow rules.
 

Wry Catcher

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 3, 2009
Messages
51,323
Reaction score
6,454
Points
1,860
Location
San Francisco Bay Area
There are many I would like to debate you on, but sadly at this point in time I am limited to choosing one.

Voter ID in America.

3 hour limit. Now I've got Gambini in my soul, and I'm hot so I really can go longer, but 3 hours is good for me.

yours,

td
Dear tinydancer and Wry Catcher:
As a believer in free speech, I ask not to put restriction on time.
I ask to set up the discussion where it can lead to resolving the root causes of conflict
and reach a healthy constructive resolution.

if it takes talking about additional issues, then lay those out.
That's more important than setting up a straw man or whatever that is not the real problem.

We aren't going to resolve public policies either if we keep limited the laws and discussions
to just what is convenient. We need to base it on what works to resolve grievances and represent the people.

So that usually takes more than 3 hours talking about 1 thing if the issue involves MORE than that.
I say go for resolving the issue.

if you don't have time, if you tell me what the conflict is, I can offer to volunteer to step in,
but I may be on WC side equally as the other. So I may not be able to help all the way, only halfway with some of it.

My issues with voting are the entire set up is FU.
People do not need to be competing by party
which is as bound to fail as voting by religion, to pit Muslims against Hindus
where you encourage bullying. So I say we need to resolve conflicts first
and then elect hire and appoint people who can represent and mediate to defend those interests.

All views beliefs and objections shoudl be included.

tinydancer if we keep running elections and writing legislation to limit choices to
either A or B with only 3 hours to resolve how to write out option A and B,
we continue to fail. so no, I think the whole approach needs overhaul.

and once we set it up right, then it won't matter so much if there is ID or not
because each party will be responsible for its own members. so if you don't
card or track your members, then you will end up paying for a bunch of freeloaders.

Leave it to parties to be responsible financially and legally for policies for their members,
and I bet they will find a way to check membership with or without ID.
I made my point in a clear and concise manner in post 19 above. Voter ID is a canard, it becomes a focus for the right wing only in election years. If The Congress felt a national ID card was a serious issue Boehner would have put a bill before the H. of Rep. when he became speaker in Jan. 2011.

I support voter ID, if and only if it is done in the spirit I proposed in post #19!

And I stand by my observation that Listening is a dumb & partisan POS!
To stop the befuddling and muddying masking the points, if you want to keep your point and context clear, it helps to cut the crap with remarks able people off point.

Stick to your points, your guns, your principles.
People will hear you better if you dont sidetrack their attention with side jabs.

Your points are fine but they must not get lost in the shuffle.

If tinydancer has not the capacity of time and effort it takes to address the whole spiel. I am willing to discuss or debate to what extent the context needs to be changed. What are the most effective reforms to fix problem with voter fraud and representation .
I'm not sure of your meaning of "representation" and I believe voter fraud is a canard. I've yet to see probative evidence that voter fraud exists on a level to change the outcome of a federal election. Hanging chads maybe, stuffing a ballot box, maybe, but not within the meaning proffered by the GOP.
 

guno

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2014
Messages
21,553
Reaction score
4,883
Points
290
Location
NYC and NC
There are many I would like to debate you on, but sadly at this point in time I am limited to choosing one.

Voter ID in America.

3 hour limit. Now I've got Gambini in my soul, and I'm hot so I really can go longer, but 3 hours is good for me.

yours,

td
Voter ID in America.
what? you don't live in the U.S., you live in the country where a leaf on a rag is the flag
 
OP
tinydancer

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,795
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
Lakhota has not responded I see. :)
 
OP
tinydancer

tinydancer

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2010
Messages
51,846
Reaction score
12,795
Points
2,220
Location
Piney
There are many I would like to debate you on, but sadly at this point in time I am limited to choosing one.

Voter ID in America.

3 hour limit. Now I've got Gambini in my soul, and I'm hot so I really can go longer, but 3 hours is good for me.

yours,

td
Voter ID in America.
what? you don't live in the U.S., you live in the country where a leaf on a rag is the flag
I'm a dual citizen guno. And you keep insulting Canada's flag.

By all means do so.The flag design was approved by a very left wing Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson.

I was a kid at the time but I remember the battle over the flag like it was yesterday. All the liberals in power voted to adopt it but conservatives hated it from day one because it looked like it copied the USSR's hammer and cycle with a couple of red bars at the side.

I'm stuck with it. So when you insult the flag you insult all the left wing whackos that approved it. It bears the Liberal colors. Red.

So go for it guno!!! Slag away!

:lol:
 

Listening

Gold Member
Joined
Aug 27, 2011
Messages
14,989
Reaction score
1,647
Points
260
Lakhota has not responded I see. :)
No, he hasn't.

He is like JakeStarkey

All mouth and no guts. Can't accept a challenge where he will have to face third party judgement of his woeful debating skills.

Instead, he beats his chest and lives in an imaginary world where he has imaginary friends who think he's worth more living than as compost for the garden.

Keep after Lakhota, my challenge to Fakey will be soon.

He'll decline all the while beating his 18" chest and hiding under the skirt of the internet.
 

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top