• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ruth Bader Ginsberg predicts another Dem in the White House. Do you Agree?

As incompetent as the Dems continually prove to be, it seems that the Reps are intent on giving seminars on how to alienate people and lose elections. Ms Ginsberg may be correct, but not for the reasons she thinks/hopes.
 
Ontologuy said:
All of what I said is true.

It is not "despicable" to refer to the disaffected coalition pandering candidates typically fielded by the liberal Dems as "socialists". They, by nature, present many rescue planks in their platform to appeal to the many "disaffected" groups, rescue planks that are intrinsically socialist.

I presented the kind of President the people need to elect, that, rather, the GOP needs to field, a candidate that is, obiously, not a disaffected coalition rescue candidate.

Your possible projection or transference that I'm an Obama-hater is false.

The rescue candidate socialist aspects of both Kerry and Gore were also quite obvious, and, thus obviously, they would not have been able to prevent The Great Recesssion, and would merely have hastened in all likelihood.

Obama won handly in 2008 because he was clearly a socialistic rescue candidate (Obamacare and ludicrous amnesty for 20 million illegals obvious indications) and because his skin was black, making him a hugely idealistically appealing candidate to the disaffected masses. Clearly, all such candidates do is make matters far worse.

The desired candidate I described in my previous post is far different from Obama, Kerry, and Gore and he is far different from Bush, McCain and Romney, and all six of these people I just listed could not have helped but bring America down.

We can do better.
Click to expand...
You don't know what the hell "socialism" is. These people do, and they know Obama is no socialist: What Do Socialists Think of Obamacare? | Michael Smerconish
 
Ontologuy said:
In presenting an accurate comparison, the vast majority of disaffected and impoverished people do vote "bread and circuses" and will thus vote for the socialistic rescue candidate.

This is understandable, as they experience themselves in bottom-tier dire straits, and do not have the luxury of higher level academic analytical pursuits in Maslow's Hierarchy of Need.

These people are clamoring for the security previous policy did not provide, they are clamoring for the justice in "liberty and justice for all" because too many small special interests (such as the sub-prime security speculators who knew exactly what the great recession result of their get-rich scheme would be) took liberty that did not rightly belong to them, thereby perpetrating a huge injustice on so many people.

Thus, with respect to accurate presentation, comparatively very few disaffected and impoverished people vote the economic "freedom" (economic/fiscal conservative candidate) line. They are greatly execeptions to the rule.

They vote the economic security line, and for the liberal Dem candidate that stumps that line.
Click to expand...

The falsehood is in presenting a static class system. There is no such thing where economic freedom abounds. Those in a low SES, can and do move up and sometimes the rich fall. Gird your loins and run the race! Don't slow down for the handout is my advice.
 
Comunitee said:
In her case, trying to keep up with Antonin Scalia.

I have a problem with Supreme Court Justices ruling on cases on which they have a vested interest. I also have a problem with Supreme Court Justices lying: Corporations are NOT people, and money is NOT speech, and there was NO legal or moral reason to stop the Florida recount.

Scalia should have been impeached 3 times over by now.
Click to expand...

1. Yes. Corporations are people, just like any church, club political party or other amalgamation of human beings.

2. Money is private property. Speech, especially political speech is to be unencumbered. Thus the {People should be free to use their money in the exercise of the free speech as thy see fit with little or no government interference and with virtually no liitis.

One should loot to how one shepherds one's own funds, not how one's neighbor manages his. In any event, the proper way to guarantee that one's speech has the widest audience available, is to create a compelling message.

3. There were every legal and moral to stop repeated "Florida Recounts." The Florida vote was conducted under the auspices of the Florida Constitution, not the dreams of the Political Left. That document de manded that the nonsense cease by a given date. The Federal Courts had no right to intervene. People who assert otherwise have rejected the rule of law.
 
Oftencold said:
There is almost no such thing ans a significant "extreme right" in the country. Merely a moderate right (or rational) position that confuses the fantasists and low information serf of the Left. A few minutes of clear thinking supported by a casual perusal of facts will make this abundantly clear.
Click to expand...

Every time I think I've read the funniest post ever on this forum, a new one shows up to prove me wrong. Thanks, man! This one will take some beating.
 
Oftencold said:
1. Yes. Corporations are people, just like any church, club political party or other amalgamation of human beings.

2. Money is private property. Speech, especially political speech is to be unencumbered. Thus the {People should be free to use their money in the exercise of the free speech as thy see fit with little or no government interference and with virtually no liitis.

One should loot to how one shepherds one's own funds, not how one's neighbor manages his. In any event, the proper way to guarantee that one's speech has the widest audience available, is to create a compelling message.

3. There were every legal and moral to stop repeated "Florida Recounts." The Florida vote was conducted under the auspices of the Florida Constitution, not the dreams of the Political Left. That document de manded that the nonsense cease by a given date. The Federal Courts had no right to intervene. People who assert otherwise have rejected the rule of law.
Click to expand...

Corporations are not people. Corporations are state defined entities created to limit liability. There is zero constitutional basis for considering corporations to have the same constitutional rights as people.

Citizen's United did NOT permit corporations to engage in electioneering. The same restrictions on electioneering that existed before Citizens United still exist. What Citizen's United did was to allow companies to use general treasury funds in electioneering rather than separate accounts.

Before Citizens United, I could own a share of Walmart, and know that my money was being used only as an investment. If Walmart wanted to run an add in support of Obama, I'd know that it was raised separately from day to day operations. Citizens United means that a company can spend investors money without the concent of the investors.

That's free speech for you.
 
Mithros said:
Corporations are not people. Corporations are state defined entities created to limit liability. There is zero constitutional basis for considering corporations to have the same constitutional rights as people.

Citizen's United did NOT permit corporations to engage in electioneering. The same restrictions on electioneering that existed before Citizens United still exist. What Citizen's United did was to allow companies to use general treasury funds in electioneering rather than separate accounts.

Before Citizens United, I could own a share of Walmart, and know that my money was being used only as an investment. If Walmart wanted to run an add in support of Obama, I'd know that it was raised separately from day to day operations. Citizens United means that a company can spend investors money without the concent of the investors.

That's free speech for you.
Click to expand...

I do not accept, and can find no justification in the Constitution for limiting and collection of people, organization, corporation or company from freely spending virtually any amount of their own money they please with no outside interference in the exercise of free political speech. Despotics, self-condemned slaves, serfs, and people terrified of ideas which they are incompetent to refute will of course think otherwise. See to your own, and leave others be. You wish to restrict the speech of others because you have nothing convincing to say. The sooner you recognize that, they sooner you can address the shortcomings of your message.
 
Last edited:
Wiggen said:
Every time I think I've read the funniest post ever on this forum, a new one shows up to prove me wrong. Thanks, man! This one will take some beating.
Click to expand...

I'd imagine that you send a lot of time beating whilst others think and engage in adult political discourse.

Carry on, but please, close the drapes first.
 
Oftencold said:
I accept, and can find no justification in the Constitution for limiting and collection of people, organization, corporation or company from freely spending virtually any amount of their own money they please with no outside interference in the exercise of free political speech. Despotics, self-condemned slaves, serfs, and people terrified of ideas which they are incompetent to refute will of course think otherwise. See to your own, and leave others be. You wish to restrict the speech of others because you have nothing convincing to say. The sooner you recognize that, they sooner you can address the shortcomings of your message.
Click to expand...

I'm glad we at least agree on the first part.

The only people who concentrate on the message are the people who are trying to sell a lousy product. Good ideas sell themselves.
 
Mithros said:
I'm glad we at least agree on the first part.

The only people who concentrate on the message are the people who are trying to sell a lousy product. Good ideas sell themselves.
Click to expand...
[Note: I corrected a small typo in my earlier post]

"Good ideas sell themselves."


Which is why the Left invariably opposes individual thought and has such a predilection for sloganeering ("Yes we can," "Hope 'N' Change".) The actual substance of their "message" must never be examined by the commoners." This is why Beck and Limbaugh and Levin encourage people to research issues for themselves.
 
johndylan1 said:
The falsehood is in presenting a static class system. There is no such thing where economic freedom abounds. Those in a low SES, can and do move up and sometimes the rich fall. Gird your loins and run the race! Don't slow down for the handout is my advice.
Click to expand...
The challenge here is that the vast majority of the disaffected and poor think that the game is rigged, that they have no chance to succeed.

Getting them to "gird their loins and run the race" they think is rigged against them is a catch-22, as in order for them to attempt to run the race they have to have faith that the game is not rigged against them, they have to have political leadership already in charge that reflects the centrist traits I presented in my initial post in this thread (to which you responded initially), political leaders who are neither left-wing extremist (prone to socialist handouts) or right-wing extremist (prone to elitist economics) and who thus support a truly fair game and exhibit that support in their policies .. however, the disaffected and poor are likely to vote for the socialist rescue candidate because, at the time of the election, no leader has actually shown in policy implementation that the overwhelming vast majority of these people actually have a chance to "win" in some way.

Since neither the liberal Dems (for certain) or the conservative Repubs (it appears) will field such a trustworthy and centrist candidate, it is likely that the growing mass of disaffected and poor will elect the liberal Dem candidate again and who will then only make matters worse.

This is a challenge in a country where popular vote elects representatives and times are tough (un-recovered Great Recession), as people crave immediate help (rescue) and rescuers have the codependent tendency to perpetuate in their economic climate policies that cause the masses to crave the need for rescuing.
 
Oftencold said:
[Note: I corrected a small typo in my earlier post]

"Good ideas sell themselves."


Which is why the Left invariably opposes individual thought and has such a predilection for sloganeering ("Yes we can," "Hope 'N' Change".) The actual substance of their "message" must never be examined by the commoners." This is why Beck and Limbaugh and Levin encourage people to research issues for themselves.
Click to expand...

If you think President Obama is part of "the Left," then you don't have the slightest understanding of politics. The actual Left considers him a conservative.

Beck, Limbaugh and Levin encourage their listeners to do research on sources they, the announcers, trust. Sources that cannot be trusted by rational people.

The truth is, this country has never had a Left President.
 
Ontologuy said:
The challenge here is that the vast majority of the disaffected and poor think that the game is rigged, that they have no chance to succeed.

Getting them to "gird their loins and run the race" they think is rigged against them is a catch-22, as in order for them to attempt to run the race they have to have faith that the game is not rigged against them, they have to have political leadership already in charge that reflects the centrist traits I presented in my initial post in this thread (to which you responded initially), political leaders who are neither left-wing extremist (prone to socialist handouts) or right-wing extremist (prone to elitist economics) and who thus support a truly fair game and exhibit that support in their policies .. however, the disaffected and poor are likely to vote for the socialist rescue candidate because, at the time of the election, no leader has actually shown in policy implementation that the overwhelming vast majority of these people actually have a chance to "win" in some way.

Since neither the liberal Dems (for certain) or the conservative Repubs (it appears) will field such a trustworthy and centrist candidate, it is likely that the growing mass of disaffected and poor will elect the liberal Dem candidate again and who will then only make matters worse.
Click to expand...
Bull. Liberal Democratic candidates make it better every time.

Every. Single. Time.

Conservative Republican candidates make it worse every time.
 
Comunitee said:
Bull. Liberal Democratic candidates make it better every time.

Every. Single. Time.

Conservative Republican candidates make it worse every time.
Click to expand...

And yet you just posted this above:

The truth is, this country has never had a Left President.
Click to expand...

That would mean I suppose that every president from the beginning has made things worse in your opinion. Silly extremism.
 
Oftencold said:
[Note: I corrected a small typo in my earlier post]

"Good ideas sell themselves."


Which is why the Left invariably opposes individual thought and has such a predilection for sloganeering ("Yes we can," "Hope 'N' Change".) The actual substance of their "message" must never be examined by the commoners." This is why Beck and Limbaugh and Levin encourage people to research issues for themselves.
Click to expand...

You actually believe that don't you?

Also every party uses slogans, to accuse one or the other of doing it too much is silly. The GOP literally wrote a song based around the slogan "We built that."
 
Wiseone said:
You actually believe that don't you?

Also every party uses slogans, to accuse one or the other of doing it too much is silly. The GOP literally wrote a song based around the slogan "We built that."
Click to expand...

Of course I believe it. My politics are based in reality, I'm moderately historically aware and I revel in thought. I also except the utter inflexibility of arithmetic, which the common Leftist serf does not, can not.

I've been engaged in political discourse for a long time now. I feel no need whatsoever to revise my opinion the the Common Leftist is averse to analytical thought. Almost any discussion I ever have with any of them involves their recitation of prejudices, assumptions, slogans and fantasies that they appear to be incapable of examining.
 
Oftencold said:
[Note: I corrected a small typo in my earlier post]

"Good ideas sell themselves."


Which is why the Left invariably opposes individual thought and has such a predilection for sloganeering ("Yes we can," "Hope 'N' Change".) The actual substance of their "message" must never be examined by the commoners." This is why Beck and Limbaugh and Levin encourage people to research issues for themselves.
Click to expand...

No they don't. Rush, Glen, and Hannity thrive on ignorance, fear, and sensationalism.
 
Oftencold said:
Of course I believe it. My politics are based in reality, I'm moderately historically aware and I revel in thought. I also except the utter inflexibility of arithmetic, which the common Leftist serf does not, can not.

I've been engaged in political discourse for a long time now. I feel no need whatsoever to revise my opinion the the Common Leftist is averse to analytical thought. Almost any discussion I ever have with any of them involves their recitation of prejudices, assumptions, slogans and fantasies that they appear to be incapable of examining.
Click to expand...

There has never been a more appropriate moment for this image anywhere on the internet

1320529223886.jpg
 
Mithros said:
No they don't. Rush, Glen, and Hannity thrive on ignorance, fear, and sensationalism.
Click to expand...

I'd ask you to back that up with some sort of rationale. Myself, I find it a little hard to think that people who constantly refer to history, scholarly writing's and encourage their audiences to educate themselves thrive on ignorance.

On the other hand, the left tells us that if we don't surrender our wealth and freedom to them, the ocean will engulf us while we broil. Or that without silly school feeding programs, hapless mother would watch their children waste away and never understand why.
 
Wiseone said:
There has never been a more appropriate moment for this image anywhere on the internet

1320529223886.jpg
Click to expand...

As I take pains to frequently point out, in simple sentences composed of short words, my positions are beyond the ability of the Common Leftist to rebut rationally. They are left to mock their cognitive betters.

(Stylistic advice: When one quite correctly points out that one's opinions are informed by Cruel Reality, it is generally an unfortunate choice to attempt to counter that assertion with the use of a cartoon fantasy. Heeding this advice may help the attentive student avoid further embarrassment.)

Carry on.
 
Oftencold said:
As I take pains to frequently point out, in simple sentences composed of short words, my positions are beyond the ability of the Common Leftist to rebut rationally. They are left to mock their cognitive betters.

(Stylistic advice: When one quite correctly points out that one's opinions are informed by Cruel Reality, it is generally an unfortunate choice to attempt to counter that assertion with the use of a cartoon fantasy. Heeding this advice may help the attentive student avoid further embarrassment.)

Carry on.
Click to expand...

I don't respect you enough to care about attempting to counter your assertions, I just think what you said was funny as hell.
 
Oftencold said:
1. Yes. Corporations are people, just like any church, club political party or other amalgamation of human beings.

2. Money is private property. Speech, especially political speech is to be unencumbered. Thus the {People should be free to use their money in the exercise of the free speech as thy see fit with little or no government interference and with virtually no liitis.

One should loot to how one shepherds one's own funds, not how one's neighbor manages his. In any event, the proper way to guarantee that one's speech has the widest audience available, is to create a compelling message.

3. There were every legal and moral to stop repeated "Florida Recounts." The Florida vote was conducted under the auspices of the Florida Constitution, not the dreams of the Political Left. That document de manded that the nonsense cease by a given date. The Federal Courts had no right to intervene. People who assert otherwise have rejected the rule of law.
Click to expand...

1. An amalgamation of human beings is not a person, and does not have the rights of a person.

2. Money is not speech. If it is, then that means one person has more speech than another -- and that is unconstitutional. You cannot say "Money is speech" and claim to be a "constitutionalist," because you would be flat-out lying.

3. The Florida vote was never fully counted. By denying thousands of people the right to vote, the U.S. Supreme Court was violating the 15th and 19th Amendments. Essentially, they were denying over 300 million people the right to vote, Bush voters as well as Gore voters. They were saying, "We know how Rehnquist, Scalia and Thomas are going to vote: For Bush. We know how Stevens, Souther, Ginsburg and Breyer are going to vote: For Gore. So the only two Americans who really have the right to vote in this election are O'Connor and Kennedy." The federal Constitution was being violated, therefore the Supreme Court had the duty to say, "This recount will continue until every vote is counted."
 
Wiseone said:
I don't respect you enough to care about attempting to counter your assertions, I just think what you said was funny as hell.
Click to expand...

And yet, you seem to feel compelled to make hollow, vapid responses signifying nothing other that reflexive rejection of concepts and forms of discourse which cause you distress. Do you see the intrinsic sadness with which that activity is freighted?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom