• 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!

Gregg withdraws as commerce secretary nominee

Status
Not open for further replies.
No Rodney, it's people who believe they can give a little bit away of their soul on a daily basis are the problem.

People not willing to defend what is right.
Defending truth vigorously is not part of the problem...
and...
for the record...

If I am such a closed minded individual, I guess you would have found me open minded when I was a young and very naive socialist?

How can I be closed minded after making a 180 degree change? When I've studied and come to believe deeply in what the Founders set up?

What is extreme?
A tax code that follows the Commi manifesto?
Socialist redistribution of wealth on a massive scale?
The constant pursuit of socialized medicine?
The manner which Socialists demonize companies for making profits?

You seem to enjoy socialism.
I've lived in too many societies where it has been the political base.
It's awful, and that it fails to provide any long term good need be taught to the ignorant... of which there are many.
Until then socialists and ignoramuses will have a chance to rule and ruin the country.

But... people like me are the problem.
LOL.

The fact that you believe that what you believe is THE truth indicates that what I said was correct. Whether you are/were a socialist without the ability to see that it is a position not a truth, or a conservative with the same issue, is irrelevant. Just different flavors of the same extremist ice cream.
 
The fact that you believe that what you believe is THE truth indicates that what I said was correct. Whether you are/were a socialist without the ability to see that it is a position not a truth, or a conservative with the same issue, is irrelevant. Just different flavors of the same extremist ice cream.
No, no.
Try again.

A position is either truthful or it isn't.
And in your book defending the truth is "extreme".

How nice.

For you there are no truths?
You sound more and more like the type.
 
Last edited:
No, no.
Try again.

A position is either truthful or it isn't.

For you there are no truths?
You sound like the type.

Wrong. A position is one's opinion. It is you who believes that opinion=fact. Good description of a closedminded extremist.
 
Wrong. A position is one's opinion. It is you who believes that opinion=fact. Good description of a closedminded extremist.
A position/opinion is either truthful or not.
It is factual or not.
You can opine or not.

So Conservatives are "extremist"?
I see you are open minded and tolerant.
LOL.
 
Last edited:
A position/opinion is either truthful or not.
It is factual or not.
You can opine or not.

A position or opinion may be truthful to the person making it, but that's about it. An opinion is NOT fact. A fact is a fact.

So Conservatives are "extremist"?
I see you are open minded and tolerant.
LOL.

Never said that. Try reading what I write, not what you want to believe. Some conservatives are extremists...just like some liberals are. Let's see if you can say the same.
 
A position or opinion may be truthful to the person making it, but that's about it. An opinion is NOT fact. A fact is a fact.



Never said that. Try reading what I write, not what you want to believe. Some conservatives are extremists...just like some liberals are. Let's see if you can say the same.

Truth is extreme?
What's extreme about Conservatism?
About what the Framers had laid out as a foundation for the nation?

Spit it out.

Fact is, socialism is perfect.
It has failed perfectly.
It is the perfect storm.
It wreaks destruction wherever it has been tried.
The more invasive the socialist schemes, the more corrupted, debased and poor the society. Not mentioning the individual is subservient to the state.

Them's the facts.
Not opinion.

Maybe you like being subservient?
Maybe you like government running your life?
Stealing your labor?
Picking winners and losers?
Forcing banks to make loans to people who can't pay them?

I think you a-like-a-too much... Too much.

You like to defend or having a corrosive element injected into our society?
Fine... I don't believe the political equivalent of sulfuric acid should be injected into the system's veins.
But the arm of Lady Liberty is full of needles from the Marxists. Pumping in acid, pumping out Liberty.
She's become the SAPs (Socialist of America Party) whore... pimped out to Karl and his followers.

You may think we should get along (everyone take some socialist smack)... I think your socialist leanings should be defeated.

I believe your flawed outlook... "shouldn't we all get along" should be debunked, and defeated.

We need defenders... not retreators.
 
Last edited:
Truth is extreme?
What's extreme about Conservatism?
About what the Framers had laid out as a foundation for the nation?

Spit it out.

Fact is, socialism is perfect.
It has failed perfectly.
It is the perfect storm.
It wreaks destruction wherever it has been tried.
The more invasive the socialist schemes, the more corrupted, debased and poor the society. Not mentioning the individual is subservient to the state.

Them's the facts.
Not opinion.

Maybe you like being subservient?
Maybe you like government running your life?
Stealing your labor?
Picking winners and losers?
Forcing banks to make loans to people who can't pay them?

I think you a-like-a-too much... Too much.

You like to defend or having a corrosive element injected into our society?
Fine... I don't believe the political equivalent of sulfuric acid should be injected into the system's veins.
But the arm of Lady Liberty is full of needles from the Marxists. Pumping in acid, pumping out Liberty.
She's become the SAPs (Socialist of America Party) whore... pimped out to Karl and his followers.

You may think we should get along (everyone take some socialist smack)... I think your socialist leanings should be defeated.

I believe your flawed outlook... "shouldn't we all get along" should be debunked, and defeated.

We need defenders... not retreators.

Your entire post is nothing but straw man hyperpartisan bs. As expected. Try this:

1) Point out where I said that conservatism=extremism.
2) Point out where I claimed to be a socialist.
3) Point out where I defended socialism.

The more you post, the more you strengthen my argument. You are not debating. Extremists don't. They soapbox. And it's all opinion not facts.
 
Your entire post is nothing but straw man hyperpartisan bs. As expected. Try this:

1) Point out where I said that conservatism=extremism.
2) Point out where I claimed to be a socialist.
3) Point out where I defended socialism.

The more you post, the more you strengthen my argument. You are not debating. Extremists don't. They soapbox. And it's all opinion not facts.
What is hyperpartisan?
I support and defend The Constitution.

Give me ONE example of socialism succeeding.
There is one.

You said there were conservatives that were extreme. You call me "hyperpartisan".
Tell me what is extreme about conservatism.
That's all I am. Conservative.
I defend it, I promote it, and having vast experience in the socialist waste lands... I know the opposition too well.

I do ridicule socialists because their position is ridiculous.
Proven repeatedly to fail horribly.

You defend socialism by calling conservatism extreme and calling for us to all get along. You made the claim, and followed it with Rodney King's plea... though not precisely in his words.

You want to appease the socialists, why not the conservatives?

So, seeing as you're hostile to someone defending Conservative values... I assume you are defending the role of socialism in our society. I don't care that you say "extremists at both ends"... as there is nothing extreme about conservatism. Conservatism is about maximum liberty, prosperity... the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period.

Socialism is decay.

You like? If not, then Conservatism is the only viable alternative.
 
Last edited:
What is hyperpartisan?
I support and defend The Constitution.

Give me ONE example of socialism succeeding.
There is one.

You said there were conservatives that were extreme. You call me "hyperpartisan".
Tell me what is extreme about conservatism.
That's all I am. Conservative.
I defend it, I promote it, and having vast experience in the socialist waste lands... I know the opposition too well.

I do ridicule socialists because their position is ridiculous.
Proven repeatedly to fail horribly.

You defend socialism by calling conservatism extreme and calling for us to all get along. You made the claim, and followed it with Rodney King's plea... though not precisely in his words.

You want to appease the socialists, why not the conservatives?

So, seeing as you're hostile to someone defending Conservative values... I assume you are defending the role of socialism in our society. I don't care that you say "extremists at both ends"... as there is nothing extreme about conservatism. Conservatism is about maximum liberty, prosperity... the greatest good for the greatest number over the longest period.

Socialism is decay.

You like? If not, then Conservatism is the only viable alternative.

Typical. As I said, the more you post, the more you help me with my argument. You did not respond to my challenge. All you did was continue your hyperpartisan soapboxing bs along with nothing but straw manning. You are neither debating or listening. Try to get the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth for a moment. Here are the things I asked you to show, again. Let's see you try:

1) Point out where I said that conservatism=extremism.
2) Point out where I claimed to be a socialist.
3) Point out where I defended socialism.
 
Typical. As I said, the more you post, the more you help me with my argument. You did not respond to my challenge. All you did was continue your hyperpartisan soapboxing bs along with nothing but straw manning. You are neither debating or listening. Try to get the cotton out of your ears and put it in your mouth for a moment. Here are the things I asked you to show, again. Let's see you try:

1) Point out where I said that conservatism=extremism.
extreme partisan conservatives.
There is nothing wrong with conservatism.
It's the foundation of the country.
It embraces liberty, prosperity... individual rights and freedom.

How much of this are you willing to give up so we all get along?

Have you noticed the socialist appetite is not one to be satisfied?

You called me an extremist.
I'm a conservative.
Not very conservative, not little conservative... Conservative.

But to you I'm an extremist.
LOL.

2) Point out where I claimed to be a socialist.
You sound like one.
Whining about us all getting along.
I want to socialism expunged... you want conservatives and socialists expunged.

You want some socialism.
3) Point out where I defended socialism.
You defend socialism by giving the impression that we should all get along. Which means inserting socialism.
If you don't want socialism, then the post below should be edited or eliminated.


I see nothing here that does anything to dissuade me from what I've always thought: extreme partisan conservatives and extreme partisan liberals alike need to be wiped off the face of the earth. Perhaps then all of the stupidity, the political gridlock, the finger pointing, the vengeance, and the political hackery that makes each side look idiotic would stop.

Perhaps then America could be "one nation under God". Of course there are too many that are invested in anger, hate, and proving the other guy is wrong rather than looking at progress or solutions, or actually looking past their own partisan hackery to see anything.
This is a defense of socialism.
 
Last edited:
You defend socialism by giving the impression that we should all get along. Which means inserting socialism.

Firstly, show where I said "we should all get along". Secondly, demonstrate how "getting along"=socialism.

If you don't want socialism, then the post below should be edited or eliminated.

This is a defense of socialism.

YOU highlighted the "extreme partisan conservatives" not I. And you did not highlight the "extreme partisan liberals". I wonder why.:lol:

Keep digging. Your proving me right with every post.
 
Maybe it is a difference of cultures but what is wrong with partisanship? Obviously there are reasonable limits, like not saying all liberals are murderers or wanting all conservatives dead but I don't see what is wrong with reasonable partisanship.

The idea of appointing a minister from the main opposition party seems very strange to British eyes I must say.
 
Last edited:
Maybe it is a difference of cultures but what is wrong with partisanship? Obviously there are reasonable limits, like not saying all liberals are murders or wanting all conservatives dead but I don't see what is wrong with reasonable partisanship.

The idea of appointing a minister from the main opposition party seems very strange to British eyes I must say.

I see little wrong with reasonable partisanship. It is the unreasonable, extreme that I am addressing, here.
 
I see little wrong with reasonable partisanship. It is the unreasonable, extreme that I am addressing, here.

What is extreme in this context? It seems to me we are just talking about unreasonable behaviour in general which should probably always tend to be avoided if possible.
 
Last edited:
I see little wrong with reasonable partisanship. It is the unreasonable, extreme that I am addressing, here.

I espouse nothing more than Conservatism.
Yet this is "unreasonable, extreme" to CC.

So I must question his claim that representatives espousing Conservatism and vigorously defending it need be expunged.

Makes no sense unless you want to see the growth of socialism, because that's the end result when Conservatism isn't vigorously explained and defended.

Just look at where we are now.
Republicans behaved like Libs, had a RINO as their candidate vs. a weakling Marxist and lost.
The definition of Conservative was watered down.
Didn't Kerry claim to be "conservative"? LOL.

We have an economic situation brought to us by socialists sticking their fingers into the market, yet nobody was out there explaining and slamming those who caused the problem. Hence Obama and the Libs get bonus points as managers of the economy?

Yeah, we need to eliminate conservatives.

When you kill defenders of The Constitution, you're killing America... drip by drip.
 
Last edited:
I espouse nothing more than the Conservatism.
Yet this is extreme to CC.

So I must question his assumption that representatives espousing Conservatism need be expunged.

Makes no sense unless you want to see the growth of socialism, because that's the end result when Conservatism isn't vigorously explained and defended.

Just look at where we are now.
Republicans behaved like Libs, had a RINO as their candidate vs. a weakling Marxist and lost.

We had an economic situation brought to us by socialists, yet nobody out there explaining who caused the problem. Hence Obama and the Libs get bonus points as managers of the economy?

When you kill defenders of The Constitution, you're killing America... drip by drip.

See CC this is just a silly argument. The throwing around of terms like socialist and Marxist with little thought of their actual meanings, unless done in a humourous or witty way, is silly anyway without having to bring such ideas as partisanship into it.
 
What is extreme in this context? It seems to me we are just talking about unreasonable behaviour in general which should probably always tend to be avoided if possible.

I would agree.

Here are two examples of what I would consider extreme partisanship. It will be in the context of American politics:

1) Everything Bush did sucked because Bush did it or because he is a conservative(ignoring the situation, itself).

2) Everything Obama does sucks because Obama does it or because he is a liberal (ignoring the situation, itself).

These are two easy examples. Some examples that amplify this that we have seen on this board were the liberals' foolish attacks against Bush for continuing to read to children when 9/11 happened because he was Bush and a conservative (he waited 7 minutes and didn't want to alarm anyone), and the conservatives' foolish attacks against Obama for reading to children during the economic crisis, just because he was Obama, and a liberal...and probably as partisan revenge for Bush being attacked. Both situations are silly partisan attacks and do not look at the situations objectively. Was what Bush or Obama did really problematic? Hyperpartisans don't care. They condemn or adhere based on their affiliation, not on logic. That is there right, but I will call it as I see it.
 
I espouse nothing more than Conservatism.
Yet this is "unreasonable, extreme" to CC.

So I must question his claim that representatives espousing Conservatism and vigorously defending it need be expunged.

Makes no sense unless you want to see the growth of socialism, because that's the end result when Conservatism isn't vigorously explained and defended.

Just look at where we are now.
Republicans behaved like Libs, had a RINO as their candidate vs. a weakling Marxist and lost.
The definition of Conservative was watered down.
Didn't Kerry claim to be "conservative"? LOL.

We have an economic situation brought to us by socialists sticking their fingers into the market, yet nobody was out there explaining and slamming those who caused the problem. Hence Obama and the Libs get bonus points as managers of the economy?

Yeah, we need to eliminate conservatives.

When you kill defenders of The Constitution, you're killing America... drip by drip.

More straw manning. Please show where I said we should eliminate conservatives. I know that's the argument you want to have, but since it's not my position, you're just arguing with yourself. And the more you do it, whether you win, or you win, you lose.
 
I would agree.

Here are two examples of what I would consider extreme partisanship. It will be in the context of American politics:

1) Everything Bush did sucked because Bush did it or because he is a conservative(ignoring the situation, itself).

2) Everything Obama does sucks because Obama does it or because he is a liberal (ignoring the situation, itself).

These are two easy examples. Some examples that amplify this that we have seen on this board were the liberals' foolish attacks against Bush for continuing to read to children when 9/11 happened because he was Bush and a conservative (he waited 7 minutes and didn't want to alarm anyone), and the conservatives' foolish attacks against Obama for reading to children during the economic crisis, just because he was Obama, and a liberal...and probably as partisan revenge for Bush being attacked. Both situations are silly partisan attacks and do not look at the situations objectively. Was what Bush or Obama did really problematic? Hyperpartisans don't care. They condemn or adhere based on their affiliation, not on logic. That is there right, but I will call it as I see it.
I see what you are saying but those arguments still look silly to me without having to include partisanship.

In Britain and Australia most mainstream politicians aren't like that although they opposition will oppose almost everything the gov't does as a matter of routine and usually come out and attack it.
 
See CC this is just a silly argument. The throwing around of terms like socialist and Marxist with little thought of their actual meanings, unless done in a humourous or witty way, is silly anyway without having to bring such ideas as partisanship into it.
Oh boy.

Marxist: Economic philosophy where the state is the big Kahuna.

Stalinist: Not being able to speak freely for fear of repercussions. Censoring opponents.

Socialist: Somebody believing Marxist doctrine, and or individuals who believe government should be the decider. Graduated income tax, government control over your property, government intrusion into the market, Hillarycare... there's a few globs of socialism.

Like a President telling businesses what their staff can earn, bonuses they can give, where they should or should not hold meetings, whether they should fly or drive. Telling legislators who they should and should not listen to.
That only in the first few weeks. can you differentiate between what was Stalinist and what was Marxist?

"Spread the wealth around"... socialist.

I think people just don't like being called Libs, socialists, Marxists or Stalinists... even though their behavior is consistent with said behavior.

I say... tough darts.
 
Last edited:
See CC this is just a silly argument. The throwing around of terms like socialist and Marxist with little thought of their actual meanings, unless done in a humourous or witty way, is silly anyway without having to bring such ideas as partisanship into it.

This is what I am getting at. It's good to see that you get it...figured you would. You're a conservative, but you understand conservatism and understand liberalism. You are not extreme in the former, nor do you overgeneralize the latter.

In all of our discussions, today, you have earned my respect.
 
More straw manning. Please show where I said we should eliminate conservatives. I know that's the argument you want to have, but since it's not my position, you're just arguing with yourself. And the more you do it, whether you win, or you win, you lose.

Very, very cute slithering.
extreme partisan conservatives... need to be wiped off the face of the earth.

You stated I was of the type that should be killed.

I'm a conservative.
 
Oh boy.

Marxist: Economic philosophy where the state is the big Kahuna.
Actually Marxism is a political and social philosophy as well as economic based on a "critical analysis" of capitalism relying on dialetical materialism. Marxism is a very complex philosophy and cannot be summed up as you put it, aside from the fact not all Marxists have believed in a centralised state as the answer, and certainly can't be applied to Obama.

Stalinist: Not being able to speak freely for fear of repercussions. Censoring opponents.
No that would be the regimes of Stalinist Russia and similar places.

Socialist: Somebody believing Marxist doctrine, and or individuals who believe government should be the decider. Graduated income tax, government control over your property, government intrusion into the market, Hillarycare... there's a few globs of socialism.
No socialism is about placing the means of production in the hands of the public or state representing the public. There are low or no state versions of socialism and communism.

Man I hate it when people throw around temrs like this when they aren't needed. Libs do it as well with fascist, racist, bigot etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom