DesideriScuri
Posts: 12225
Joined: 1/18/2012
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Your entire discussion can be summed up thusly:I believe it's reasonable to ask, and you do not. No matter what you say, that's not going to change, for either of us.
I can sum up yours just as easily: " . ".
Only because you're an idiot.
If I'm an idiot whom can destroy all your arguments hands down, how intelligent are you?
I'm fucking intelligent enough to realize I'm in the real world and not your fantasy world.
Are you in the real world? Since we define reality as the ability to see and hear. Yet, you can not see nor hear me. So how can you possibility be in reality? You live in a fantasy world because the real world is just to scary for your child-like behaviors. It is to impossible to understand with your limited knowledge and cranial capacity.
In reality, I can own your arguments just as easily as the Internet. Because is the Internet real? It has a weigh. Yet so does antihydrogen atoms. But those can not exist in our dimension of understanding on their own. Just as the Internet can not remain in place without machinery.
In your reality, Joether. Unfortunately, here is the actual real world, you fail time and time again.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Actually, it's your assertion to prove. Be my guest. Please show how the GOP/TP controls what I think and what I say.
Let's take the firearm debate in the nation as an example. When some mass shooting takes place some where, why is it the liberals and moderates can discuss while while conservatives and libertarians give the same lame bullshit they tried on the last few shootings? It didn't for you on those arguments, why would it work now?
Yeah, how dare we rely on the US Constitution for our support of gun rights! 
Your one that states....often...of hating corruption in government. In fact you put it in your tagline: "Personal Responsibility". How do we have personal responsibility when conservatives and libertarians are to afraid of being objective on the US Constitution? Can you really be effectively responsible with good actions and noble pursuits, when your defending laws that have been made corrupt? That the corruption has allowed for Americans to die while others benefit politically, financially, and dare I say it, religiously?
Corrupted? By whom? Who has corrupted our Constitution? Just an FYI, it's probably not the ones that attempt to use original intent in determining how we are to interpret the Constitution. Just sayin'.
quote:
No, you can not be. You look the other way because the temptation of gain is so much your seductive and enjoyable. In that moment, you are corrupted and will try to justify any and all your actions as good and just. Yes, let's take fantasy for a moment. Gandalf? Ever heard of that wizard from literature? He is the one explain to Frodo about the power and danger of The One Ring. That the ring can give great power to do go things, but the corruption of the ring's influence would have the wear bring great evil and destruction. The more they are corrupted, the more they justify more insane and evil things. A sort of 'Ends Justify The Means'.
How well do you think the concept 'Ends Justify The Means' last when brought into a Democratic Republic like ours? Not very long. One only has to look up 'Enemy Combatant' and the 8th amendment. That once an enemy combatant, all 'rights and privilages' under the US Constitution are stripped from the individual. Which by the way, is completely illegal to due to another person (be they US Citizen, immigrant, or even a terrorist). George W. Bush corrupted the 8th amendment. Where were you and other conservatives/libertarians? You had something to gain politically, financially, and/or religiously. So you kept quiet. Because stating your own party performs tyrannical actions is to tough for you to handle.
I'm guessing you're talking about the Patriot Act. And, as I've said many, many times, I wasn't paying attention to why my government was actually doing until 2004/5, well after the Patriot Act. Oddly enough, listening to The Glenn Beck Show (back in 2004/5) is what really got me wondering wtf is going on in Washington. And, I've been questioning things the GOP is doing, too. I've been on here since 2012, and have been opposed to the Patriot Act this whole time. But, please do go on some fucking irrelevant rant. I wouldn't want to cramp your style with the truth.
quote:
Better to level the conservative propaganda machine do your thinking for you. Direct your silly thoughts of justice for all, innocent until proven guilty, and all that other 'useless shit' from your mind. While filling it corruption and acts of tyranny. The German people pad a REALLY heavy price back in the 1930's to 1940's. Why does America have to suffer the same fate?
There you go again. You claim I don't think, but that some "conservative propaganda machine" does it for me. How does it think for me? How does it direct my thoughts or my actions? Where am I getting this direction? Am I nothing but an automaton, getting programming installed as I sleep? I listened to 106.5 The Ticket ("After Hours with Amy Lawrence) this morning on the way to work. Was that where I got my conservative thinking? From a CBS Sports radio talk show? Maybe it was the drive home where I listened to 1370 WSPD ("The Scott Sands Show") for 10 minutes while he talked to a current candidate for mayor that was involved in the "Water Quality Dashboard" (which is what they were talking about while I had the radio on)? Could that have been it? Probably using some sinister backward masking to program me.
I read some of a Yahoo piece on Saudi Arabia's royalty in upheaval (the headline was about the US losing it's impact on the Middle East) today. I also read 2 articles on the Dallas Cowboys. I read parts of a couple other articles, one about how Hilllary won the debate, but hasn't gotten any bump in polling while others have, and a report that someone "in the know" says Biden is going to enter the race. All of the articles I read were linked off Yahoo. Where is the conservative propaganda machine hitting me?
This is why you're an idiot, Joether. You have just a few go-to things, and you go to them almost every time, even after you've been told you're wrong, and you have no actual evidence to support your assertions.
quote:
"1984" and "Animal Farm" are both fantasies. Yet, there is much wisdom in both texts. There are many books, TV Shows and movies that are all labelled 'fantasy', yet talk about real world matters rather directly for the "...fucking intelligent..." to understand. Why is it that I understand and you do not?
Are you in reality? Best way to figure that out is to use the scientific method objectively. You can not do that. To much of your viewpoints and the viewpoints of the political powers you support rest on lies, half-truths, and mindless crap. For your party to admit reality is an impossibility.
You're living in your own fantasy world, Joether. I'm not a Republican, though you continue to state they are my party. You want to apply scientific methods objectively? Prove your assertions. You can't, yet, you continue to cling to them like some cling to their Bibles and their guns.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
You've jumped the shark. Again.
Libertarians and Conservatives aren't in favor of anarchy. The GOP and, sadly, TP members of the GOP, are all for their own version of freedom restrictions. That's why I'm a Libertarian, btw.
In your party is not in favor of anarchy, explain the partial shut down of the US Government a few years ago? All because the idol of the Tea Party, Se. Cruz, demanded the ACA (a standing law) be removed or else. Yet, I did a reality check on here at the time and a few times since then. I reverse the concepts. I asked how many conservatives would be 'OK' with the removal of the 2nd amendment in order to keep the government from shutting down. Not a single person (not even you), said 'OK'. You hated the ACA because you didn't read it. You led others do your thinking for you and tell you what to babble out. I know, because I corrected your bullshit!
See? The Libertarian Party did what a few years ago? You do realize, don't you, that the power of the purse belongs in the Hours of Representatives, and that it takes two to tango, right? The House actually did pass a few bills in the last days leading up to the shutdown, but the Senate wouldn't vote on them. Why not? It's not the GOP's fault the Senate wouldn't even vote on the bills they passed. That's on the Democrats. It's not up to the majority party in the House to pass bills the majority party in the Senate will pass, especially when they are not the same party.
Want to know why no one jumped on your bandwagon about removing the 2nd Amendment? Because the entire hypothetical is ignorant. The ACA and the 2nd Amendment are not even close to being of equal stature. That's why no one played your stupid little game.
quote:
Anarchy is how your party thrives. Because anarchy removes records of wrong doing. Tell me, where are all those 'massive stockpiles' of WMD's we were suppose to find in Iraq? Weren't we promised by your political candidate for the Office of the President he would not conduct nation building in other countries? In both cases, the individuals later on flat out state a completely different view. Even when the previous material is shown to them. Anarchy wipes records away. That's the nature of that form of government. It doesn't last long either. Usually some evil dictator takes over.
Anarchy is how "my" party thrives? Seriously?!? What records have been wiped away?
quote:
quote:
"The GOP and, sadly, TP members of the GOP, are all for their own version of freedom restrictions."
So when the Democrats opt for "...their own version of freedom restrictions" its 'wrong'; but if the GOP/TP do it is 'OK'. Can you say:
DOUBLE STANDARD
You dont like it when Democrats have double standards, yet, argue its 'OK' for the GOP/TP to have them. That's what corruption does, DS. It makes you start justifying even greater levels of bullshit, because the ends will be justified. They are never justified, DS!
You're slinging more bullshit, Joether. Where did I state that it's okay that the GOP/TP to have their own freedom restrictions? Oh, yeah, nowhere. I'm not a member of the GOP, Joether. I'm a Libertarian, remember? I share a lot of the same fiscal beliefs as the Republicans, but I differ on a lot of the private life beliefs. The way I acknowledged the GOP/TP as having their own forms of freedom restrictions actually shows I don't agree with them.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
A name is just a name, and whatever it's applied to doesn't necessarily have to be accurately described by that name. Today's "Liberals" are not the freedom-loving Liberals of yesteryear. Look at one of your two main foci: The "Affordable Care Act." Go do some research and see how much more affordable care is. It's not, but that legislation sure does sound great, doesn't it?
I have. Its much more affordable then if we allowed private companies to keep going on the path they were on. As it were, 30-35 million Americans could not get decent health coverage to handle problems in their bodies unless they shelled out ridiculous sums of money to private insurance companies. Small businesses make up a large percentage of the workforce, yet only the upper 20% could afford healthcare coverage for their employees. It was a rarity for a company under 80 employees to have healthcare coverage.
I can go on and on with this subject and clearly blow your feeble arguments out of the water, DS. I already know what they are before you ask them. The ACA is not a perfect document. Nor is any law. Not even the US Constitution. There are a number of improvements that could be made to the law. Things that say "If we only knew then what we know now". Yet, I can not have this discussion with you, because your not informed enough on the material.
Any proof that it's more affordable now? No? Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
It didn't make things more affordable, Joether.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
I even asked you to define "Limited Government' once. An you couldn't even do it! You ethics and understanding of laws are built upon gell-o rather then concrete. Might be why your arguments get blown over by the first light wind that's generated....
And, you expected specifics and concrete, which is why you'll never accept any answer on that topic. That's the same as that 'X' guy, too. You want to pigeonhole me into defining a size of government, and that's not going to happen. You will only see "limited" for one definition and won't accept any other definition. There, again, you refuse to accept any answer that uses any other definition.
Yes, you need things as vague as possible when defining that concept. The problem is it becomes anarchy. Whose definition of 'Limited Government' does the nation use? You can't state it. Therefore its the Democrat's version. You had your chance to define a good government, and you blew it. More so you can not take "...personal responsibility..." in admitting you blew your chance.
It does not become anarchy. Can you define how large government should be? Specifically? That's what you want me to do. You can't do it, either.
quote:
Your 'understanding' of limited government would turn the nation into a second world power. Like India, Iran, or Brazil. You would want the national budget cut in half; yet have no clue what happens after that. You want taxes cut; how do we pay off that US debt again? Yes, your light on realistic and useful knowledge to answer tough questions. That is another way I know the conservative media controls your thoughts and actions. Because an ACTUAL thinking libertarian would go 'toe to toe' with me on the subject of 'Limited Government'. They could acknowledge the many problems with the process.
Do you know what those problems are?
The way they would answer is an in-depth understanding. If you had been paying attention for the last few months, you would understanding some of those valid concerns. Your not even aware of the basic dynamics! How the hell do you think your going to handle the more advanced material?
You are truly off your rocker, Joether. Look at my sig line. I want a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution. That is, I don't want it to be interpreted in ways that give almost unlimited authority to the Federal Government. I even go further and say that I want limited government. Limited how? Gee, perhaps by a conservative interpretation of the US Constitution? Nah, that can't be it.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Today's libertarians are more closely aligned with the Founding Father's beliefs.
Really? Your 'OK' with slavery?
Nope. And, neither were most of them. Thus, there was a time limit on the slave trade.
Yes another common concept of conservative media: rewriting US History to fit with 'state' views of history. Many of the founding fathers had slaves. To say they wanted to remove all of them is a bit silly. Yes, some did not like the practice.
Who said they wanted to remove all of them?
quote:
When did that time limit expire? A great conflict you say? To remove an ideology YOUR POLITICAL PARTY SUPPORTS TODAY! Who waves confederate flags around with pride, DS? Is that the 'conservative/libertarians'? They are waving the flag of TRAITORS! Your political party supports the ideals of the south's view towards racial equality. Or have you not understand the underlying concepts of this thread?
I think you may have missed by "a couple" years, Joether. The US Constitution states that the US Government can't prohibit the slave trade prior to 1808 (Article 1; Section 9, clause 1). Then, the slave trade became illegal in 1808. Crazy, huh?
quote:
The founding fathers, if they existed in 2015, would be absolutely shocked by your political party. I'm sure the Democrats would not be squeaky clean either. But they would not like the many acts of tyranny performed under your 'banner'. Heck, the starts on your flag are upside down!
I'll go one step further and say that pretty much all of the Founding Fathers would be appalled at the state of the Federal Government in 2015. The Anti-Federalists would be pissed, and rightfully saying, "I told you so!" The Federalists would be smacking their heads and wondering how it could have gone so wrong.
quote:
Last I checked, the United States's stars show one of the five points, pointing upward. An you have NO IDEA what I'm talking about. History, DS. Something your party wishes to repeat with violence and destruction. The belief that in those ashes, a better nation will rise up and be good (with a 'Conservative Understanding of the US Constitution').
WTF are you on about now?!?
quote:
The 'Ends', never justify the 'Means', DS. You do not understand how 'Enemy Combatant' violates the 8th. Nor how firearms are misused under the 2nd. You can not rattle off the five parts of the 1st. The 3rd and 7th never get any air time on FOX 'news', because the political party you belong to, has not figured out a way to exploit them for money and power.
Fantasy, eh? You live in one! You can not objectively look at your own views.
When have I said that the ends justified the means? Where do you get that I can't objectively look at my own views? Is that more of the "I can't define limited government" claptrap?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
While the founding fathers were pretty liberal for their time, their culture was very different from our own in 2015. How we look at the world is MUCH different from how they looked at the rest of the world. For starters they didn't know where Hawaii was located. So trying to state the founding fathers are like one's political group in 2015, is like draping yourself in the US Flag and stating your immune to all legal laws on the books. Its childish and stupid.
They didn't need to know where anything was. That's a ridiculous argument. But, I suppose, that's par for the course with you.
An yet, they did. Insofar as someone with that level of education could muster. The founding father's education was at best 6th grade by today's standards. Yes, they had some advanced concepts....for their day. But they made a very big mistake on the Bill of Rights. One that would take scholars quite a number of years to detect and understand. You have no idea what it is. Its "The Spirit Of the Law". A clear and concise understanding of each amendment. The author(s) spelling out in precise detail their 'thoughts' and understanding of how the law should apply. The understanding is that they would never know in which ways future generations would be challenged by concepts. But enough material to make a reasonable 'jump of faith' from one point to the next.
When does "spirit of the law" come into play, Joether? Maybe you can't remember all the way back, but when the SCOTUS took up the latest attempt to destroy the ACA, I actually said there were two things to look at. I said the actual wording of the law was that the subsidies would not go to those people who signed up on the Federally run exchanges. I also said that the intent of the law was that anyone signing up on an exchange would be eligible. Know what else I said? I said I thought they'd rule in favor of the intent, and I even went so far as to say that's what I thought was the right way to rule.
At that point in time I also pointed out that the 14th Amendment was not intended to allow for birthright citizenship to children of illegal immigrants. But, that's where the spirit of the law is ignored, in favor of wording, by those on the Left.
quote:
We do not have this 'Spirit of the Law' defined so well in the first ten amendments as we do in the last ten amendments (we learn from our mistakes). Yes, there are a number of viewpoints scattered here and there. How many people have a problem (legally speaking) with 18th amendment? Compared to the 2nd? Since both are the second amendment of ten amendments in Bill of Rights and last '10 amendments'. The first of the last ten amendments would be the 17th, since we are at current on a total of 27 amendments (27-10 + 17).
WTF are you talking about?!? There is only one Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights isn't just any particular 10 consecutive amendments. WTF is wrong with you?!?
quote:
We understand the 18th because there was much in the way of writing about it from the authors. They had learned the lessons from scholars on Constitutional Law.
How silly does it sound now? Not very. We learn from our mistakes in the hopes we do not make bigger ones down the road. The only way to keep such mistakes away is by NOT REWRITING HISTORY. Tyrants rewrite history, DS. Not those living in a Democratic Republic!
Or have you never heard of North Korea?
Do you even know wtf you're talking about?!?
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
The founding fathers understood two critical pieces of knowledge:
1 ) Long after they are dead, hopefully the little country they built would still be around
2 ) That future generations would have to deal with problems of a future time.
They left the US Constitution as a living document. Something that might and would change with the passage of time. They had no idea how the nation would change or grow. Our culture, art, music, scientific knowledge, and even diversity of languages and concepts are far beyond their simplistic existences.
Yes, its nice to debate if 'So and So' would favor or oppose 'Concept A'. Truth is, 'So and So' is dead. 'Concept A' is the least of their worries right now. Its up to the people in the 'land of the living' to best manage a nation based on The Republic and Democracy. But is it limited to those government types? If that is true we have to drastically change the US Military. Good luck getting those conservatives to sign off on that one!
quote:
And, how can the US Constitution be changed, to keep up with the changing world?
If you read the US Constitution, that's found under Article V.
I know the only way it's supposed to be changed, Joether. But, that's not the only way it's been changed. When the usage of a word changes from the way it was used in 1787, it changes the US Constitution. It's sorta like the usage of the word "liberal" today is vastly different from the way it was used back then (at least it's changed in the US; outside our borders, I think pretty much every country still uses it the way it was used way back when). It's too bad we can't stick to changing the Constitution to the only Constitutional way it's allowed to be changed.
quote:
quote:
ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
quote:
While I find the founding fathers interesting to study; I do not take them as beings to worship. That is where you and I differ. You need to feel like they are tied to you due to some simplistic and equally petty argument. I study them objectively. They had their good and bad points. The struggled with problems similar and different from ours i 2015. How they overcame problems may give insight on dealing with a modern issue. Then again, the issue could be something they would have been at a lost to define the question let alone the solution.
Um, yeah, there's plenty more that we differ on. What I rely on is why they framed the government as they did, and why we should stick to that framework rather than diverge from it. I don't think you'll ever agree, or accept that. But, you prove time and again that you can be wrong, and have the tenacity of a pit bull to not ever let go of your positions.
An that is were you become a member of the 'Low Information Voters', DS. Your inability to consider. How did previous Congressional sessions get shit done? They compromised. The understood those sitting across from them at the table want something. They give something to get something. Its like buying a fucking can of soda at the store, DS. You give up the money, the merchant gives you the soda. That you can't seem to understand this concept really shows your level of intelligence.....
Yet, when it comes to actual compromise, neither party is truly willing to do it, except on rare occasion. When it comes down to brass tacks, Joether, what do you expect when the things that are in play are fundamental party beliefs? Is one party supposed to give up a fundamental belief? Really?
quote:
When the ACA was being formed, the GOP/TP should have put together a bill to increase border security and immigration reform. Then tell the Democrats: "We'll make sure your bill on Healthcare passes, if you make sure our Immigration Reform passes. In fact, let's put it on the same bill, so no one can backstab the other later". You would have immigration Reform that's nearly six years old now!
What did your party do, DS? It bitched, moaned, and made up total bullshit. It even threaten the nation with a full shutdown. What happened? Americans are enjoying good healthcare while the GOP/TP got NOTHING!
The GOP couldn't stop the ACA. The ACA passed without one GOP vote in favor. What leverage would the GOP have had if they had written an Immigration Bill? None. That shows lack of intelligence and wisdom on your part there, Joether.
quote:
You do not know how to compromise at a national level. It takes intelligence, education, and most of all...WISDOM. A set of traits you and 95% of conservatives and 100% of libertarians are missing. You have this silly belief that you can dictate terms to other Americans. If you dont get what you want, you'll destroy the whole of the nation. What sort of person behaves that way, DS? Someone whom is NOT American. Someone whom is the enemy of the nation. Because Americans learn how to compromise to get along with each other.
Try listening to conservative media objectively, DS. They make no real comment in defining what 'the other side wants'. Even more missing from the equation? What the other side is willing to 'pay to get what it wants'. Your 'side' can not pay for what it wants. So it (through conservative media) pushes through your minds that Democrats are not caving into your demands and therefore behave like tyrants. All the while not mentioning your own party is not giving anything to get something.
Conservative Media = Ministry of Truth. Your party lies to your mind. It knows you are easy to manipulate and control. They will not tell you this, because they profit from it. If you started thinking for yourself, you might become liberal! That last sentence, is how they control you. If you start doing 'A' you might become liberal. They have conditioned in your mind that 'liberal' is evil. Therefore, what ever 'A' is, is evil. But they take it to a new level and attach emotions. The attack both the 'A' concept and the end word (in this case 'Liberal') to feel like something either evil or gross. They can do the same thing in reverse. Attaching 'A' to something they want to promote. That way, when you hear 'A' and the word, you are filled with pleasure, happiness, and joy. Psychology....used in unethical ways!
Again with the "conservative media" shit?!? How is it you can't let that go? You can't prove it, either.
quote:
A good journalist would NEVER do this crap. But when was the last time we saw a real journalist on FOX 'news'?
When, again, was the last time I watched FOX News Channel? Been almost a year now, btw....
< Message edited by DesideriScuri -- 10/20/2015 5:14:11 PM >
_____________________________
What I support:
- A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
- Personal Responsibility
- Help for the truly needy
- Limited Government
- Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
|
RE: The Photo ID scam - 
Profile
.gif){kind=avatar}
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread