RE: US elections general thread (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

[Poll]

US elections general thread


Jeb Bush
  2% (1)
Donald Trump
  31% (12)
Marco Rubio
  0% (0)
Ben Carson
  2% (1)
Ted Cruz
  10% (4)
John Kasich
  5% (2)
Bernie Sanders
  34% (13)
Hillary Clinton
  13% (5)


Total Votes : 38
(last vote on : 3/21/2016 6:14:52 AM)
(Poll will run till: -- )


Message


CodeOfSilence -> RE: US elections general thread (2/15/2016 6:58:27 AM)

Bounty did you not understand my post to you or did you just feel it wasn't worth considering?




bounty44 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/15/2016 7:06:47 AM)

I haven't read it...




hot4bondage -> RE: US elections general thread (2/15/2016 8:11:46 AM)

~FR~

I recently watched The Blue Kite. It examines collectivism/individualism in a Chinese village from a child's perspective. Candid, poignant, banned in China.




Phydeaux -> RE: US elections general thread (2/15/2016 8:55:30 AM)

40 million tales...




mnottertail -> RE: US elections general thread (2/15/2016 8:57:44 AM)

Having read the feebleminded opinions expressed in the nutsucker slobbering blogs, it would seem that there is a realistic disjointing of actual fact by nutsuckers, they are collectivists, and it permeates their thinking.

For example, nutsuckers are slavish catamites to corporations and the military industrial complex. They want the american citizenry (the individual) to accept the burdens of externalities, taxation, slavery, all to worship the corporation and military industrial complex.

Seems to me, that would fit the definitions of those four magic socialism toiletlickings.

There is only one type of nutsucker. He claims to be conservative, (he is not), he often claims to be republican (he is not), he claims an alternative view, but has none, he claims some right to have his hallucinatory factless propaganda given honest consideration, but does not actually have any premises that may have some concert with reality, nor fact.

ALL of them have only one overriding goal to spend their days felching each other in the Minneapolis Airport bathroom.




PeonForHer -> RE: US elections general thread (2/15/2016 5:13:44 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

quote:

ORIGINAL: blnymph

no need for four types - you have obviously not the slightest clue about any one "socialist"

"americanthinker" ... contradictio in adjecto


another in a long line of liberals whose reason for being on the forum seems to be primarily to insult those with whom you disagree, as opposed to accepting differences, seeking understanding or critiquing positions analytically.

happy about that? feel better about yourself now?

while im here, great piece about the political left and right:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

sorry this is so big...



Honestly, Bounty, that really is the silliest graphic purporting to depict the left wing / right wing axis that I've *ever* seen. And I've seen most of them, by now. It's almost embarrassingly bad.

Did you compare and contrast it with other such RW/LW graphics before posting it? Did you examine it - even momentarily - for holes in it? For instance, the American Right's trampling on the rights of women over their own bodies, re abortion; or non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals; or the right to life, re the Right's support of capital punishment and its promotion of guns and their ability to kill? Did you consider the much more left-wing countries of Europe that could only be considered 'rights-violating' by a demented fool?





Greta75 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/15/2016 7:43:46 PM)

I am finding it interesting about this super delegates fiasco. Hillary lost NH but still have as many delegates as Sanders.

This is the democratic party system? A system of unfairness? I don't really understand about the delegates, but super delegates are independent delegates that does not respect the will of the voters. I mean, how is this democracy? Really, this is appalling. And they defend it by claiming the DNC wants control on ultimately who they think is the more electable person? Then why EVEN BOTHER holding election primaries?

The RNC has dropped this unfair system since 2012. Which is great!




tweakabelle -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 3:23:59 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

while im here, great piece about the political left and right:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

sorry this is so big...



Honestly, Bounty, that really is the silliest graphic purporting to depict the left wing / right wing axis that I've *ever* seen. And I've seen most of them, by now. It's almost embarrassingly bad.

Did you compare and contrast it with other such RW/LW graphics before posting it? Did you examine it - even momentarily - for holes in it? For instance, the American Right's trampling on the rights of women over their own bodies, re abortion; or non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals; or the right to life, re the Right's support of capital punishment and its promotion of guns and their ability to kill? Did you consider the much more left-wing countries of Europe that could only be considered 'rights-violating' by a demented fool?



Yes. That graphic displayed an infantile level of political insight and understanding. The only positive I can think of is that it didn't try to hide how blatantly self serving and biased it was. The notion that the Right is the sole defender of the rights of the individual is laughable, almost as ridiculous as the claim that Fascism and Socialism occupy adjacent places on the political spectrum.

I cannot understand why some posters persist in advancing this preposterous nonsense. It has been thoroughly and repeatedly trashed on these boards so I can only conclude that the responsible posters are impervious to reason, common sense and argument, that their minds are hermetically sealed against any data facts or ideas that are not consistent with their looney Right ideology.




Tkman117 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 6:25:48 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

while im here, great piece about the political left and right:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

sorry this is so big...



Honestly, Bounty, that really is the silliest graphic purporting to depict the left wing / right wing axis that I've *ever* seen. And I've seen most of them, by now. It's almost embarrassingly bad.

Did you compare and contrast it with other such RW/LW graphics before posting it? Did you examine it - even momentarily - for holes in it? For instance, the American Right's trampling on the rights of women over their own bodies, re abortion; or non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals; or the right to life, re the Right's support of capital punishment and its promotion of guns and their ability to kill? Did you consider the much more left-wing countries of Europe that could only be considered 'rights-violating' by a demented fool?



Yes. That graphic displayed an infantile level of political insight and understanding. The only positive I can think of is that it didn't try to hide how blatantly self serving and biased it was. The notion that the Right is the sole defender of the rights of the individual is laughable, almost as ridiculous as the claim that Fascism and Socialism occupy adjacent places on the political spectrum.

I cannot understand why some posters persist in advancing this preposterous nonsense. It has been thoroughly and repeatedly trashed on these boards so I can only conclude that the responsible posters are impervious to reason, common sense and argument, that their minds are hermetically sealed against any data facts or ideas that are not consistent with their looney Right ideology.


It's more sad really. I mean, st least I feel it's sad that the right wing doesn't understand that ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram, etc. Are all advocating for nearly the exact same things that the American right wing is, just from the viewpoint of another religion. Oh, and their skin tone is a little darker too, but beyond that, they want the same things. The American right wing just hasn't devolved into outright terrorism yet....unless you count that planned parenthood attack a while ago....or the wildlife refuge fiasco with the Bundys...hmm...




Phydeaux -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 7:31:24 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tkman117


quote:

ORIGINAL: tweakabelle

quote:

ORIGINAL: PeonForHer


quote:

ORIGINAL: bounty44

while im here, great piece about the political left and right:

https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2012/06/political-left-and-right-properly-defined/

sorry this is so big...



Honestly, Bounty, that really is the silliest graphic purporting to depict the left wing / right wing axis that I've *ever* seen. And I've seen most of them, by now. It's almost embarrassingly bad.

Did you compare and contrast it with other such RW/LW graphics before posting it? Did you examine it - even momentarily - for holes in it? For instance, the American Right's trampling on the rights of women over their own bodies, re abortion; or non-Christians, or non-heterosexuals; or the right to life, re the Right's support of capital punishment and its promotion of guns and their ability to kill? Did you consider the much more left-wing countries of Europe that could only be considered 'rights-violating' by a demented fool?



Yes. That graphic displayed an infantile level of political insight and understanding. The only positive I can think of is that it didn't try to hide how blatantly self serving and biased it was. The notion that the Right is the sole defender of the rights of the individual is laughable, almost as ridiculous as the claim that Fascism and Socialism occupy adjacent places on the political spectrum.

I cannot understand why some posters persist in advancing this preposterous nonsense. It has been thoroughly and repeatedly trashed on these boards so I can only conclude that the responsible posters are impervious to reason, common sense and argument, that their minds are hermetically sealed against any data facts or ideas that are not consistent with their looney Right ideology.


It's more sad really. I mean, st least I feel it's sad that the right wing doesn't understand that ISIS, Al Queda, Boko Haram, etc. Are all advocating for nearly the exact same things that the American right wing is, just from the viewpoint of another religion. Oh, and their skin tone is a little darker too, but beyond that, they want the same things. The American right wing just hasn't devolved into outright terrorism yet....unless you count that planned parenthood attack a while ago....or the wildlife refuge fiasco with the Bundys...hmm...



The fact that you can even parrot such shows how shallow your understanding. You and tweak are perfect examples of impervious to other ideas. A majority here, and in your echo rooms - you would be part of a minority in the US.

ISIS, Boko Haram, etc advocate sharia law. The subjugation of western thinking to a theocracy.

The right wing in the US advocate law and order. They advocate for smaller government. They advocate for personal liberty. They advocate right and wrong.

Killing a child is wrong. It has been in every western legal system for a thousand years. The fact that unelected liberal justices made it legal does not make moral or right.

Paraphrasing Scalia - every time an unelected judge invents a constitutional right it limits the scope of democratic decision.

Or quoting MLK:
quote:

“The Negro cannot win if he is willing to sacrifice the futures of his children for immediate personal comfort and safety. Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. 1929-1968

“I say today that we as Christians must press on, in the conviction that we are "a colony of heaven," called to obey God rather than man. Small in number, we must remain big in commitment. We must be too God intoxicated to be "astronomically intimidated." By our effort and example may God use us, as imperfect vessels that we are, to bring an end to such ancient evils as infanticide, abortion, racism and oppression.” Dr. Alveda C. King reflections on Letter from a Birmingham Jail


Funny that the liberal left reveres MLK, but ignores King's teaches on abortion. That same moral clarity is celebrated when it calls for an end to racism and yet the conversation turns silent when it turns to the topic of abortion.

Funny that the same courage and christian conviction is celebrated and yet you revile the right wing - with the identical conviction as being the same as Hitler, and boko haram.

Proving once again that you on the left cannot disagree without calling your oponents racists, bigots etc.




Lucylastic -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 9:44:20 AM)

In the 60s women were dying in back alley abortion mills.
its typical that you wouldnt remember that.




Lucylastic -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 9:47:11 AM)

Rand Paul, seems to think that the Prez has a conflict of interest
BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 9:49:43 AM)

quote:

while im here, great piece about the political left and right:

Actually it is complete bullshit. The simplest way to define the left/right divide is that the left views social hierarchies as undesirable while the right views them as as either desirable or inevitable.
Both the left and right can be authoritarian or non-authoritarian




bounty44 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 10:34:32 AM)

the author is the editor of a quarterly journal dedicated to culture and politics and though his position (in the piece) is somewhat unique, its also insightful.

the only "bullshit" i see is when people dismiss it without first fully understanding it, which is clear from your comment.

while im here:

"If abortion is made illegal, women will die in back alleys"

quote:

In the late 1960's advocates of legalized abortion used as their rallying cry the argument that "thousands" of women died from self-induced abortions or in the "back-alley" from illegal abortions. They mobilized around the image of the "coat hanger," and insisted that five to ten thousand women died every year from "botched" illegal abortions. They used this argument (and still do) to bolster support for "safe," legal abortion on demand.

However, some of the best evidence that this was a myth has come not from pro-lifers but from advocates of legal abortion. Dr. Mary S. Calderone, a former director of Planned Parenthood wrote in the American Journal of Public Health, "Abortion is no longer a dangerous procedure. This applies not just to therapeutic abortions as performed in hospitals but also to so-called illegal abortions as done by physician. In 1957 there were only 260 deaths in the whole country attributed to abortions of any kind…Second, and even more important, the conference [on abortion sponsored by Planned Parenthood] estimated that 90 percent of all illegal abortions are presently being done by physicians…Whatever trouble arises usually arises from self-induced abortions, which comprise approximately 8 percent, or with the very small percentage that go to some kind of non-medical abortionist…So remember…abortion, whether therapeutic or illegal, is in the main no longer dangerous, because it is being done well by physicians." This was written in 1960!

Another stunning admission about the manufacturing of illegal abortion numbers comes from Dr. Bernard Nathanson, former director of the National Association for the Repeal of Abortion Laws (now known as the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League - - NARAL). In his classic 1979 book Aborting America, Dr. Nathanson wrote, "How many deaths were we talking about when abortion was illegal? In NARAL, we generally emphasized the frame of the individual case, not the mass statistics, but when we spoke of the latter it was always 5,000 to 10,000 deaths a year. I confess that I knew that the figures were totally false and I suppose that others did too if they stopped to think of it. But in the 'morality' of our revolution, it was a useful figure, widely accepted, so why go out of our way to correct it with honest statistics? The overriding concern was to get the laws eliminated, and anything within reason that had to be done was permissible."

A powerful debating point is to explain to your audience that for 1972, the year before Roe, the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reported 39 maternal deaths from illegal abortion. Those 39 mothers and their 39 children were very real tragedies that should have been prevented by providing support and care for the mother and her unborn child. The number 39 however is a far cry form those exaggerated figures of thousands, even tens of thousands, used by abortion advocates in their cause.


http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/apologetics/defending-life/if-abortion-is-made-illegal-women-will-die-in-back-alleys/

"The Truth About “Back Alley” Abortions"

quote:

Myth #1. Illegal abortions were performed by unlicensed, unskilled hacks. Prior to legalization, 90 percent of illegal abortions were done by physicians.2 Most of the remainder were done by nurses, midwives or others with at least some medical training. The term “back alley” referred not to where abortions were performed, but to how women were instructed to enter the doctor’s office after hours, through the back alley, to avoid arousing neighbors’ suspicions.


http://afterabortion.org/2011/the-truth-about-back-alley-abortions/




mnottertail -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 10:39:50 AM)

But neither of your parrotted nutsucker slobber blogs are in any wise credible to anyone but feebleminded nutsuckers.





Lucylastic -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 10:43:26 AM)

Forced birthers being liars?
noooooooooooo never




mnottertail -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 10:45:53 AM)

It would seem any catholic church organization would be on the other side of the issue, solely to provide their clergy fodder for molestation.




bounty44 -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 10:59:22 AM)

quote from a book im reading:

quote:

why waste time discovering the truth when you can so easily create it?




ThatDizzyChick -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 11:02:04 AM)

quote:

the only "bullshit" i see is when people dismiss it without first fully understanding it, which is clear from your comment.

Perhaps I have dismissed it because I have actually studied political science.




Phydeaux -> RE: US elections general thread (2/16/2016 11:32:25 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

quote:

the only "bullshit" i see is when people dismiss it without first fully understanding it, which is clear from your comment.

Perhaps I have dismissed it because I have actually studied political science.


Perhaps. But the animas in the word "bullshit" suggest more that is is opposition to your personal beliefs, rather than your course of study that sparked your comment.




Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625