quote:

ORIGINAL: ferryman777

Well then, that explains it, then, and I stand corrected. I always thought in a free forum, one could post their thoughts, as long as it was decent and not an all out abusive rant/degarding of some sort.

quote:

It is clear that you are more interested in rhetoric than discussion.
To twist "uncle tom" into racism is silly not discussion.
To deny that you are aware that the forty billion that Exxon made is the largest profit ever made in the history of mankind is silly not discussion.
To claim that a tax cut for the uber rich is not welfare for the rich is silly not discussion.
To claim that OSHA is nothing but a government boondoggle is silly not discussion.
To dismiss unemployment insurance as nothing more than another tax without having any understanding of its origins or purposes is silly and not discussion.
To dismiss public education as a disaster indicates that you have no knowledge of what the educational system was like before public education, again silly and not discussion.
In short if you choose not to discuss then please do not waste my time.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx
Perhaps you might enlighten us as to what exactly Santa Ana did that justified the U.S. invasion of Mexico.
Would you feel Mexico would be justified in invading the U.S, to arrest an american citizen who had commited a crime in Mexico and the U.S. would not extradite?
thompson

Perhaps it was because Santa Anna invaded Texas,
This would have been pretty difficult because Santa Anna was living in Cuba at this time.  Santa Anna did not get to Mexico until president Polk had made a secret deal with him and smuggled him into Mexico.


which declared it's independence from Mexico in 36
Declaring independence and actually being independent are two different things.  Mexico never ceeded Texas to the revolutionaries.

and became a state in 46.
Which Mexico took as a declaration of war and recalled their ambasador from Washington.


The same way Mexico declared it's independence from Spain and became a country a mere 26 years before Texas declared independence.
Actually the U.S. brokered that deal with Spain and Spain recognized the soverignity of Mexico.  The U.S. renounced all claims to any part of Texas.

As for Arizona, New Mexico & California, we bought them via the Treaty of Guadalupe Hildalgo for $15M,
This was after the U.S. had sent an ambasador to Mexico for the express purpose of purchasing California for 30 million dollars.  If someone puts their foot on your neck and a pistol in your mouth and offers you lunch money for your house and car it can hardly be classified as a legal sale.


and it was mostly vacant territory.
ROFLMAO


Thus endeth the history lesson.
Perhaps you might want to study history before you try to teach it.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: SimplyMichael

• The Right to life!
  
  • A right that ends when the fucking piece of shit welfare turn is shit out, we can cut the funding giving him any sort of chance at a decent life and then execute him while a child for being a "criminal" engaged in the made up "war on drugs" which always seem to be more available during Republican administrations, can you say Afghan poppy fields, Iran-Contra drug deals, Noreiga installed by Bush while head of CIA....
  
  
• Support our Troops
  
  • Unless the fucking bums are dumb enough to join the miliary and get their arm blown off or start playing that bullshit Post Traumatic Stress bullshit.  Then they are just fucking bums.  Gut that welfare to the VA, they don't need healthcare fuck them!  We can use that money elsewhere, Exxon needs some subsidies and there is this bridge in Alaska...
  
  
• Smaller Government
  
  • Homeland security that doesn't do shit but spends as much in North Dakota as in California or NY.  Can't keep any of the local PDs from sneaking guns and grenades by the cart load through although they have doubled the size of the government
  
  
• Pro 2nd Amendment
  
  • Six years in control of all of the government from the courts on down.  Nothing, nada.  In fact gun parts are harder to get now than they were BEFORE the bastards took office.  Didn't even repeal the executive orders signed by Raygun or Bush Sr! which Bush could do with a stroke of the pen
  
  
• Fiscal Responsibility
  
  • Can you say drunken sailor?

Okay, who has some other examples?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

It is clear that you are more interested in rhetoric than discussion.
To twist "uncle tom" into racism is silly not discussion.
To deny that you are aware that the forty billion that Exxon made is the largest profit ever made in the history of mankind is silly not discussion.
To claim that a tax cut for the uber rich is not welfare for the rich is silly not discussion.
To claim that OSHA is nothing but a government boondoggle is silly not discussion.
To dismiss unemployment insurance as nothing more than another tax without having any understanding of its origins or purposes is silly and not discussion.
To dismiss public education as a disaster indicates that you have no knowledge of what the educational system was like before public education, again silly and not discussion.
In short if you choose not to discuss then please do not waste my time.

Why is it that discussion can only proceed on the terms of your paradigms and your world view?
My paradigm and world view for discussion requires that one discuss and not make fatious statements like "I have no idea how much money Exxon made" one would think that a grown man could google.
 
 

The number one rule of the ideology: the ideology is never wrong.
My only ideology here is to discuss.  When I have been mistaken I have acknowledged it and thanked the person for disabusing me of my ignorance.
 
 

Sighs. Shakes head sadly. Wanders away wondering if there is anything interesting on the History Channel.
If the history channel is your primary source for historical knowledge then prepare yourself for a lifetime of ignorance.  The history channel is TV,,,it has its agenda.  There is no substitute for primary sources.
thompson

Peace to you and yours.

quote:

some people have it better than me.

quote:

Exxon isn't a person.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

Exxon isn't a person.

You're nitpicking.

quote:

You'd think so, but go try and find "Corporation" in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

They aren't there. Since we MADE THEM UP, we can do to them whatever we want.

The Hamiltonian will disagree, but they have their own agenda which explains their "Liberal" interpretation.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

My paradigm and world view for discussion requires that one discuss and not make fatious statements like "I have no idea how much money Exxon made" one would think that a grown man could google

Actually, the statement that most stood out to me the most is: To claim that a tax cut for the uber rich is not welfare for the rich is silly not discussion. The only purpose this statement serves is to shut down discussion. There is nothing silly about claiming that a tax cut for the "uber rich" is not welfare. I (and I’m not the only one) do not regard the government taking less of anyone’s money than they normally do as being welfare. Taking less than before is not a gift. If someone is taking ten bucks out of my wallet every week and then they start taking only five bucks a week, they are not giving me five dollars a week. The notion that it is welfare can only result from the mind set that what people earn actually belongs to the government and not to those who have earned it. I find that thought horrifying. It denies freedom and reduces us all to vassals of the government. Without private property (and I don’t mean just land) there can be no freedom.
This is why I refer to your statements as silly.
Taxes are simply what we as citizens pay for the services we get.  When the government is bribed by the rich to reduce the taxes that the rich pay I see no other way to characterize that than wellfare for the rich.  Are you suggesting that there should be no taxes?  That all of your money is yours to keep and the government is not entitled to be paid for the services that we as citizens have authorized them to perform?  If that is your position then that is not only silly it is theft.

You dismiss these (and other) arguments not by responding to them but by simply declaring them silly, effectively not allowing any more debate until I (or whoever) agree to your terms.
I have made it abundantly clear more than once that I am not interested in debate.  I am only interested in discussion.  If you say silly things I will continue to point it out.

I don’t play that game.
Actually that is all you do is play games.  You continually put words in my mouth and missrepresent what I say.

You also have a bad habit of adding to people’s statements and then proceeding to knock down an argument nobody made. For example:

quote:

If the history channel is your primary source for historical knowledge then prepare yourself for a lifetime of ignorance. The history channel is TV,,,it has its agenda. There is no substitute for primary sources.

Now where did you get the notion that the History Channel is my primary source?
I have added nothing to your statement.  The first word in that quote is IF...not SINCE.
 
The truth is, I was being humorous, I might have just as easily said the Sci-Fi Channel (maybe the humor would have been more obvious if I had), but that doesn’t mean I believe that there are Human Beings in the depths of space fighting an evil race of robots while desperately searching for Earth (am I the only one who thinks that if they ever do find Earth, they are going to be sooooooo disapointed?).

As for how much Exxon is making you are (once again) missing my point. I haven’t bothered to track how much they are making because I am not obsessed with it. I’m not burning with resentment and envy at the notion that some people have it better than me.
Are you suggesting that I am?  If so please point out what I have said that leads you to this conclusion.  I am only interested in them paying their share and not bribing politicians to give them wellfare.
 
 I don’t regard the making of profit (or too much profit – whatever that is) as evil in and of itself and I don’t regard profit as a dirty word.
Are you suggesting that I am or that I do?  If so please tell me what I have said that leads you to this eronious conclusion.
thompson

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

Hmm...  Do I really want to keep this going?  I suppose, but you'll have to wait until Monday at least.  This weekend is fixing up to be the first really great spring weekend we've had around here... so it's off to the cabin in the southern tier.

Have a good weekend.

quote:

Taxes are simply what we as citizens pay for the services we get.

quote:

When the government is bribed by the rich to reduce the taxes that the rich pay I see no other way to characterize that than wellfare for the rich.

quote:

Are you suggesting that there should be no taxes? That all of your money is yours to keep and the government is not entitled to be paid for the services that we as citizens have authorized them to perform? If that is your position then that is not only silly it is theft.

quote:

I have made it abundantly clear more than once that I am not interested in debate. I am only interested in discussion. If you say silly things I will continue to point it out.

quote:

Actually that is all you do is play games. You continually put words in my mouth and missrepresent what I say.

quote:

I have added nothing to your statement. The first word in that quote is IF...not SINCE.

quote:

Are you suggesting that I am?

quote:

If so please point out what I have said that leads you to this conclusion.

quote:

I am only interested in them paying their share and not bribing politicians to give them wellfare.

quote:

Are you suggesting that I am or that I do?

quote:

If so please tell me what I have said that leads you to this eronious conclusion.

quote:

Lucky you....the weather man is predicting rain for me and I have already paid to be out in it. Now if that is not adding insult to injury I don't know what is. I hope you have a good weekend in the mtns.

quote:

You know I love the discussion it is just the silly stuff I don't care for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

quote:

You'd think so, but go try and find "Corporation" in either the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.

They aren't there. Since we MADE THEM UP, we can do to them whatever we want.

The Hamiltonian will disagree, but they have their own agenda which explains their "Liberal" interpretation.

I’m not really sure where you’re going with this. All I’m trying to do is make clear that I don’t have the same prejudice against wealth – be it the rich, the uber rich (how much do you have to have to qualify as uber rich?), or corporations that thompsonx seems to. I do not automatically assign wickedness to the rich merely because they are rich. Conversely, I do not automatically apply virtue to the poor merely because they are poor. I consider it to be too simplistic a world view (sorry if that comes across as a little harsh there, thompsonx, but that’s how I see it). I believe that an honest observation and evaluation of people reveals wickedness and virtue amongst all economic classes (and both sexes, and all nationalities too, for that matter).

What the Hell is a Hamiltonian? Is that a newspaper or a political outlook, like a Jeffersonian? Ya know, I had a grand uncle who, until the day he died, insisted on calling me a Jeffersonian Democrat.

quote:


What the Hell is a Hamiltonian?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marc2b

I wan't to cringe whenever I hear somebody say that the Constitution is a "living breathing document."  The translation of that, of course, is: the Constituion says something we don't like, so let's pretend it says something different.