Thread: Democrats continue tantrum act

OriginalGoober - 2/1/2017 at 01:27 PM

Neil Gorsuch seems like a solid pick for Supreme Court - well educated, brilliant legal mind, family man from the heartland, not some wild inflamatory pick, yet buttt hurt democrats are already saying they will shut this down and he deserves no chance, purely, as an act of revenge and outrage because Obama didnt get to participate in this on his way out the door. Elections have consequences. He will get confirmed, but it will be quite the side show to see buttt hurt Chucky Shummer and Pelosi continue to try and push their tired, ultra-liberal agenda which was soundly rejected in November.




porkchopbob - 2/1/2017 at 02:48 PM

Gorsuch will get confirmed, but try not to be a hypocrite for the moment. The Republicans refused to hear a sitting President's nomination last year. Obama wasn't on the way out the door, he had 25% of his term remaining. It was obstruction, stifling him for stifling's sake - Merrick Garland is a centrist. The argument Republicans used at the time was that the Court doesn't need 9 members to function (it began with 7 and was only increased a few decades later), so there is no reason to believe that is any different at this time either. Unless you are a complete hypocrite and believe only Republicans should stand up against to what is counter to their beliefs (the Senate is still close at essentially 48/52, nothing has been "rejected").

But don't worry, if people as unfit as DeVos or as ultra-conservative as Sessions can get nominated, Gorsuch won't be much of a fight.


OriginalGoober - 2/1/2017 at 03:12 PM

DeVos is one pick I have reservations about myself. No one bats 1.000 . My hope is more decision making power moves to individual states and allowed to have more say about things. The unfunded mandates need to end as well. If there will be federal education reform or new mandates, they should also include a way to pay for them, instead of saddling states with the expense.


jkeller - 2/1/2017 at 03:32 PM

quote:
Neil Gorsuch seems like a solid pick for Supreme Court - well educated, brilliant legal mind, family man from the heartland, not some wild inflamatory pick, yet buttt hurt democrats are already saying they will shut this down and he deserves no chance, purely, as an act of revenge and outrage because Obama didnt get to participate in this on his way out the door. Elections have consequences. He will get confirmed, but it will be quite the side show to see buttt hurt Chucky Shummer and Pelosi continue to try and push their tired, ultra-liberal agenda which was soundly rejected in November.






Was it a tantrum when the Republicans did it? I remember when they would not even have a hearing about Garland. I also don't expect you to respond.


Bhawk - 2/1/2017 at 06:04 PM

At this point anyone on the right using one second or more on negative energy over Democrats or the left is wasting that energy that could be sent in another direction.

Democrats will fight, but eventually they will cave.

Anything and everything in politics at the moment is controlled by the right. You'd think more rightists would enjoy it.


jszfunk - 2/1/2017 at 09:20 PM

The side show is entertaining to say the least, whether it's in DC or democratic liberal media and general public.


bayoubluesrat - 2/1/2017 at 09:49 PM

So tired of the crying...instead of building a wall maybe Trump should build a giant playpen for these crybabies...we can call it California ? (Democrat and Republican leaders and the media darlings).


Dan - 2/1/2017 at 10:45 PM

This is no different than when Obama was in office !! Who are you guys kidding? You dish it out but you sure can't take it.


jkeller - 2/1/2017 at 10:54 PM

quote:
So tired of the crying...instead of building a wall maybe Trump should build a giant playpen for these crybabies...we can call it California ? (Democrat and Republican leaders and the media darlings).


Thanks for stopping by.


Redfish7 - 2/1/2017 at 11:47 PM


Speaking of California...have you seen Trump's new proposal for the border wall?




BoytonBrother - 2/2/2017 at 12:56 AM

As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


jkeller - 2/2/2017 at 01:58 AM

quote:
As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


When Republicans obstruct, they are loyal opposition. When Democrats do it, it is a tantrum.


Redfish7 - 2/2/2017 at 03:24 AM

Check out what is currently happening at UC Berkeley...violence, suppression of free speech (the scheduled speaker had to be evacuated due to safety concerns), destruction of property, etc.

And then the Dems plan to put the country through probably 2 and 1/2 months of political theater and posturing regarding Gorsuch when they already know there is zero chance he will not be confirmed because the GOP will just use the "nuclear" option.

This is getting ridiculous...


BIGV - 2/2/2017 at 03:27 AM

quote:
quote:
As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


When Republicans obstruct, they are loyal opposition. When Democrats do it, it is a tantrum.


Which Party preaches "Tolerance"?


Redfish7 - 2/2/2017 at 03:35 AM

Yep...lots of that left wing love and tolerance on display at UC Berkeley tonight, at the women's march a couple of weeks ago, etc.


jkeller - 2/2/2017 at 03:42 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


When Republicans obstruct, they are loyal opposition. When Democrats do it, it is a tantrum.


Which Party preaches "Tolerance"?


Both parties.


BIGV - 2/2/2017 at 04:30 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


When Republicans obstruct, they are loyal opposition. When Democrats do it, it is a tantrum.


Which Party preaches "Tolerance"?


Both parties.


Ummmm, No. One is recognized as the "Party of Tolerance" and one is often accused by the other as being Intolerant..

Gee, which one is which?


jkeller - 2/2/2017 at 04:34 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


When Republicans obstruct, they are loyal opposition. When Democrats do it, it is a tantrum.


Which Party preaches "Tolerance"?


Both parties.


Ummmm, No. One is recognized as the "Party of Tolerance" and one is often accused by the other as being Intolerant..

Gee, which one is which?


That idea exists in your mind. Are you saying that Republicans do not believe in tolerance?


BIGV - 2/2/2017 at 05:00 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


When Republicans obstruct, they are loyal opposition. When Democrats do it, it is a tantrum.


Which Party preaches "Tolerance"?


Both parties.


Ummmm, No. One is recognized as the "Party of Tolerance" and one is often accused by the other as being Intolerant..

Gee, which one is which?


That idea exists in your mind. Are you saying that Republicans do not believe in tolerance?


Look at it from any angle that makes you comfortable. The Left preaches "Tolerance"...and accuses the Right of "Intolerance"....going so far as to call them Facists, all while setting fire to college campuses, looting, destroying private property & hiding behind black masks all because of a viewpoint they don't care for and in fact will not tolerate or accept. "Free Speech"?...LOL "Tolerance"?....please.

Should we poll the members here and find out which moniker fits which Party?.....That would be cool!


BoytonBrother - 2/2/2017 at 12:59 PM

Awesome! Another, "lets hate half of America" thread. Feel good posters.


BoytonBrother - 2/2/2017 at 01:08 PM

I'm always going to be wondering how a $20billion border wall is putting our veterans first. Anyone?


jkeller - 2/2/2017 at 03:34 PM

quote:
I'm always going to be wondering how a $20billion border wall is putting our veterans first. Anyone?


Maybe they will hire veterans to build it.


jkeller - 2/2/2017 at 03:36 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
As someone mentioned earlier, how come the right is still miserable and pissed off when the control all of Washington? Isn't it time to be happy and not care about what others are doing? I would imagine this is what you've all been waiting for, so you can take these new policies and reap the benefits.


When Republicans obstruct, they are loyal opposition. When Democrats do it, it is a tantrum.


Which Party preaches "Tolerance"?


Both parties.


Ummmm, No. One is recognized as the "Party of Tolerance" and one is often accused by the other as being Intolerant..

Gee, which one is which?


That idea exists in your mind. Are you saying that Republicans do not believe in tolerance?


Look at it from any angle that makes you comfortable. The Left preaches "Tolerance"...and accuses the Right of "Intolerance"....going so far as to call them Facists, all while setting fire to college campuses, looting, destroying private property & hiding behind black masks all because of a viewpoint they don't care for and in fact will not tolerate or accept. "Free Speech"?...LOL "Tolerance"?....please.

Should we poll the members here and find out which moniker fits which Party?.....That would be cool!


Good. Run your poll. Keep on living in your black and white world.


BoytonBrother - 2/2/2017 at 04:16 PM

quote:
Maybe they will hire veterans to build it.


That would be a great start. But I was thinking about the PTSD and suicide epidemic. We need better programs for them.

[Edited on 2/2/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Bhawk - 2/2/2017 at 06:52 PM

quote:
The Left preaches "Tolerance"...and accuses the Right of "Intolerance"....going so far as to call them Facists, all while setting fire to college campuses, looting, destroying private property & hiding behind black masks all because of a viewpoint they don't care for and in fact will not tolerate or accept.


The entire Left is on the hook for the behavior you describe due to common beliefs and values of the millions of people who use that label to describe themselves?

Cool. You're on the right. So is David Duke. Therefore, you are a racist. Many white supremacists are proudly on the right. Therefore, you are also a white supremacist.

Tell you what. From this point forward, let's have these discussions from a true all-encompassing viewpoint. Everyone represents the absolute worst attributes of anyone and everyone who is on their team.

This will be fun. Easier, too.


BIGV - 2/2/2017 at 07:25 PM

quote:
Cool. You're on the right.


Actually, I am not. More of a "Centrist"...I have conflicting views with both sides, but absolutely more at odds with the left....The current behavior being showcased by "Liberals" is appalling......After 8 years of Democratic rule, the balance or pendulum is shifting and I am fine with that...Political correctness......can not exit fast enough. Just as I grew tired of Bush, the fiasco that was Iraq and all of the clowns who defended it. I am already exhausted by all the horse sh*t going on now......


Bhawk - 2/2/2017 at 08:03 PM

quote:
quote:
Cool. You're on the right.


Actually, I am not. More of a "Centrist"...I have conflicting views with both sides, but absolutely more at odds with the left....The current behavior being showcased by "Liberals" is appalling......After 8 years of Democratic rule, the balance or pendulum is shifting and I am fine with that...Political correctness......can not exit fast enough. Just as I grew tired of Bush, the fiasco that was Iraq and all of the clowns who defended it. I am already exhausted by all the horse sh*t going on now......


This "liberal" was home last night, reading a book. Didn't throw one rock through one window. But, hey, if I'm in with them, so be it.

Then ignore the horse sh*t. The American Left is essentially powerless at the moment. You should enjoy it.


Swifty - 2/2/2017 at 08:27 PM

Actually, I am not. More of a "Centrist"...I have conflicting views with both sides, but absolutely more at odds with the left....The current behavior being showcased by "Liberals" is appalling......After 8 years of Democratic rule, the balance or pendulum is shifting and I am fine with that...Political correctness......can not exit fast enough. Just as I grew tired of Bush, the fiasco that was Iraq and all of the clowns who defended it. I am already exhausted by all the horse sh*t going on now......




So you're a centrist who argues with the right and so you are really a rightest who sounds off as a fascist. Why do you get to self-identify while spouting off these generalities about everyone else? That's a pretty fascist attitude. It's also exactly the way Trump behaves.

Liberalism is much broader than your prism and the diversity that this brings is exhilarating. Do you know any republicans who you recognize as interesting artists or musicians? I'm just curious if you make the same distinction in politics and other areas where the fissure between right and left is also very wide. You might think about that the next time you are overwhelmed by how exhausted you are by the left.


jkeller - 2/2/2017 at 09:32 PM

quote:
quote:
Cool. You're on the right.


Actually, I am not. More of a "Centrist"...


Stop right there. You can call yourself anything you want to, but you words tell us exactly what you are. If you don't have the courage to admit it, that's OK. The way things are going, nobody will admit to being a conservative soon. You are just ahead of the curve.


BIGV - 2/2/2017 at 11:02 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Cool. You're on the right.


Actually, I am not. More of a "Centrist"...


Stop right there. You can call yourself anything you want to, but you words tell us exactly what you are. If you don't have the courage to admit it, that's OK. The way things are going, nobody will admit to being a conservative soon. You are just ahead of the curve.


Thanks God. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.


OriginalGoober - 2/3/2017 at 12:18 AM

Some (not all)liberals posting here are way more classy post -election than the democratic leadership is exhibiting. Thats why its so much fun to watch this meltdown. Will a new democratic leader with a spine emerge from this wreckage?


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 01:18 AM

I watched the rightists in Washington and all around the country meltdown like five year olds for eight years solid. Never once found it fun.

You wanted two different Americas, you got it.


OriginalGoober - 2/3/2017 at 02:04 AM

democratic leaders should work to help quell the hostility. When the left is angry things spiral into violence quickly.


BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 02:28 AM

quote:
but absolutely more at odds with the left


But I thought you didn't judge people until you met them? You sure have no problem doing it with Mexicans and liberals you read about. If you didn't like it when I did it to you, then perhaps you should refrain from doing it to others.


jkeller - 2/3/2017 at 03:05 AM

quote:
democratic leaders should work to help quell the hostility. When the left is angry things spiral into violence quickly.


You support a guy who urged his supporters to physically attack people who disagreed with him. He even offered to pay their lawyer fees. Now you want Democrat leaders to quell the hostility? Your hypocrisy is amazing.


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 03:10 AM

quote:
democratic leaders should work to help quell the hostility. When the left is angry things spiral into violence quickly.


You wanted two Americas, you got it.



LUKE - 2/3/2017 at 03:18 AM

Be nice to take a tally of the riot's that are and have gone on.Then add up who are democrat,Killary/Hussein/BERNIE supporters VRS Trump/Republicans.Betcha my softail,mobile BBQ smoker,and arsenal the dem's,Killary,Bernie,Obama supporters would come in at a 1,000-1.


BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 03:21 AM

which proves what to you? Trump recommended violence during his campaign, remember? They appear to be following the lead.

[Edited on 2/3/2017 by BoytonBrother]


pops42 - 2/3/2017 at 03:37 AM

Ahhh, remember this? http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-warns-supporters-may-ri ot-fears-violence-escalate-n540516


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 04:59 AM

Can we at least agree that it is never right for anyone - on the right or the left - to initiate violence against others? Dissent and peaceful protests are one thing...but destruction of property and physically attacking those who have opposing views is wrong no matter which side it is coming from.

My question is...where was law enforcement? I read somewhere that there were NO arrests. Was law enforcement instructed to stand down, and if so, why? I've read various accounts...but apparently there was something like 100-200 of these agitators, and apparently the rioting went on for quite some time. Were the cops just standing around watching? What about the safety of the college students who were there, either to peacefully protest or attend the event? Was it total incompetence or an intentional stand down?


BIGV - 2/3/2017 at 05:04 AM

quote:
quote:
but absolutely more at odds with the left


But I thought you didn't judge people until you met them? You sure have no problem doing it with Mexicans and liberals you read about. If you didn't like it when I did it to you, then perhaps you should refrain from doing it to others.




"at odds" as in "to disagree"...which has little or nothing to do with "Judging"....lol


BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 01:52 PM

quote:
Can we at least agree that it is never right for anyone - on the right or the left - to initiate violence against others?


Not anymore. Not when the President ran a campaign urging violence, and was then voted in. That's a declaration that violence is now acceptable, per the President of the United States. We all heard it.


BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 01:54 PM

quote:
"at odds" as in "to disagree"...which has little or nothing to do with "Judging"....lol


I like how you are adding "lol" to the end of your posts to signify that you are not offended. Hysterical. Anyway, you said "Mexicans have no respect for American laws". If you don't see that as a judgment of character, then I'm at a loss for words.


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 02:20 PM

quote:
quote:
Can we at least agree that it is never right for anyone - on the right or the left - to initiate violence against others?


Not anymore. Not when the President ran a campaign urging violence, and was then voted in. That's a declaration that violence is now acceptable, per the President of the United States. We all heard it.


I'm not asking you what Trump said. I'm asking about your own personal code of ethics. If Trump made those statements then those statements should be called out and condemned. I don't think we should be condoning violence from either side. Nor do I believe we should be basing our personal code of ethics on what the president says. I believe that it is always wrong to initiate violence against another person or group of people. I was hoping that everyone here shared that belief. But I guess not.


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 02:50 PM

quote:
Can we at least agree that it is never right for anyone - on the right or the left - to initiate violence against others?


Sure, but do these disclaimers have to eternally be given? A vast, vast majority of people agree with this.

However, equally as wrong is when 10 anarchists throw rocks at a coffee shop, they are regarded as representative of the entire left. This happens constantly.

By most reports, the Berkeley violence was the work of around 150 masked people. The balaclava is the trademark of anarchists.

Let's say that we define the "left" as just people that voted for Clinton. 150 people out of 65 million is 0.0002%. Besides, anarchists don't vote anyway. If you believe that 0.0002% is representative of 65 million, then further conversations like these are pointless.

Richard Spencer recently posted this on his twitter feed:



https://twitter.com/RichardBSpencer/status/827239243214827520

Doesn't really matter to me if someone punches that guy, unless you think that placing liberals in concentration camps is something worth defending.

The expectation that any and all human beings will take endless amounts of verbal abuse and not eventually retaliate violently goes against basic human nature. Right or wrong, it's gonna happen. Arguments turning to violence goes back to Cain and Abel.


BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 03:13 PM

The president of the United States urged violence during his campaign, and he was voted in by the right. Any violence you see on the news is a direct result of what they voted in. I do believe that the President should be an example of what American code of ethics should be. A leader is meant to be followed.


heineken515 - 2/3/2017 at 04:29 PM

One of the most stupid things I read on the Whipping Post is - "where was the outrage when..."

It is a tired, way over used line.

Just my opinion of course.


MartinD28 - 2/3/2017 at 05:32 PM

quote:
Some (not all)liberals posting here are way more classy post -election than the democratic leadership is exhibiting. Thats why its so much fun to watch this meltdown. Will a new democratic leader with a spine emerge from this wreckage?


Hey goob,

Look at your word, "meltdown". The fact of the matter is that can just about describe minimally a once a day event with Trump. His typical day is - who is he going to antagonize, piss off, go after, make a lie about, make up facts, try to minimize, etc.


MartinD28 - 2/3/2017 at 05:37 PM

quote:
The president of the United States urged violence during his campaign, and he was voted in by the right. Any violence you see on the news is a direct result of what they voted in. I do believe that the President should be an example of what American code of ethics should be. A leader is meant to be followed.


X2

He used it as a calling card to earn votes. He knew he could appeal to factions of voters and amp up anger. What a strategy to get votes; truly an honorable individual and someone you would want as a role model for your kids or grandkids.


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 05:45 PM

Interesting that there are folks on here that at the very least are making light of the use of physical violence and the destruction of property, and at worst seem to actually be defending those actions and crimes.

And BoyntonBrother, just a couple of weeks ago you tried to convince me that individuals should not "let" political ideology affect them. Now you are arguing that we should allow a political leader to define our personal code of ethics. And the violence is coming from left wing anarchists. So you think their actions and crimes should be ignored simply because of some comments Trump made on the campaign trail?

BrerRabbit - I have no idea what you are talking about. But if you are talking about the pipeline...well, I am opposed to the pipeline. So I would stand with the Indians and farmers on that issue.


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 05:58 PM

quote:
Interesting that there are folks on here that at the very least are making light of the use of physical violence and the destruction of property, and at worst seem to actually be defending those actions and crimes.


How very weasel-wordy in a non-specific way! Clever!


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 06:08 PM

Bhawk - I totally agree that arguments escalating to violence are going to happen. My question pertains to how should we respond when it does happen...do we condone/encourage it or do we condemn it? Do we view it as wrong or right behavior? I would think that no matter how nasty we get towards one another on these forums, and no matter how heated the debate or how wide the political divide...I'm assuming that if we ever met face to face we would not have a desire to physically assault one another. I have lots of friends, co-workers, and family from all across the political spectrum. However, none of us believe that the initiation of violence is morally right. Even my friends from the far left corner are not defending what happened at Berkeley. But apparently some folks here at the WP think it's OK...just a few broken windows, suppression of free speech, people beaten or pepper sprayed, police doing nothing...no big deal. It's all Trump's fault so it's all good.


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 06:15 PM

quote:
But apparently some folks here at the WP think it's OK...just a few broken windows, suppression of free speech, people beaten or pepper sprayed, police doing nothing...no big deal. It's all Trump's fault so it's all good.


Who are these folks you keep referring to?

Look, the whole respectful agree to disagree thing, society is past that. The chasm deepens every day.

As to the Berkeley incidents, again...

Let's say that we define the "left" as just people that voted for Clinton. 150 people out of 65 million is 0.0002%. Besides, anarchists don't vote anyway. If you believe that 0.0002% is representative of 65 million, then further conversations like these are pointless.

A white supremacist thinks I should be put into a concentration camp. You want me to give him a hug?


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 06:27 PM

quote:
A white supremacist thinks I should be put into a concentration camp. You want me to give him a hug?


Of course not. But what does this have to do with Berkeley?

Where are white supremacists putting people in concentration camps?


BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 06:48 PM

quote:
However, none of us believe that the initiation of violence is morally right. Even my friends from the far left corner are not defending what happened at Berkeley. But apparently some folks here at the WP think it's OK...just a few broken windows, suppression of free speech, people beaten or pepper sprayed, police doing nothing...no big deal. It's all Trump's fault so it's all good.


Ok, so it was wrong. What is your point? That they are typical of the left? If you believe that then you are a fool. We all know violence exists, so isn't the bigger story that our President urged violence during his campaign?

[Edited on 2/3/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 07:05 PM

quote:
quote:
A white supremacist thinks I should be put into a concentration camp. You want me to give him a hug?


Of course not. But what does this have to do with Berkeley?

Where are white supremacists putting people in concentration camps?


Obtuse deflections, no counters to engage in deeper discussion. Been here before.


porkchopbob - 2/3/2017 at 07:37 PM

quote:
quote:
A white supremacist thinks I should be put into a concentration camp. You want me to give him a hug?


Of course not. But what does this have to do with Berkeley?

Where are white supremacists putting people in concentration camps?


The initial protest was against Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart editor and all around racist, white supremacist douchebag. The people who were actually protesting him were also attacked, right alongside Milo supporters, by the anarchists dressed in black. So it's kind of a clusterF.


BIGV - 2/3/2017 at 08:11 PM

quote:
The initial protest was against Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart editor and all around racist, white supremacist douchebag. .


Don't hold back...


BIGV - 2/3/2017 at 08:11 PM

quote:
The initial protest was against Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart editor and all around racist, white supremacist douchebag. .


Don't hold back...


porkchopbob - 2/3/2017 at 09:04 PM

quote:
quote:
The initial protest was against Milo Yiannopoulos, a Breitbart editor and all around racist, white supremacist douchebag. .


Don't hold back...


I thought I was. He thinks he's some anti-PC crusader, but he's just a loud, racist attention-seeker. But if you'd like to tell me I'm wrong and defend him, have at it...


OriginalGoober - 2/3/2017 at 09:04 PM

What a world we live in when a white, gay, jewish man is labeled a nazi.


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 10:26 PM

Yeah...And a white guy who dates black men is a white supremacist? Go figure.

And even if he is a racist douchebag...doesn't he have a right to free speech?


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 10:36 PM

quote:
Opposed to the pipeline but can't openly criticise the strongarm tactics of the goons. Getting all in a huff over radical protesters but fine with corporate-military jackboot thug government. Spare us your pseudo-moderate thinly veiled ultraconservative self-righteous wishwash. I respect authentic bacon like mule and luke over artificially flavored saccharin "conservative lite". No fat, no calories, no substance, no guts, just pure whining ego. You're no Ghandi. You are just looking for an excuse to justify violent suppression of dissent.

The giveaway was your word "initiate". Not ok to initiate violence. OK to kick ass if someone else starts something though, right?


What "corporate-military jackboot thug" and "strong arm tactics" are you referring to?

The only people who are justifying violent suppression of opposing views are the very people that were rioting at Berkeley...the people you are defending. They used violence to suppress free speech.

Correct...self-defense in response to violence is morally justified. Initiating violence is not.


LUKE - 2/3/2017 at 10:38 PM

quote:
Ahhh, remember this? http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-warns-supporters-may-ri ot-fears-violence-escalate-n540516


Very,very lame! When the right as they call em,take's to the streets like maniac's,rioting,burning car's,beating up innocent men and women like the progressive liberal's have done over and over and over,and are still doing right now,then get back with me.

Ahhhhhhhhh!

[Edited on 2/3/2017 by LUKE]


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 10:42 PM

quote:
Yeah...And a white guy who dates black men is a white supremacist? Go figure.

And even if he is a racist douchebag...doesn't he have a right to free speech?


Last I checked with the righists, only American citizens have full constitutional rights.


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 10:49 PM

quote:
What a world we live in when a white, gay, jewish man is labeled a nazi.


Who labeled him a Nazi?


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 10:49 PM

So he's not a citizen? I have no idea...never even heard of him until two nights ago. But yeah...then that definitely justifies the violence...right.

Odd that you say these thugs don't represent your views and yet you seem to be defending their actions.


BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 10:50 PM

quote:
And a white guy who dates black men is a white supremacist? Go figure.


I'm not surprised that this scenario confuses you.


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 10:51 PM

quote:
So he's not a citizen? I have no idea...never even heard of him until two nights ago. But yeah...then that definitely justifies the violence...right.

Odd that you say these thugs don't represent your views and yet you seem to be defending their actions.




Where did I defend their actions?

Stop being so obtuse and say what you want to say.


Bhawk - 2/3/2017 at 10:59 PM

Yup. Rightist in disguise, pretending to not like either side. Always so transparent.


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 11:02 PM

quote:
quote:
So he's not a citizen? I have no idea...never even heard of him until two nights ago. But yeah...then that definitely justifies the violence...right.

Odd that you say these thugs don't represent your views and yet you seem to be defending their actions.




Where did I defend their actions?

Stop being so obtuse and say what you want to say.


Just "drawing conclusions"...


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 11:09 PM

quote:
quote:
What "corporate-military jackboot thug" and "strong arm tactics" are you referring to?


Dog attacks on peaceful protestors, children at Standing Rock, for starters:

[img]https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vy8rHQYosjI/V8w8m-IpFJI/AAAAAAAAB8s/7O8rZbM Fod49Rro6xqhmupU5usycLND3QCLcB/s1600/standing.jpg[/

Don't know much about what happened at Standing Rock, but assuming the protestors were peaceful and on their own property, then I would be opposed to any tactics being used against them whether by private security or government agents. If dogs were unleashed upon peaceful protestors, then whoever did it should be held accountable. And like I said, I am opposed to the pipeline and believe that anyone - farmers, Indians, whoever they may be - have a right to their property and the government cannot take it to build a pipeline. Not sure how I can state it any clearer.






BoytonBrother - 2/3/2017 at 11:25 PM

If you voted for our President who used the F word during his campaign, mocked the disabled, and urged violence, then you brought this on yourself.


jkeller - 2/3/2017 at 11:29 PM

quote:
Yup. Rightist in disguise, pretending to not like either side. Always so transparent.


There are more than one of them on this forum.


jkeller - 2/3/2017 at 11:30 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
So he's not a citizen? I have no idea...never even heard of him until two nights ago. But yeah...then that definitely justifies the violence...right.

Odd that you say these thugs don't represent your views and yet you seem to be defending their actions.




Where did I defend their actions?

Stop being so obtuse and say what you want to say.


Just "drawing conclusions"...



I am going to draw a conclusion. I have been reading your posts for a while now and I think you have no real beliefs. You just like to argue.


Redfish7 - 2/3/2017 at 11:51 PM

Oh, OK....so the fact that you disagree with my beliefs, or can't understand them because they don't fit into your neat little right vs. left compartmental view of the world...I guess that means I don't have any beliefs.


porkchopbob - 2/3/2017 at 11:52 PM

quote:
Yeah...And a white guy who dates black men is a white supremacist? Go figure.

And even if he is a racist douchebag...doesn't he have a right to free speech?


I never said anywhere that he didn't have the right. Why would you counter an argument that I didn't make? Why get upset at something I never said? This is why we can't have nice things.

And yes, Milo is a complicated person. Everyone has their type, but slave owners thought they were superior to their slave consorts. Not that Milo has ever said he supports slavery, but an ounce of perceived supremacy is still perceived supremacy.


jkeller - 2/3/2017 at 11:57 PM

quote:
Oh, OK....so the fact that you disagree with my beliefs, or can't understand them because they don't fit into your neat little right vs. left compartmental view of the world...I guess that means I don't have any beliefs.


Who said i disagreed with anything? You are all over the place. That makes it hard to agree or disagree. Like I said, you seem to just want to argue. That, to me, seems pretty pointless.If you have a position, state it. If you just want to argue, don't be surprised when people stop engaging with you. But stop the talking in circles without stating anything other than you disagree.


Redfish7 - 2/4/2017 at 12:25 AM

quote:
quote:
Oh, OK....so the fact that you disagree with my beliefs, or can't understand them because they don't fit into your neat little right vs. left compartmental view of the world...I guess that means I don't have any beliefs.


Who said i disagreed with anything? You are all over the place. That makes it hard to agree or disagree. Like I said, you seem to just want to argue. That, to me, seems pretty pointless.If you have a position, state it. If you just want to argue, don't be surprised when people stop engaging with you. But stop the talking in circles without stating anything other than you disagree.


If I have a position, state it?

I have made all these statements (see below) in my posts…but you would already know that if you had bothered to read them. I think these are pretty clear statements of my beliefs, ethics and positions on events being discussed. I’m sorry if you can’t understand them…I don’t know how to make them any clearer to help you. If you don’t want to engage it won’t hurt my feelings.

1) The Dems plan to put the country through probably 2 and 1/2 months of political theater and posturing regarding Gorsuch when they already know there is zero chance he will not be confirmed because the GOP will just use the "nuclear" option. I wish the GOP would just go ahead and use the nuclear option to save us all the wasted time and drama.

2) It is never right for anyone - on the right or the left - to initiate violence against others.

3) Dissent and peaceful protests are one thing...but destruction of property and physically attacking those who have opposing views is wrong no matter which side it is coming from.

4) If Trump made those statements (i.e. encouraging violence) then those statements should be called out and condemned. I don't think we should be condoning violence from either side. Nor do I believe we should be basing our personal code of ethics on what the president says. I believe that it is always wrong to initiate violence against another person or group of people.

5) I pointed out the hypocrisy of the left…those who preach tolerance/love while physically assaulting those who disagree with them, and violently suppressing free speech at the “birthplace of the free speech movement.”

6) I pointed out the incompetence of law enforcement at Berkeley.

7) I stated that I am opposed to the pipeline.

8) I stated that self-defense in response to violence is morally justified. Initiating violence is not.

9) I stated this about the Standing Rock incident: Assuming the protestors were peaceful and on their own property, then I would be opposed to any tactics being used against them whether by private security or government agents. If dogs were unleashed upon peaceful protestors, then whoever did it should be held accountable. And like I said, I am opposed to the pipeline and believe that anyone - farmers, Indians, whoever they may be - have a right to their property and the government cannot take it to build a pipeline. Not sure how I can state it any clearer.

My apologies if these positions are not clear enough for you...


[Edited on 2/4/2017 by Redfish7]


jkeller - 2/4/2017 at 01:34 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh, OK....so the fact that you disagree with my beliefs, or can't understand them because they don't fit into your neat little right vs. left compartmental view of the world...I guess that means I don't have any beliefs.


Who said i disagreed with anything? You are all over the place. That makes it hard to agree or disagree. Like I said, you seem to just want to argue. That, to me, seems pretty pointless.If you have a position, state it. If you just want to argue, don't be surprised when people stop engaging with you. But stop the talking in circles without stating anything other than you disagree.


If I have a position, state it?

I have made all these statements (see below) in my posts…but you would already know that if you had bothered to read them. I think these are pretty clear statements of my beliefs, ethics and positions on events being discussed. I’m sorry if you can’t understand them…I don’t know how to make them any clearer to help you. If you don’t want to engage it won’t hurt my feelings.

1) The Dems plan to put the country through probably 2 and 1/2 months of political theater and posturing regarding Gorsuch when they already know there is zero chance he will not be confirmed because the GOP will just use the "nuclear" option. I wish the GOP would just go ahead and use the nuclear option to save us all the wasted time and drama.

2) It is never right for anyone - on the right or the left - to initiate violence against others.

3) Dissent and peaceful protests are one thing...but destruction of property and physically attacking those who have opposing views is wrong no matter which side it is coming from.

4) If Trump made those statements (i.e. encouraging violence) then those statements should be called out and condemned. I don't think we should be condoning violence from either side. Nor do I believe we should be basing our personal code of ethics on what the president says. I believe that it is always wrong to initiate violence against another person or group of people.

5) I pointed out the hypocrisy of the left…those who preach tolerance/love while physically assaulting those who disagree with them, and violently suppressing free speech at the “birthplace of the free speech movement.”

6) I pointed out the incompetence of law enforcement at Berkeley.

7) I stated that I am opposed to the pipeline.

8) I stated that self-defense in response to violence is morally justified. Initiating violence is not.

9) I stated this about the Standing Rock incident: Assuming the protestors were peaceful and on their own property, then I would be opposed to any tactics being used against them whether by private security or government agents. If dogs were unleashed upon peaceful protestors, then whoever did it should be held accountable. And like I said, I am opposed to the pipeline and believe that anyone - farmers, Indians, whoever they may be - have a right to their property and the government cannot take it to build a pipeline. Not sure how I can state it any clearer.

My apologies if these positions are not clear enough for you...


[Edited on 2/4/2017 by Redfish7]


God. You are a conservative. Stop acting like you aren't.


Redfish7 - 2/4/2017 at 01:41 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
Oh, OK....so the fact that you disagree with my beliefs, or can't understand them because they don't fit into your neat little right vs. left compartmental view of the world...I guess that means I don't have any beliefs.


Who said i disagreed with anything? You are all over the place. That makes it hard to agree or disagree. Like I said, you seem to just want to argue. That, to me, seems pretty pointless.If you have a position, state it. If you just want to argue, don't be surprised when people stop engaging with you. But stop the talking in circles without stating anything other than you disagree.


If I have a position, state it?

I have made all these statements (see below) in my posts…but you would already know that if you had bothered to read them. I think these are pretty clear statements of my beliefs, ethics and positions on events being discussed. I’m sorry if you can’t understand them…I don’t know how to make them any clearer to help you. If you don’t want to engage it won’t hurt my feelings.

1) The Dems plan to put the country through probably 2 and 1/2 months of political theater and posturing regarding Gorsuch when they already know there is zero chance he will not be confirmed because the GOP will just use the "nuclear" option. I wish the GOP would just go ahead and use the nuclear option to save us all the wasted time and drama.

2) It is never right for anyone - on the right or the left - to initiate violence against others.

3) Dissent and peaceful protests are one thing...but destruction of property and physically attacking those who have opposing views is wrong no matter which side it is coming from.

4) If Trump made those statements (i.e. encouraging violence) then those statements should be called out and condemned. I don't think we should be condoning violence from either side. Nor do I believe we should be basing our personal code of ethics on what the president says. I believe that it is always wrong to initiate violence against another person or group of people.

5) I pointed out the hypocrisy of the left…those who preach tolerance/love while physically assaulting those who disagree with them, and violently suppressing free speech at the “birthplace of the free speech movement.”

6) I pointed out the incompetence of law enforcement at Berkeley.

7) I stated that I am opposed to the pipeline.

8) I stated that self-defense in response to violence is morally justified. Initiating violence is not.

9) I stated this about the Standing Rock incident: Assuming the protestors were peaceful and on their own property, then I would be opposed to any tactics being used against them whether by private security or government agents. If dogs were unleashed upon peaceful protestors, then whoever did it should be held accountable. And like I said, I am opposed to the pipeline and believe that anyone - farmers, Indians, whoever they may be - have a right to their property and the government cannot take it to build a pipeline. Not sure how I can state it any clearer.

My apologies if these positions are not clear enough for you...


[Edited on 2/4/2017 by Redfish7]


God. You are a conservative. Stop acting like you aren't.


Which of my 9 statements do you disagree with?


BoytonBrother - 2/4/2017 at 02:16 AM

10) I voted for a candidate that urged violence and said "they can go F themselves" during a campaign speech.

[Edited on 2/4/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Redfish7 - 2/4/2017 at 02:20 AM

quote:
10) I voted for a candidate that urged violence and said "they can go F themselves" during a campaign speech.

[Edited on 2/4/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Wrong. I didn't vote for Trump. Get your facts straight before you post nonsense.


BoytonBrother - 2/4/2017 at 02:39 AM

yeah, sure.


jkeller - 2/4/2017 at 02:42 AM

quote:
quote:
10) I voted for a candidate that urged violence and said "they can go F themselves" during a campaign speech.

[Edited on 2/4/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Wrong. I didn't vote for Trump. Get your facts straight before you post nonsense.


You agree with just about everything Trump wants, but you didn't vote for him.

That is funny. Stop trying to play both sides. You aren't good at it.


Redfish7 - 2/4/2017 at 03:05 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
10) I voted for a candidate that urged violence and said "they can go F themselves" during a campaign speech.

[Edited on 2/4/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Wrong. I didn't vote for Trump. Get your facts straight before you post nonsense.


You agree with just about everything Trump wants, but you didn't vote for him.

That is funny. Stop trying to play both sides. You aren't good at it.


Again...which of my 9 statements do you disagree with? Which of them do you think proves that I am a conservative? Do progressives not agree that violence is wrong?

You asked me to state my positions. I did. Not a single one of those positions indicates that I am conservative. And, no, I didn't vote for Trump. And in fact I stated that Trump should be called out and condemned if he encouraged violence, and I oppose his views on the pipeline. So none of my positions/statements specifically link me to conservatism, and some of my statements are in fact opposed to Trump. And yet you still want to label me a conservative and a Trump supporter. And you have yet to name a single one of my positions that you disagree with.

Conclude whatever you want...








pops42 - 2/4/2017 at 03:24 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
10) I voted for a candidate that urged violence and said "they can go F themselves" during a campaign speech.

[Edited on 2/4/2017 by BoytonBrother]


Wrong. I didn't vote for Trump. Get your facts straight before you post nonsense.


You agree with just about everything Trump wants, but you didn't vote for him.

That is funny. Stop trying to play both sides. You aren't good at it.


Again...which of my 9 statements do you disagree with? Which of them do you think proves that I am a conservative? Do progressives not agree that violence is wrong?

You asked me to state my positions. I did. Not a single one of those positions indicates that I am conservative. And, no, I didn't vote for Trump. And in fact I stated that Trump should be called out and condemned if he encouraged violence, and I oppose his views on the pipeline. So none of my positions/statements specifically link me to conservatism, and some of my statements are in fact opposed to Trump. And yet you still want to label me a conservative and a Trump supporter. And you have yet to name a single one of my positions that you disagree with.

Conclude whatever you want...








Troll ^^^


Redfish7 - 2/4/2017 at 09:07 PM

quote:
quote:
What a world we live in when a white, gay, jewish man is labeled a nazi.


Hitler was of Jewish descent and was a homosexual. The Nazi phenomenon was and is a homoerotic death cult.


Would Hitler have been allowed to speak at Berkeley?

And where were the "corporate-military jackboot thugs" and "strong arm tactics" that you are so paranoid about? Where were they the other night at Berkeley? Apparently the police were mostly huddling inside one of the buildings watching the rioters set fires, attack innocent people, break windows, loot a Starbucks, etc. Were they ordered to stand down and allow the riot to happen in order to send a message to all other speakers who might be invited to speak in the future by the UC Berkeley College Republicans. Odd that not one single arrest was made.

And then when cops do try to do their job (at NYU)...they get berated by a hysterical left wing NYU professor who claims that instead of protecting college students they should instead attack the dissenters. Apparently free speech (or even the safety of students) no longer applies at College Republican events. Add this professor to the long list of liberals - like Ashley Judd - who are boldly going where no sane people have gone before.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfrouw32Zhc







[Edited on 2/4/2017 by Redfish7]


Redfish7 - 2/4/2017 at 10:07 PM

quote:
quote:
Would Hitler have been allowed to speak at Berkeley? And where were the "corporate-military jackboot thugs" and "strong arm tactics" that you are so paranoid about? Where were they the other night at Berkeley?


No, Hitler would have been shot, by me. Haha, got you going with that corporate military jackboot thug thing, huh?





No...didn't get me going. I don't think anyone likes it when the government uses jackboot thugs or strong arm tactics. But I'm just wondering why you seem to be so concerned about it when this administration is not currently using those types of tactics. Where is the evidence of these tactics being used? And neither is law enforcement. In fact, its just the opposite. They seem to just be standing around watching while thugs commit crimes.


BoytonBrother - 2/5/2017 at 02:48 AM

alloak, I mean Redfish, the bottom line is that you voted for a guy that urged violence, etc. don't deny it, it's obvious you did. You can complain about the common American behaving badly, but you elected one of them to lead the country.


Redfish7 - 2/5/2017 at 04:41 AM

quote:
alloak, I mean Redfish, the bottom line is that you voted for a guy that urged violence, etc. don't deny it, it's obvious you did. You can complain about the common American behaving badly, but you elected one of them to lead the country.


I didn't vote for Trump. Didn't vote for Hillary either. Those are the facts. Believe what you want.

So...the bottom line, and what is really obvious...is that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


BoytonBrother - 2/5/2017 at 05:29 AM

i doubt you're selling anyone with that


Redfish7 - 2/5/2017 at 05:57 AM

Ever heard of people voting third party, writing a candidate in, not voting at all, etc.? Like I said...believe what you want. If you childishly must insist on believing something that isn't true despite my stating otherwise multiple times...so be it....nothing I can do about it to convince you. And it won't be the first time I've been accused of lying on this forum...and probably not the last. Seems to be a common theme here and SOP for dealing with folks who have a different point of view. Anyone who deviates from liberal dogma...well, we're just a bunch of liars and trolls who only come here to argue.

I don't really get it though. What would I even gain by lying? And if you want to attack me, then attack me on my stated positions about specific issues....let's have a big boy conversation (if you are up to it) instead of you just obsessing over who I voted for?


Redfish7 - 2/5/2017 at 06:48 AM

Calling people trolls...very original...must be some of that brilliant "freethinking creativity" I've been hearing about.

And I see you've also joined with BoyntonBrother in the alloak nonsense. Freethinking creativity at its best. Maybe you guys should form a band...


BIGV - 2/5/2017 at 08:51 PM

quote:
Ever heard of people voting third party



Why this just can not be!...You must be one or the other!.....Either you are red or blue, you absolutely can not be anything else, no matter your beliefs!


pops42 - 2/5/2017 at 09:21 PM

quote:
Ever heard of people voting third party, writing a candidate in, not voting at all, etc.? Like I said...believe what you want. If you childishly must insist on believing something that isn't true despite my stating otherwise multiple times...so be it....nothing I can do about it to convince you. And it won't be the first time I've been accused of lying on this forum...and probably not the last. Seems to be a common theme here and SOP for dealing with folks who have a different point of view. Anyone who deviates from liberal dogma...well, we're just a bunch of liars and trolls who only come here to argue.

I don't really get it though. What would I even gain by lying? And if you want to attack me, then attack me on my stated positions about specific issues....let's have a big boy conversation (if you are up to it) instead of you just obsessing over who I voted for?
Chase the troll.


Redfish7 - 2/5/2017 at 09:26 PM

quote:
quote:
Ever heard of people voting third party



Why this just can not be!...You must be one or the other!.....Either you are red or blue, you absolutely can not be anything else, no matter your beliefs!


haha...yep...but only in the narrow minded little world of the WP. In the real world, there is a much broader political spectrum...and people who actually enjoy engaging in real debate rather than simply calling people trolls.

[Edited on 2/5/2017 by Redfish7]


jkeller - 2/6/2017 at 01:12 AM

In claiming to be above it all, you become the problem. Whatever Trump does is on the head of his supporters and those who voted third party.


Redfish7 - 2/6/2017 at 05:05 AM

I become “the problem”? What “problem” would that be?

And I love the “a vote for a third party (or a non-vote) is a vote for Trump” argument…that’s so ridiculous. I hear that in every election. Sorry…don’t buy that argument…it holds no water.


BoytonBrother - 2/6/2017 at 05:09 AM

I'm glad Redfish is hear to pick up where alloak left off.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 06:17 AM

quote:
If you didn't vote against him you voted for him.


Hahaha!.....The cry of the vanquished


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 06:19 AM

quote:
In claiming to be above it all, you become the problem. Whatever Trump does is on the head of his supporters and those who voted third party.


So let me see if I understand this argument, participating in the process is worse than staying home?

Horsesh*t.


BoytonBrother - 2/6/2017 at 01:49 PM

It's ok to riot because Trump will pay their legal bills.


jkeller - 2/6/2017 at 03:32 PM

quote:
quote:
In claiming to be above it all, you become the problem. Whatever Trump does is on the head of his supporters and those who voted third party.


So let me see if I understand this argument, participating in the process is worse than staying home?

Horsesh*t.


That isn't what I said. So, no, you don't understand this argument.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 04:01 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
In claiming to be above it all, you become the problem. Whatever Trump does is on the head of his supporters and those who voted third party.


So let me see if I understand this argument, participating in the process is worse than staying home?

Horsesh*t.


That isn't what I said. So, no, you don't understand this argument.


I stand corrected and please forgive me for not understanding that there is only one way to view the process.....your way.


jkeller - 2/6/2017 at 04:04 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
In claiming to be above it all, you become the problem. Whatever Trump does is on the head of his supporters and those who voted third party.


So let me see if I understand this argument, participating in the process is worse than staying home?

Horsesh*t.


That isn't what I said. So, no, you don't understand this argument.


I stand corrected and please forgive me for not understanding that there is only one way to view the process.....your way.


That isn't what I said either. I guess you are having a difficult time with this. Sorry.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 04:06 PM

quote:
you got what you wanted, a one party system.


Me personally?..... I guess you might say my wish was granted; I hoped with all my heart that Hillary would find employment anywhere but the Oval office.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 04:07 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
quote:
In claiming to be above it all, you become the problem. Whatever Trump does is on the head of his supporters and those who voted third party.


So let me see if I understand this argument, participating in the process is worse than staying home?

Horsesh*t.


That isn't what I said. So, no, you don't understand this argument.


I stand corrected and please forgive me for not understanding that there is only one way to view the process.....your way.


That isn't what I said either. I guess you are having a difficult time with this. Sorry.


No need to be sorry, I will sleep just fine.


jkeller - 2/6/2017 at 04:09 PM

quote:
quote:
you got what you wanted, a one party system.


Me personally?..... I guess you might say my wish was granted; I hoped with all my heart that Hillary would find employment anywhere but the Oval office.


As I said, you stand for nothing, you just like to oppose everyone.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 04:14 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
you got what you wanted, a one party system.


Me personally?..... I guess you might say my wish was granted; I hoped with all my heart that Hillary would find employment anywhere but the Oval office.


As I said, you stand for nothing, you just like to oppose everyone.


No, not actually and not everyone, but you and I seem to differ quite a bit. But hey, I am far from perfect.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 04:38 PM

quote:
quote:
quote:
you got what you wanted, a one party system.


Me personally?..... I guess you might say my wish was granted; I hoped with all my heart that Hillary would find employment anywhere but the Oval office.


As I said, you stand for nothing, you just like to oppose everyone.


God has spoken. The audacity I must posses for seeing things differently than you.

Yawn


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 04:44 PM

quote:
You claim to be pro-choice but hated the candidate that would hold the line on womens' rights, and other than that you haven't said much except deny you love Trump, even though you never disagreed with your trumplover pals here on one single thing.


First and foremost, I have to zero to explain to anyone on this site. I participated in the process by voting for the Libertarian candidate, who believes Government should have no say in a woman's decision. Spot on. And again, I will continue to celebrate the fact that Mrs. Clinton lost, I offer no apologies for this view.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 05:00 PM

quote:
I always hated politics and politicians, never been a democrat or republican - but gritted my teeth and VOTED AGAINST TRUMP, because of key issues like choice.


Fair enough. I believe if you truly believe in change, you vote your conscience. Be true to your principles and care not what others think. Enjoy the day.


BIGV - 2/6/2017 at 05:20 PM

quote:
This just was not the time to indulge in third party vanity.


Worked for me, I voted for the person I felt best represented most of my political views, I will always do that, at all levels of Government.


MartinD28 - 2/6/2017 at 05:22 PM

quote:
I respect that man. This just was not the time to indulge in third party vanity. Trump was THE third party, stealth candidate in Republican disguise. It's done anyway. Smoke clearing off the field and we have to reconstruct. Who knows maybe the two party system is collapsing and Libertarians will have a chance next go round.


Doubtful that a Libertarian ever gets elected. One of two things would have to occur - 1) an awakening of the electorate rallying behind a true Libertarian to truly drain the swamp; not campaigning on it then appointing billionaires to rule the swamp; no easy feat to achieve and 2) massive rollbacks on funding for campaigns. Most Libertarians can never find enough $$$$ to compete with the 2 major parties. The SCOTUS' Citizens United decision certainly doesn't help a Libertarian candidate.


pops42 - 2/6/2017 at 05:31 PM

If a liberatarian or independent won the presidency, they would still have to deal with an establishment congress. no change for you.


BoytonBrother - 2/7/2017 at 03:00 AM

quote:
Worked for me, I voted for the person I felt best represented most of my political views, I will always do that, at all levels of Government.


What worked for you exactly?


jkeller - 2/7/2017 at 03:19 AM

quote:
quote:
Worked for me, I voted for the person I felt best represented most of my political views, I will always do that, at all levels of Government.


What worked for you exactly?


He has said that he just wanted to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House. By that reasoning, he preferred Trump. So, in effect, he voted for and got Trump as his president.


BIGV - 2/7/2017 at 07:50 AM

quote:
quote:
quote:
Worked for me, I voted for the person I felt best represented most of my political views, I will always do that, at all levels of Government.


What worked for you exactly?


He has said that he just wanted to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.


I seriously doubt that my vote kept HC "Out of the White House"...no matter how much I dislike her

quote:
By that reasoning, he preferred Trump. So, in effect, he voted for and got Trump as his president.


Absolutely the viewpoint of someone who did not get the results in the Election they desired. And I've news for you, like it or not he is your President as well

And if I had not voted at all?


BoytonBrother - 2/7/2017 at 02:07 PM

It just comes down to who you dislike more. And you dislike Clinton more than Trump, which is fine. At the end of the day, you take the position that profanity, urging violence in exchange for money, and mocking and insulting opponents, this un-American travel ban, matters less than Hillary's corruption charges.

This is terribly weak and transparent. Its based on the idea that Hillary is some fringe extreme corrupt politician on a level we haven't seen before, but in reality she is no different from any other president or senator we've had for the past several decades. They are all part of the game, selling policies to an audience. To suggest Hillary is morally worse than the others is just foolish and silly. One should be wise enough to see that it's just a game of personal preference.

There was not a single vote for Trump or an independent cast that was truly about an anti-establishment message against "Hillary". Those votes were cast because they support the positions of the candidate. So BIGV, you appear to be contradicting yourself. Either you voted for the independent because he reflected your political views, or you voted for him to keep Hillary out. Which is it?


BoytonBrother - 2/7/2017 at 03:49 PM

Theo, I spent 9 years working in the media. Yes, the 24 hour cable networks are garbage.

By saying "Obama did it", are you saying that you now support Obama on that and he made the right decision? I find it strange that conservatives are now using Obama as a benchmark for what's right and successful with Trump. Plus, I don't think Obama detained and deported families arriving in United States who had valid visas and green cards.

if you frown upon the violence, why vote for a guy who urged it in exchange for money? If we despise those types of actions from the left, then why would we elect that same type of behavior?


BoytonBrother - 2/7/2017 at 07:21 PM

During a campaign speech he suggested that his supporters punch a heckler, and that he'd pay their legal bills.


BIGV - 2/7/2017 at 07:40 PM

quote:
This is terribly weak and transparent.


No. Once again, I just appear to have the nerve to disagree with your views

quote:
So BIGV, you appear to be contradicting yourself. Either you voted for the independent because he reflected your political views, or you voted for him to keep Hillary out. Which is it?


No. Just killed two birds with the same stone. I voted my conscience and for the Candidate and the platform I felt was closest to my belief system and in doing so, I voted to keep Hillary out.. I participated in the process as well.


BIGV - 2/7/2017 at 07:46 PM

quote:
if you frown upon the violence


You mean like the police failed to do in Berkeley?


BoytonBrother - 2/7/2017 at 09:59 PM

I'm not familiar with that reference. At any rate, you should know by now that my agenda is not about pushing any political party. So I don't know what that has to do with anything that I said earlier.


This thread come from : Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com/

Url of this website:
http://www.allmanbrothersband.com//modules.php?op=modload&name=XForum&file=viewthread&fid=127&tid=143411