Obama Signs Westminster Abbey Guest Book…

Moderators: Ron, Jim Price

Post Reply
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

sstuckey wrote:[I HAVE collected unemployment sometime during the last 2-3 years....you got something you wanna say to me about that?! Choose your words carefully here my friend...VERY CAREFULLY!!!
I don't blame you for avoiding this. You're clearly skating on thin ice with a few of the rockpagers on here.[/quote]

I was away, camping. It's June in PA, and you're not that important.

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah... and this is for you AND underachieverjoe:
If you ever, in your history, got an unemployment check, you were the recipient of a gov't payment, issued by a gov't program. The Constitution does not say anywhere that you deserve it, or that the gov't must provide it, AND YET... you cashed it. Both of you are all about the horrible, fascist Big Government staying out of your lives, and Joe doesn't want his "tax dollars" going to anything he didn't pre-approve, but somehow, he's ENTITLED to sign the back of that gummint check. The big, bad government OWES him, now. Where's the big hate-speech for Unemployment Compensation? I bet it's a necessary program now, right?

Now, Junior, WHO exactly am I skating on thin ice with, on Rockpage? Who is it that still follows this thread, that now hates me, and why would I be afraid of that? Am I somehow apprehensive of YOU? Nope. Not even a little, and I've been having laughs at your expense from the get-go. Posting something inane, then that you "owned" me, is just too funny. I'd ask you to explain, again, but you can't, which adds to the giggly-ness.

Oops, gotta go. Two paragraphs is one more than any wing-nut here can absorb at a time.
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

Hawk wrote:
Larry wrote:A country run solely by big business is no better than a country run solely by big government. A balance of power between the two is necessary.
Agreed !
Agreed! This is the basis of nearly every post I write. I would add that the balance should not favor corporate power, because it not based in democracy or the will of the people. I have no power to elect corporate leaders, no say in their power over me. I have power in government via my vote, and that is something Libertarians deny, and want to deny me. That is their version of "liberty."
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

undercoverjoe wrote:Larry, there are not enough factories for adults to be abused in. lol I think there are millions of Americans who love to go to work in a factory, but there are no openings. That Obama depression thing.
.

They have adults in Indonesia, and still, there are kids working in the factories. Why? Because they'll work for less money, and are used to being told what to do and when to do it. My great uncle quit 2nd grade to work picking the boney-pile at a Broad Top mine, at the turn of the 20th century. I've given it a little thought, you should too.
Oh, and Big Bad O didn't send all the factories overseas, Big Business did. I'd tell you to read a history book, but you were there. You just ignored it. You can say "it can't happen here," but American-based companies ALREADY employ children. Ask Kathie Lee Gifford.
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

lonewolf wrote:
Larry wrote:
It seems the majority of voters in that time saw a causality.
And this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.
We can't have a majority of voters running things can we? That kills liberty! LOL
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

undercoverjoe wrote: The Civil Rights Act is going to be 50 years old in 3 years. Yet all agree there is still racism.
You've been defending it as a personal liberty, so yes, there is still racism
undercoverjoe wrote:As much as I would like to try absolute freedom, that will never happen. I just want to get back a lot more of the freedoms and liberty that this country was founded on.
You are the opposite of absolute freedom. You have never made any indication that you wish freedom on anyone outside of yourself, or the people you approve for it. You are not for absolute freedom for the entire populace, you are for absolute power for yourself, which constitutes your definition of "freedom."
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

songsmith wrote:
sstuckey wrote:[I HAVE collected unemployment sometime during the last 2-3 years....you got something you wanna say to me about that?! Choose your words carefully here my friend...VERY CAREFULLY!!!
I don't blame you for avoiding this. You're clearly skating on thin ice with a few of the rockpagers on here.
I was away, camping. It's June in PA, and you're not that important.

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah... and this is for you AND underachieverjoe:
If you ever, in your history, got an unemployment check, you were the recipient of a gov't payment, issued by a gov't program. The Constitution does not say anywhere that you deserve it, or that the gov't must provide it, AND YET... you cashed it. Both of you are all about the horrible, fascist Big Government staying out of your lives, and Joe doesn't want his "tax dollars" going to anything he didn't pre-approve, but somehow, he's ENTITLED to sign the back of that gummint check. The big, bad government OWES him, now. Where's the big hate-speech for Unemployment Compensation? I bet it's a necessary program now, right?

Now, Junior, WHO exactly am I skating on thin ice with, on Rockpage? Who is it that still follows this thread, that now hates me, and why would I be afraid of that? Am I somehow apprehensive of YOU? Nope. Not even a little, and I've been having laughs at your expense from the get-go. Posting something inane, then that you "owned" me, is just too funny. I'd ask you to explain, again, but you can't, which adds to the giggly-ness.

Oops, gotta go. Two paragraphs is one more than any wing-nut here can absorb at a time.[/quote]

I did not set up the unemployment system. I did pay taxes ( unlike some posters here ) and unemployment insurance from my paychecks for 40 years. After my company downsized, I am receiving an unemployment checks from funds that I paid into for 40 years.

If you want to keep getting personal, go for it. You are becoming a joke on here and many had their eyes opened to the bitterness in your comments. A lot of us like political discussions, but yours are full of insults trying to belittle both the content and the poster. Who the fuck are you to even try to insult someone? You are pretty much the dictionary definition of nobody.

Keep on posting with your usual bitterness. You show more and more people here your true nature.
Last edited by Banned on Sunday Jun 05, 2011, edited 1 time in total.
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote: The Civil Rights Act is going to be 50 years old in 3 years. Yet all agree there is still racism.
You've been defending it as a personal liberty, so yes, there is still racism
undercoverjoe wrote:As much as I would like to try absolute freedom, that will never happen. I just want to get back a lot more of the freedoms and liberty that this country was founded on.
You are the opposite of absolute freedom. You have never made any indication that you wish freedom on anyone outside of yourself, or the people you approve for it. You are not for absolute freedom for the entire populace, you are for absolute power for yourself, which constitutes your definition of "freedom."
You need to stop taking the LSD first thing on Sunday mornings and posting on RP.

Libertarians want individuals to make their own decisions, not a bloated oppressive government.

The "authority" as such is with each individual in a perfect libertarian world. The power I want if for my decisions about myself and my property. I want the power taken away from the centralized government.
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

undercoverjoe wrote:There were at least 19 people indicted over the Enron financial scandal. Why has the Obamination administration failed to indict or convict a single person, despite the near collapse of the banking and mortgage industry?
That happened under the Bush Admin. Why didn't Bush prevent it in the first place? Ohhhh, the thing with Ken Lay and his campaign contributions, that's why! Also, can you establish a connection between Bush and those indictments, or did all that publicity simply force the GOV'T watchdogs in office to press charges well after the fact, to save face?
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Larry, there are not enough factories for adults to be abused in. lol I think there are millions of Americans who love to go to work in a factory, but there are no openings. That Obama depression thing.
.

They have adults in Indonesia, and still, there are kids working in the factories. Why? Because they'll work for less money, and are used to being told what to do and when to do it. My great uncle quit 2nd grade to work picking the boney-pile at a Broad Top mine, at the turn of the 20th century. I've given it a little thought, you should too.
Oh, and Big Bad O didn't send all the factories overseas, Big Business did. I'd tell you to read a history book, but you were there. You just ignored it. You can say "it can't happen here," but American-based companies ALREADY employ children. Ask Kathie Lee Gifford.
Under the Obamination regime, teenage unemployment is now at 24%. Ten years ago it was at 13%.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/ ... 9017.shtml

There are no "kids" working here, and apparently very few teenagers either, thanks to the Obamination Depression.

I have no solutions for Indonesia. What is your plan to stop child labor in Indonesia?
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:There were at least 19 people indicted over the Enron financial scandal. Why has the Obamination administration failed to indict or convict a single person, despite the near collapse of the banking and mortgage industry?
That happened under the Bush Admin. Why didn't Bush prevent it in the first place? Ohhhh, the thing with Ken Lay and his campaign contributions, that's why! Also, can you establish a connection between Bush and those indictments, or did all that publicity simply force the GOV'T watchdogs in office to press charges well after the fact, to save face?
The crimes occurred during the Clinton administration. The indictments and prosecution of Enron occurred during the Bush administration. 19 indicted, some still in jail.

Obamination regime record on investigation and prosecution of the Mortgage Banking Scandal:

0 indictments

0 charged

0 jailed

Quite a few of the key people involved now serving in the White House as economic advisers. What an awesome law and order guy, that Barry.

The Enron scandal was a pimple on the economy of this country. The Mortgage Failure almost brought down the banking system of this country.

This housing and mortgage blowup is not over. Housing prices have dropped more than during the Great Depression. Last month 28% of houses sold were houses that had been foreclosed, which is near an all time high. More people are stuck with mortgages that are more than the value of their house because of the crashed value of housing.

So what does Obamination do, he looks the other way, and brings the top CEO's into his inner circle of advisers.
User avatar
Larry
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The land of Chang and Eng

Post by Larry »

undercoverjoe wrote:
songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:There were at least 19 people indicted over the Enron financial scandal. Why has the Obamination administration failed to indict or convict a single person, despite the near collapse of the banking and mortgage industry?
That happened under the Bush Admin. Why didn't Bush prevent it in the first place? Ohhhh, the thing with Ken Lay and his campaign contributions, that's why! Also, can you establish a connection between Bush and those indictments, or did all that publicity simply force the GOV'T watchdogs in office to press charges well after the fact, to save face?
The crimes occurred during the Clinton administration. The indictments and prosecution of Enron occurred during the Bush administration. 19 indicted, some still in jail.

Obamination regime record on investigation and prosecution of the Mortgage Banking Scandal:

0 indictments

0 charged

0 jailed

Quite a few of the key people involved now serving in the White House as economic advisers. What an awesome law and order guy, that Barry.

The Enron scandal was a pimple on the economy of this country. The Mortgage Failure almost brought the banking system of this country.

This housing and mortgage blowup is not over. Housing prices have dropped more than during the Great Depression. Last month 28% of houses sold were houses that had been foreclosed, which is near an all time high. More people are stuck with mortgages that are more than the value of their house because of the crashed value of housing.

So what does Obamination do, he looks the other way, and brings the top CEO's into his inner circle of advisers.
So you agree that government is necessary to keep big business in line.

Also, making up derogatory nick names for the President does not increase the credibility of your arguments. But, you are right about the magnitude of this mortgage crisis. People were fed a line about how great these no interest, no money down, and ARM products were and went for it. I have purchased five homes in the past 15 years and I was pushed pretty hard on a couple to buy into these "great deals". I never did though, opting to put as much money down as I could, locking in a fixed rate, and paying extra on the princple. I always stayed comfortably in the black on each house. For many of those who took the risky loan that the mortgage brokers sold just to get the best house that they couldn't afford, forclosure is the only option, which drives down the value of everyone else's property. There is plenty of blame to be spread around.

You wrote, "Libertarians want individuals to make their own decisions, not a bloated oppressive government." These individuals used their freedom to decide to buy more house than they could afford via shady loans.
"Music, the greatest good that mortals know, and all of heaven we have below." -Joseph Addison
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

When he produces a real, and I mean real paper, birth certificate, I will acknowledge him as a real president. What he produced is a photo of a scanned copy of a poorly forged document, with most forgery experts finding on average 27 errors.

I will not buy the lies this man in the White House tells, nor do I buy the lies this government tells daily.

This government is largely to blame for the mortgage banking crisis, with their creation of Fredie Mac and Fannie Mae. They are a government created corporations that encouraged banks and mortgage companies to push these fraudulent loans that created the toxic assets, that crashed the housing market and led to the mortgage crisis.

They have had to have been bailed out with billions of our tax dollars, and now both are bankrupt again. They want another multi billion dollar bailout. When will someone stop this madness in Washington?

The question is, can government be used to go after crimes committed by government?
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

undercoverjoe wrote: If you want to keep getting personal, go for it.
You're right, it's not like you'd ever do anything like that:

"Dude, these liberals would line up to eat his shit as ice cream"
"Songy, you have earned you former title, King o Spin again."
"Guess Kenyan ass lickers can't read English."
"Bill must be a racist, using his own logic."
"Except for Bill, who has no black musicians in his band, even though he plays "black" music, the blues."
"But calling Ron Paul and libertarians racist, you are calling me and others racist. Why are you getting so personal?"
"Your rants are pointless and directionless, as pointed out by another recently."
"Incoherent rant."
"You are getting like Johnny, accusing people of saying things they never had posted. The people I would like to discriminate against are liberals. I would oppress them quite a lot, out of existence if possible."
"Was there an extra dose of smarmy in your wheaties today?"
"If smarmy pricks like you were all gone, the world would be a much better place."
"Smarmy, condescending prick is exactly right."
"Smug, ingratiating, false earnestness, low sleazy taste.....yes that is what I meant. So when smarmy, condescending, lying, government welfare bums like are gone, the world will be a much better place."
"Are you on some strong drugs now? Has logic and reality totally left your universe?"
"Then he wonders why so many here claim his posts are directionless and pointless."
"Johnny is the smartest person he knows. He does not like it when named are being called, but he insults everyone all the time. He will never answer a direct question. He "reads" all kinds of things into your posts that you never said, and then he insults you about things not posted.
He makes up sources for your information, and then insults you for your sources, even thought he was the one who made it up. He wears out his hand patting himself on the back because in his own strange world, he always thinks he is winning. His posts reek with conceited, insulting, condescending and arrogant attitudes. I am just the one to post this, many, many on here think it. You should hear what is said about him."
"Are you trying your best to prove your are an idiot even though we already ascertain that it is so?"
"Because Bill rants on about something 100,000,000 times does not make it true."
"My life is fine thank you, at least I am not on government welfare." (That was especially funny, I'm not on any govt program, and never insinuated that I was, it was "mistakenly assumed.")
Then it went nuclear:
"I think the best example of your smarmy, snarky, its all about me posts was when JP was losing his job at his former radio show. Most RPers were commiserating with Jim about losing his job, keep your chin up kind of posts until you chimed in. You had to make the thread about how great your are. You went on to say how you got Jim his job in the first place. How arrogant. Who cares if that happened or not? That was not the time to shine your own apple." Very much relevant to racism and libertarianism, no? Maybe a chance to ingratiate yourself and end one of my friendships? That's not personal at all, is it?
Now back to Joe:
"Many people noticed how callow that post was, and said, yep, that is just johnny, little prick with the huge ego, getting all the attention back to him."
"My life is fine thank you, at least I am not on government welfare. No wonder you are such a government fascist, you need that ride in the cart and need others to pull it. "
"So why did you bring the spotlight back to you on a thread about JP losing his job? How self centered and smarmy, so typically you."
"If you still have the same political view as an immature child, well what does that say about your politics and say about you?"
"If you have not changed your viewpoint about something since you were an immature child, maybe you should." (to Bill)
"It makes some sense in Bill's world, ruin the American economy and defeat the white guy racist plan to buy up all the Dennys."
"You have posted that you get the earned income tax credit. That is straight government welfare, a check given to you, not a refund of overpayment of taxes. I have never received this, but I have paid for your gummint cheese. " (Joe can remember that I got an earned income tax credit 3 years ago, but not that I pulled the rug out from under him on misinformation he posted 2 weeks ago. :lol: )
"Never considered you a friend, no respect was ever offered. I know a blow hard asshole when I meet one. Oh, just so you know, when I use the runt word, I am referring to your mental capacity."
"Its your god, your messiah, so you take whatever he says as gospel. We all knows he lies just as often as you do."
"If you want to keep getting personal, go for it. You are becoming a joke on here and many had their eyes opened to the bitterness in your comments. A lot of us like political discussions, but yours are full of insults trying to belittle both the content and the poster. Who the fuck are you to even try to insult someone? You are pretty much the dictionary definition of nobody. Keep on posting with your usual bitterness. You show more and more people here your true nature."
"You need to stop taking the LSD first thing on Sunday mornings and posting on RP."
"You are becoming a joke on here and many had their eyes opened to the bitterness in your comments. A lot of us like political discussions, but yours are full of insults trying to belittle both the content and the poster. Who the fuck are you to even try to insult someone? You are pretty much the dictionary definition of nobody."

These are just the personal shots IN THIS THREAD.


I wear your personal attacks like a badge of honor, Joe. We all do, and your ego won't let you in on the joke. You only do it when your "points" are disproven unequivocally, or somebody insults your barking-dog "debate" skills. You get personal at the slightest provocation, and then cry foul when someone else does it, like the Palinesque mean-girl you are. All the while, criticizing the gov't that's helping you pay your ISP bill. :roll:
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

Ha ha ha ha, got some time on your hands?

Try getting a real job and pay your share of taxes instead.
User avatar
sstuckey
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Friday Dec 04, 2009
Location: Altoona

Post by sstuckey »

songsmith wrote:
sstuckey wrote:[I HAVE collected unemployment sometime during the last 2-3 years....you got something you wanna say to me about that?! Choose your words carefully here my friend...VERY CAREFULLY!!!
I don't blame you for avoiding this. You're clearly skating on thin ice with a few of the rockpagers on here.
I was away, camping. It's June in PA, and you're not that important.

Now, where was I? Oh, yeah... and this is for you AND underachieverjoe:
If you ever, in your history, got an unemployment check, you were the recipient of a gov't payment, issued by a gov't program. The Constitution does not say anywhere that you deserve it, or that the gov't must provide it, AND YET... you cashed it. Both of you are all about the horrible, fascist Big Government staying out of your lives, and Joe doesn't want his "tax dollars" going to anything he didn't pre-approve, but somehow, he's ENTITLED to sign the back of that gummint check. The big, bad government OWES him, now. Where's the big hate-speech for Unemployment Compensation? I bet it's a necessary program now, right?

Now, Junior, WHO exactly am I skating on thin ice with, on Rockpage? Who is it that still follows this thread, that now hates me, and why would I be afraid of that? Am I somehow apprehensive of YOU? Nope. Not even a little, and I've been having laughs at your expense from the get-go. Posting something inane, then that you "owned" me, is just too funny. I'd ask you to explain, again, but you can't, which adds to the giggly-ness.

Oops, gotta go. Two paragraphs is one more than any wing-nut here can absorb at a time.[/quote]

Well two things I noticed you are EXTREMELY guilty of here. Quoting people without using actual quotes. And pigeonholing people with labels. If you have a certain thought you MUST be this.....or that. If you support one idea shared by a group of people, you clearly are a member of that group. Do I think the governments job is to take care of it's people? yes to an extent. But I can also believe in the principal of "the lord helps those who helps themselves". That afore mentioned government check is MY money.....that I earned....and got some of it back. The government helped me with my OWN money until I could again help myself. Period...end of story. Now before you label me 'christian' since I did use a quote containing the words "the lord..." let me tell you I am not. But surprisingly enough I CAN and DO agree with SOME of the concepts of Christianity. Just because I personally believe the government interfered unjustly with a right I was given, doesn't mean I disagree with every aspect of the government. So quit assuming things about people and you might not rub alot of people the wrong way.

And yes I'm sure you offended many people on rockpage.....anyone who collected an unemployment check probably took great umbrage, when you basically called Joe an underachiever for, or if, he collected that check. You really need to watch how you present yourself in these discussions. It's one thing to criticize someone's stance on an argument it's something completely different when you start attacking their personal life or what they do or don't do for a living. And it's not just you that's guilty of that so don't think I'm singling you out here, Joe, and Jeff are both guilty of it as well and I'm sure both wish they could remove that particular part of their post. Point is its fun to argue and debate but let's keep it clean. And for the future don't refer to me as junior...this isn't a teenager you're talking to.

Oh and as far as the owning you? On the post you are referring to, I have YET to see ANYONE take your side. And each and everyone has taken mine. How much more owned can you get? So giggle all you want as you are giggling all alone my new friend. :lol:
f.sciarrillo
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6990
Joined: Thursday Oct 28, 2004
Location: Not here ..

Post by f.sciarrillo »

songsmith wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:There were at least 19 people indicted over the Enron financial scandal. Why has the Obamination administration failed to indict or convict a single person, despite the near collapse of the banking and mortgage industry?
That happened under the Bush Admin. Why didn't Bush prevent it in the first place? Ohhhh, the thing with Ken Lay and his campaign contributions, that's why! Also, can you establish a connection between Bush and those indictments, or did all that publicity simply force the GOV'T watchdogs in office to press charges well after the fact, to save face?
That tells you that the Bush Admin put them in jail for their crimes. What happen with the banks tells you that Obama gave them a job in the white house for their crimes. You want to talk about campaign contributions, you know the banks gave a good chunk of money to Obama. And Bush didn't know it was happening. Obama knew what was happening. He was part of the group that forced the banks to give risky loans to people who couldn't afford them.

You insist that Obama is a great guy. Tell me why so many in his party are distancing themselves from him? If you think he is going to get re-elected, then you are seriously a puppet who believes anything the white house says. Look at the stats, no President has been re-elected when the unemployment rate is above 7.2% (source CNN). The unemployment rate right now is 9.1% (Source CNN). To get it back down to 7.1% he would need to create 250,000 jobs a month for the rest of his term (Source CNN). That will not happen.
Music Rocks!
User avatar
shredder138
Platinum Member
Platinum Member
Posts: 561
Joined: Monday Jun 02, 2008
Location: Where you're not

Post by shredder138 »

undercoverjoe wrote:Ha ha ha ha, got some time on your hands?

Try getting a real job and pay your share of taxes instead.
Wow, Joe, why are you such a prick on the internetz? I'm not defending songsmith, but you guys sure do throw around a lot of insults. It's funny how just when I think there might be a mature debate going on it morphs right into romper room rants. :lol: Carry on.
____________
User avatar
sstuckey
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Friday Dec 04, 2009
Location: Altoona

Post by sstuckey »

shredder138 wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Ha ha ha ha, got some time on your hands?

Try getting a real job and pay your share of taxes instead.
Wow, Joe, why are you such a prick on the internetz? I'm not defending songsmith, but you guys sure do throw around a lot of insults. It's funny how just when I think there might be a mature debate going on it morphs right into romper room rants. :lol: Carry on.
Yeah Joe, this is what I meant man. Let's try and just stick to the issues. Personal attacks have no place in political debates. Romper room! ha ha ha I liked that.
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

sstuckey wrote:
shredder138 wrote:
undercoverjoe wrote:Ha ha ha ha, got some time on your hands?

Try getting a real job and pay your share of taxes instead.
Wow, Joe, why are you such a prick on the internetz? I'm not defending songsmith, but you guys sure do throw around a lot of insults. It's funny how just when I think there might be a mature debate going on it morphs right into romper room rants. :lol: Carry on.
Yeah Joe, this is what I meant man. Let's try and just stick to the issues. Personal attacks have no place in political debates. Romper room! ha ha ha I liked that.
I love debating political ideas. But when one particular person insults you with every post, over and over again, and another was calling me a racist, I reached the boiling point. I am no longer going to sit by as he insults anyone who has a different political take than him.

Why did he jump all over your right to gamble on the internet? And insult you many times as he did. He did not argue the pros and cons of internet gambling, he just belittled your right to do something.
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

I could do no better than to have everyone listen to Ron Paul, this morning on CNN.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPbAqzMo ... e=youtu.be
User avatar
sstuckey
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 485
Joined: Friday Dec 04, 2009
Location: Altoona

Post by sstuckey »

undercoverjoe wrote:
sstuckey wrote:
shredder138 wrote: Wow, Joe, why are you such a prick on the internetz? I'm not defending songsmith, but you guys sure do throw around a lot of insults. It's funny how just when I think there might be a mature debate going on it morphs right into romper room rants. :lol: Carry on.
Yeah Joe, this is what I meant man. Let's try and just stick to the issues. Personal attacks have no place in political debates. Romper room! ha ha ha I liked that.
I love debating political ideas. But when one particular person insults you with every post, over and over again, and another was calling me a racist, I reached the boiling point. I am no longer going to sit by as he insults anyone who has a different political take than him.

Why did he jump all over your right to gamble on the internet? And insult you many times as he did. He did not argue the pros and cons of internet gambling, he just belittled your right to do something.
Honestly Joe I have no idea why he felt the need to do it, but regardless the reason, he did it. If he agrees or disagrees with me its all good. I'll continue to argue my rights, and he's more than welcome to retort. And I'll continue to win that argument...unless it also becomes a more personal attack, in which case I'll simply ignore him.
User avatar
lonewolf
Diamond Member
Diamond Member
Posts: 6249
Joined: Thursday Sep 25, 2003
Location: Anywhere, Earth
Contact:

Post by lonewolf »

songsmith wrote:
lonewolf wrote:
Larry wrote:
It seems the majority of voters in that time saw a causality.
And this is how liberty dies...with thunderous applause.
We can't have a majority of voters running things can we? That kills liberty! LOL
You mean like a majority of voters voting to establish a national church.

Guns are dangerous, so the majority can outlaw guns?

Since the majority has deemed certain private goods & services to be good for all, they decide to make a law that requires you to buy these goods & services from an approved private vendor as a matter of citizenship. Failure to comply will result in penalties prescribed by law.

The majority decides to make a law that allows total strangers access to your home if they are in the military. While they are at it, they can just eliminate those pesky warrants...judges give them out like after dinner mints anyway, so who will mind?

The majority recognizes that a grand jury takes too long in capital cases. They decide to just skip that part and make a law to eliminate them...hell, all juries take too much time...they may as well eliminate all of them.

I hope these ridiculous notions help to illustrate the concept of mob rule and that the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a republic and was specifically conceived as a republic to prevent mob rule and tyranny by the majority.

This is because people are 98% animal and 2% human and they had to find a way to protect us from the human part.

This would have worked too, had a few socialists not found vulnerabilities in the Constitution and managed to exploit them through extortion. At that point, they may as well have just thrown the Constitution into the fire.
...Oh, the freedom of the day that yielded to no rule or time...
User avatar
Larry
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 250
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The land of Chang and Eng

Post by Larry »

undercoverjoe wrote:When he produces a real, and I mean real paper, birth certificate, I will acknowledge him as a real president. What he produced is a photo of a scanned copy of a poorly forged document, with most forgery experts finding on average 27 errors.

I will not buy the lies this man in the White House tells, nor do I buy the lies this government tells daily.

This government is largely to blame for the mortgage banking crisis, with their creation of Fredie Mac and Fannie Mae. They are a government created corporations that encouraged banks and mortgage companies to push these fraudulent loans that created the toxic assets, that crashed the housing market and led to the mortgage crisis.

They have had to have been bailed out with billions of our tax dollars, and now both are bankrupt again. They want another multi billion dollar bailout. When will someone stop this madness in Washington?

The question is, can government be used to go after crimes committed by government?
I'm confused - http://www.therightperspective.org/2011 ... a-birther/
"Music, the greatest good that mortals know, and all of heaven we have below." -Joseph Addison
Banned
Posts: 0
Joined: Thursday Jul 18, 2024

Post by Banned »

Ron Paul has not claimed to be someone who questioned the birth certificate issue. I can be a Ron Paul fan and point out the man in the White House produced a very fraudulent document. There are still several lawsuits demanding to see the real, paper, document.

He has also said one should not believe everything this government tells you.

He also has a sign on his desk that says Don't Steal, The Government Doesn't Like Competition.

He has been a Congressman for almost 30 years. Never voted for a tax raise, never voted for a salary raise. Voted no on more spending bills than any other Congressman.
User avatar
songsmith
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 6108
Joined: Monday Dec 09, 2002
Location: The Wood of Bells

Post by songsmith »

lonewolf wrote:
songsmith wrote:[We can't have a majority of voters running things can we? That kills liberty! LOL
You mean like a majority of voters voting to establish a national church.

Guns are dangerous, so the majority can outlaw guns?

Since the majority has deemed certain private goods & services to be good for all, they decide to make a law that requires you to buy these goods & services from an approved private vendor as a matter of citizenship. Failure to comply will result in penalties prescribed by law.

The majority decides to make a law that allows total strangers access to your home if they are in the military. While they are at it, they can just eliminate those pesky warrants...judges give them out like after dinner mints anyway, so who will mind?

The majority recognizes that a grand jury takes too long in capital cases. They decide to just skip that part and make a law to eliminate them...hell, all juries take too much time...they may as well eliminate all of them.

I hope these ridiculous notions help to illustrate the concept of mob rule and that the United States is NOT a democracy, it is a republic and was specifically conceived as a republic to prevent mob rule and tyranny by the majority.

This is because people are 98% animal and 2% human and they had to find a way to protect us from the human part.

This would have worked too, had a few socialists not found vulnerabilities in the Constitution and managed to exploit them through extortion. At that point, they may as well have just thrown the Constitution into the fire.
A majority still decides elections, and a majority decided to forego conservatism in 2006, and 2008. The minority then decided that the best thing for America in the Bush-recession was to not pay for what they had bought, and become suddenly thrifty, as I had predicted. At this point in the Obama administration, the right has done nothing to help anyone except tax breaks for the upper-class, which they held the middle-class financially responsible for. There is still no viable GOP jobs plan, their "fix" for SocSec and Medicare is to destroy both or turn them over to corporate rule, Wall St. continues to earn record profits raping the American economy, speculators are hyperinflating the price of everything from gasoline to rice thanks to deregulation, and corporations now have the same (or more) rights as citizens without any of the responsibility (like taxes).
You are correct that we live in a representative republic. We elected a president with a majority, to represent us. Delegitimizing that representative delegitimizes that majority. Any power you deny that president, you deny the majority, against their will. Now, tell me, why did the minority form a Tea Party? To undermine the representative elected by the majority. If, by some miracle or dirty trick, the GOP takes the presidency in 2012, will you support the existence of a left-wing extremist group bent upon the removal of the then-president?
Post Reply