or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party - Page 3

post #81 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

Obamacare is the federal version of Romneycare.

 

Some Republicans were for an individual mandate before they were against it.

 

I don't trust ANYONE who believes it is okay to use government to force peaceful people to do what he/she wants.

 

1.  That is false.  It does include similarities such as the mandate.  But it's vastly different in size and scope, as well as what it accomplishes.  Secondly, the "federal" part is the issue.  The states have a right to neat such programs (whether or not we happen to a agree).  The federal government should not.  

 

2.  True.  

 

3.  I think that's too idealistic.  While I realize you don't mean it this way, it really just comes off as a platitude.  Government uses force all the time.  That's what taxation is.  That's what laws are.  The question is how much force and when it is applied, and for what reasons.  We need taxes of some kind, because we need government of some kind.  So we're always going to have force, unless you are arguing for pure anarchy?  I doubt you are. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #82 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

We need taxes of some kind, because we need government of some kind.

 

Back to begging the question again I see.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So we're always going to have force, unless you are arguing for pure anarchy?

 

And what would be wrong with that?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #83 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Back to begging the question again I see.

 

 

 

And what would be wrong with that?

 

Oh, stop.  Do you disagree we need (or should have) government of some kind?  Do you disagree we need some form of taxation to fund it?  As for anarchy, yeah...I'm aware of your fondness for it.  I was asking jazz.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #84 of 208
Anarchy has been given a negative connotation by those who wish to retain power and dominion over others.

What's wrong with advocating a voluntary society - a society based on voluntary exchange and agreements between consenting individuals? What's wrong with saying we should be free from the coercion and violence of a group of individuals calling themselves a government?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #85 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Oh, stop.

 

Stop being so dismissive.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Do you disagree we need (or should have) government of some kind?  Do you disagree we need some form of taxation to fund it?

 

Yes. Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

As for anarchy, yeah...I'm aware of your fondness for it.  I was asking jazz.  

 

Avoiding the question?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #86 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Stop being so dismissive.

 

 

 

Yes. Yes.

 

 

 

Avoiding the question?

 

So, you disagree with need/should have a government of some kind.  All I can say is I disagree in the strongest possible terms.  As for your question, no...I was not avoiding it.  I was simply not even asking you directly.  But, no matter.  I believe we should have a government that gets its power from the consent of governed.  This government should benefit the public good in certain ways, such as: 

 

Defense

Infrastructure (interstates, rail, etc)

Public services like police, fire, public safety 

Basic protections and standards on consumer products, the environment, business, etc.  

International relations and commerce 

A basic and temporary social safety net 

Care of those who are unable to care for themselves

National Parks, Public Lands, etc.

 

 

Government can be a place where the citizenry comes together (directly and/or through their reps) to make decisions that benefit the public, pass necessary laws, treaties, etc.  All of these activities require revenue from some source.  This means taxation of some kind.  Granted, our current federal government goes WAY beyond the above, and is clearly not governing with our consent.  Current taxes are FAR too high.  But that doesn't meant the entire concept of government of any kind is the problem.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #87 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

So, you disagree with need/should have a government of some kind. 

 

Yes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

All I can say is I disagree in the strongest possible terms.

 

I know, you're a statist.

 

P.S. Truth be told in practical reality I would be a "minarchist" if I had any assurance or confidence that the ("night watchman") state that was created could actually be kept in check. But I have less and less confidence of that every day, the more history I read, the more I observe. There seems to be no evidence that it ever has been or can be. Eventually those who desire power over others are attracted to this entity which appears to have the legitimacy to use power over people, and they co-opt it for their own goals. Then we get to where we are today.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I believe we should have a government that gets its power from the consent of governed.

 

Well, if that really happened, I might agree.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This government should benefit the public good in certain ways, such as: 

 

Defense

Infrastructure (interstates, rail, etc)

Public services like police, fire, public safety 

Basic protections and standards on consumer products, the environment, business, etc.  

International relations and commerce 

A basic and temporary social safety net 

Care of those who are unable to care for themselves

National Parks, Public Lands, etc.

 

About the only one of those I might, maybe agree with would be national defense. Every single one of those others can be provided for better through the private sector.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Government can be a place where the citizenry comes together (directly and/or through their reps) to make decisions that benefit the public, pass necessary laws, treaties, etc.

 

By there is nothing, in my mind, that indicates that it must be the place where people come together to accomplish things. It turns out to be the place where some people come together to make all people do what the some people think they should do. NOTE: We're not talking about the basic protection of life, liberty and property (which, incidentally, government regularly seems to fail at by directly violating itself anyway.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

But that doesn't meant the entire concept of government of any kind is the problem.   

 

No, it doesn't mean that. But it does't much help the argument in favor.

 

I'm betting that about 90% of what the collective governments of the US (federal, state and local) currently do could (much more effectively, efficiently, affordably and with greater quality and choice) be done through the private sector and that everyone would be far better off, wealthier, healthier, happier and more prosperous.

 

Well, maybe not everyone. The ruling elite would be less happy and less wealthy. And those who insist on using government as their tool for social control would certainly be less happy, daily bemoaning how everyone isn't doing things the way they think they should be doing them and everyone isn't conforming to their values but instead following their own individual values.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #88 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

About the only one of those I might, maybe agree with would be national defense. Every single one of those others can be provided for better through the private sector.

 

I would agree that the overwhelming majority of purchases by the government should be provided by the private sector (i.e. contracted out by tender.)

 

 

However, there is a clear and necessary role for government in the management of those areas. If anything, only the basic safety net/care for the disadvantaged should be removed from that list because charities (not the private sector) do it far better and cheaper.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #89 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank777 View Post

However, there is a clear and necessary role for government in the management of those areas.

 

I disagree that this is clear (or necessary) at all. I think that presumes a lot and almost none of it good. Chiefly that individuals (and groups of individuals) are incapable of privately managing their own affairs and, worse, that some set of people, who are primarily skilled at getting elected (or getting hired by those who got elected), are actually more capable of managing these affairs. Another assumption is that these politicians (and bureaucrats) actually have the requisite knowledge to do this managing well. This is what Hayek talked about in "The Fatal Conceit".

 

Additional problems with government "management" of things is that a) it becomes politicized and management decisions are made for political reasons, influenced by those manipulating and coaxing the politicians (and bureaucrats) doing this managing, or b) it becomes effectively run (completely) by government altogether.

 

Government may have a role in society. I'll concede this as a possibility. However, it appears to inevitably lead to government (or various special interest groups in the guise of government) attempting to take over all societal roles (family, business, church, voluntary organizations, charitable organizations and, finally, individual decision-making.) Thus the Government* (the State) must be seriously hemmed in and restricted. If we grant that this entity called "the Government" or "the State" is an entity granted with certain "rights" or "privileges" or "authority" to initiate force against some people, then it stands to moral reason that this use of force ought to be carefully guarded and strongly limited to only the most obvious moral uses (i.e., dealing with situations that involve the threat to someone's life, liberty and property) and should not be allowed to be expanded for the use of whatever whims the politicians and populous want this week or this year. These limits appear to be impossible.

 

My own belief is in, at most, the so-called "night watchman" state. That entity whose only real responsibility is to safeguard the life, liberty and property (this could also include fraud) of its citizens if and when they are unable to do so for themselves (allowing self defense when possible) and, possibly, adjudicating disputes arising from alleged violations or infringements by one party onto another party's basic rights of life, liberty and property.

 

*Note I have been referring to Government (big G) as a specific entity alternately referred to as "the State"...not government in the more broad an general sense than can and must exist in various levels and forms including, perhaps most importantly, self-government...as in individuals governing their own conduct. I'd also note that as we have more (big-G) Government (State), we, inevitably, has less liberty. As we have less liberty we have people who become less willing or even capable of governing themselves. In other words, liberty is a pre-condition of virtue and moral conduct. It cannot be any other way.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #90 of 208
Thread Starter 

 

 

Quote:
I know, you're a statist.

 

That isn't true.  I simply believe that government as I've described can exist.  

 

 

 

Quote:
P.S. Truth be told in practical reality I would be a "minarchist" if I had any assurance or confidence that the ("night watchman") state that was created could actually be kept in check. But I have less and less confidence of that every day, the more history I read, the more I observe. There seems to be no evidence that it ever has been or can be. Eventually those who desire power over others are attracted to this entity which appears to have the legitimacy to use power over people, and they co-opt it for their own goals. Then we get to where we are today.

 

 

 

 

Quote:

About the only one of those I might, maybe agree with would be national defense. Every single one of those others can be provided for better through the private sector.

 


I don't think so.  What about, say, the FAA?  Building and planning the Interstate Highway System?  National Parks? Federal Deposit Insurance?  International relations? Locally, what about professional police and fire protection?  I realize you'll dismiss all of those.  The truth is that while you go so far as to accuse me of being a statist, you are actually adhering to a rigid, anti-goverment ideology yourself. 

 

 

 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #91 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

That isn't true.  I simply believe that government as I've described can exist.

 

Sure it is. Look it up.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

What about, say, the FAA?

 

Maybe.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Building and planning the Interstate Highway System?  National Parks? Federal Deposit Insurance? International relations? Locally, what about professional police and fire protection?

 

Definitely all doable privately...and certainly better and cheaper.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I realize you'll dismiss all of those.

 

I simply believe they can all be done privately.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

The truth is that while you go so far as to accuse me of being a statist.

 

I simply stated a description of your philosophy based on the body of your posts. If you don't like being called a statist, then don't act like one.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

you are actually adhering to a rigid, anti-goverment ideology yourself.

 

Yes I am.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #92 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

 

Quote:
Sure it is. Look it up

 

Look up that I'm a statist? Uh, no.  

.

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

Maybe.

 

 

 

Definitely all doable privately...and certainly better and cheaper.

 

 

 

I simply believe they can all be done privately.

 

I really doubt the interstate highway system would have every been built without government.  How would national parks be designated and maintained?  How would we interact with foreign nations?  Your position sounds great.  But it's totally unrealistic in practice.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

I simply stated a description of your philosophy based on the body of your posts. If you don't like being called a statist, then don't act like one.

 

 

I'm not a statist.  You, however, are acting like a few things that come to mind.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:
Yes I am.

 

 

So you're an extremist clinging to a radical ideology.  Glad we cleared that up.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #93 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
Look up that I'm a statist? Uh, no.

 

Look up the definition of statism. The very thing you have listed (and support) here (not to mention others in the past) fit that definition perfectly.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
I really doubt the interstate highway system would have every been built without government.

 

I'm sure you do. I don't doubt that privately built, funded and operated transportation services would have been created to meet the needs of the people of this nation. Whether it took the exact form it is now is certainly debatable.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
How would national parks be designated and maintained?

 

First there have been and are examples of private (yet publicly accessible) preserves similar to the national parks. Beyond that, you beg the question here as to whether these are even a necessity.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
How would we interact with foreign nations?

 

We? Well, I do't know how you would interact with people from foreign nations, but I would interact with them in the same way I do with anyone else.

 

(NOTE: In addition to being a statist, you also appear to be a collectivist.)

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
Your position sounds great. But it's totally unrealistic in practice.

 

Thanks for your opinion.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
I'm not a statist.

 

Yes you are. Look up the definition.

 

I'm not saying this to be insulting. I'm simply describing what you are based on what you are advocating.

 

In contrast I would describe myself in the following ways:

 

volntaryist (vs. coercivist) - I advocate that all transaction and interactions (or as many as is humanly possible) be conducted voluntarily

decentralist (vs. centralist) - I advocate decision-making be decentralized as far as possibly (ideally to the individual level)

individualist (vs. collectivist) - I consider the individual to be higher order than some vague, ever-changing collective who presumes to have greater rights

anarchist (vs. statist) - I believe that there can be civilization and society and peace and prosperity with the state and oppose state control of many or most things

 

Am I an extremist in these things? Compared to how most people today think, yes! But I'm not ashamed of that.

 

If you don't like being called out as a statist or a collectivist, if you consider these terms to be offensive, then stop acting like those things. If you continue to act like those things, then don't be surprised (or offended) when someone makes the observation.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
So you're an extremist clinging to a radical ideology.  Glad we cleared that up.

 

I see what you're trying to do there. I'm suppose that probably makes you feel better about yourself.

 

It is true I have admitted that my views are extreme and radical by today's current standards. This, of course, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just that large number of people don't see it the same way I do. You, however, are attempting to use this in a pejorative and insulting manner in order to paint me as irrational or foolish or unrealistic. Nice try.


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/2/12 at 1:08pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #94 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:

Look up the definition of statism. The very thing you have listed (and support) here (not to mention others in the past) fit that definition perfectly.

 

 

 

I know the definition.  The problem is that you don't.  One is not either a statist or anarchist.  There are degrees, as with most things:

 

Quote:
 "Limited governmentwelfare state, and other options make up the middle territory of the scale of statism.[14][15] Some anarchists use the term statist in a derogatory sense"

 

Hmmm.  

 

 

Quote:
I'm sure you do. I don't doubt that privately built, funded and operated transportation services would have been created to meet the needs of the people of this nation. Whether it took the exact form it is now is certainly debatable.

 

You have no doubt, but you also have no proof.  That's because you conveniently believe that which fits your worldview.  The reality is that the IHS wouldn't have been built in any form even approximating what we have now, because the private sector had no incentive to build it.  A national, coordinated, standardized network of roads?  Come on.  It can be contracted to the private sector and managed by the private sector once complete in some cases.  But overall, it's an example of something government should do.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

First there have been and are examples of private (yet publicly accessible) preserves similar to the national parks. Beyond that, you beg the question here as to whether these are even a necessity.

 

 

Excellent..let's see those examples then.  Beyond that, I never claimed they were a necessity.  But what if they are desirable?  Let me guess..we'll let the private sector purchase and maintain lands we wish to preserve, all according to profit incentive.  Surely you can see this wouldn't happen.  

 

 

 

 

Quote:

We? Well, I do't know how you would interact with people from foreign nations, but I would interact with them in the same way I do with anyone else.

 

(NOTE: In addition to being a statist, you also appear to be a collectivist.)

 

So here we have this big land mass with a huge population.  It has no leaders of any kind.  It has no borders, because borders require government.  It's people only interact with other nations as individuals and members of private corporations.  No one tries to attack it, steal it's resources, or harm it's people.  And if they do, profit-seeking corporations step in.  Got it.  You're straight up delusional.    

 

 

 

Quote:
Thanks for your opinion.

 

This line is getting a little old.  It's not clever.  It's simply evasive.  

 

 

Quote:

Yes you are. Look up the definition.

 

If you don't like being called out as a statist or a collectivist, if you consider these terms to be offensive, then stop acting like those things. If you continue to act like those things, then don't be surprised (or offended) when someone makes the observation.

 

If you continue to espouse completely unrealistic, dreamworld fantasies about no government of any kind, don't be surprised when someone makes the observation.  

 

 

 

 

 

Quote:
I see what you're trying to do there. I'm suppose that probably makes you feel better about yourself.

 

I feel good about myself, thanks.  As for what I'm trying to do, that should be obvious to all.  I'm simply making it clear that you're a radical.

 

 

 

Quote:
It is true I have admitted that my views are extreme and radical by today's current standards. This, of course, doesn't mean I'm wrong. Just that large number of people don't see it the same way I do. You, however, are attempting to use this in a pejorative and insulting manner in order to paint me as irrational or foolish or unrealistic. Nice try.

 

Being radical and extreme doesn't necessarily make you wrong, irrational, foolish or unrealistic.  Your often irrational, foolish and unrealistic ideas do.   

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #95 of 208

Would you learn to quote properly! For ****'s sake!

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #96 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Would you learn to quote properly! For ****'s sake!

 

That's a pain in the ass in the new interface.  As far as I know, you have to copy each point individually when dealing with others' reply-quotes.  

 

Edit:  OK, I went into the source and fixed it.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #97 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
I know the definition.  The problem is that you don't.  One is not either a statist or anarchist.   

 

Good, then you know how your support of these things makes you one. I do know the definition and you fit it. I never claimed that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
You have no doubt, but you also have no proof.

 

So what?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
That's because you conveniently believe that which fits your worldview.

 

Says the cat calling the kettle black. lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
The reality is that the IHS wouldn't have been built in any form even approximating what we have now, because the private sector had no incentive to build it.  A national, coordinated, standardized network of roads?  Come on.  It can be contracted to the private sector and managed by the private sector once complete in some cases, but it's an example of something government should do.

 

We disagree and, as it turns out, you also have no proof of what you claim.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
Beyond that, I never claimed they were a necessity.

 

Well you implied it by your continued use of it as an example that must be done by government.

 

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
But what if they are desirable?  Let me guess..we'll let the private sector purchase and maintain lands we wish to preserve, all according to profit incentive.  Surely you can see this wouldn't happen.

 

So what if it desirable? There are lots of things that are desirable (e.g., "free" health care for everyone). It doesn't mean that the government needs to do them. I didn't even say they would be built for profit. That's another straw man.

 

Here are some not that far from you actually.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
So here we have this big land mass with a huge population.  It has no leaders of any kind.  It has no borders, because borders require government.  It's people only interact with other nations as individuals and members of private corporations.  No one tries to attack it, steal it's resources, or harm it's people.  And if they do, profit-seeking corporations step in.  Got it.  You're straight up delusional.  

 

Wow. One huge straw man and an ad hominem. You and BR should get together and share notes.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
Thanks for your opinion.

 

You're welcome!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
If you continue to espouse completely unrealistic, dreamworld fantasies about no government of any kind, don't be surprised when someone makes the observation.

 

I don't mind someone sharing their opinion that my ideas are unrealistic. Of course your opinion doesn't make it so.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
As for what I'm trying to do, that should be obvious to all.  I'm simply making it clear that you're a radical.

 

I've admitted that my views are radical compared to the currently held popular views. What's your point?

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post
 
Being radical and extreme doesn't necessarily make you wrong, irrational, foolish or unrealistic.  Your often irrational, foolish and unrealistic ideas do.   

 

Wrong. Being wrong makes me wrong. All you've done so far is express your opinion that these ideas are "irrational" "foolish" and "unrealistic." That opinion doesn't make it fact.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #98 of 208

Oh for God's sake what a stupid premise for this thread. I feel sorry for any sane people left here as it seems like there's nothing but wingnuts posting anymore. That's the main reason I don't come here much anymore. I realized I wasn't debating with people who have a good connection to reality.

 

Leave for awhile and come back and you'll see what I mean.

 

Sorry BR, Hands, marvfox or anyone else who's still lurking here who has a brain

 

It's  sad, really sad.

 

Oh well.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #99 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

I realized I wasn't debating with people who have a good connection to reality.

You were debating?

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #100 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You have no doubt, but you also have no proof.  That's because you conveniently believe that which fits your worldview.  The reality is that the IHS wouldn't have been built in any form even approximating what we have now, because the private sector had no incentive to build it.  A national, coordinated, standardized network of roads?  Come on.  It can be contracted to the private sector and managed by the private sector once complete in some cases.  But overall, it's an example of something government should do.  

 

Excellent..let's see those examples then.  Beyond that, I never claimed they were a necessity.  But what if they are desirable?  Let me guess..we'll let the private sector purchase and maintain lands we wish to preserve, all according to profit incentive.  Surely you can see this wouldn't happen.  

 

So here we have this big land mass with a huge population.  It has no leaders of any kind.  It has no borders, because borders require government.  It's people only interact with other nations as individuals and members of private corporations.  No one tries to attack it, steal it's resources, or harm it's people.  And if they do, profit-seeking corporations step in.  Got it.  You're straight up delusional.    

 

This line is getting a little old.  It's not clever.  It's simply evasive.  

 

If you continue to espouse completely unrealistic, dreamworld fantasies about no government of any kind, don't be surprised when someone makes the observation.  

 

I feel good about myself, thanks.  As for what I'm trying to do, that should be obvious to all.  I'm simply making it clear that you're a radical.

 

Being radical and extreme doesn't necessarily make you wrong, irrational, foolish or unrealistic.  Your often irrational, foolish and unrealistic ideas do.   

 

tumblr_m6l4snPjlM1qgtxw5o1_400.jpg

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #101 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Good, then you know how your support of these things makes you one. I do know the definition and you fit it. I never claimed that.

 

 

 

So what?

 

 

 

Says the cat calling the kettle black. lol.gif

 

 

 

We disagree and, as it turns out, you also have no proof of what you claim.

 

 

 

Well you implied it by your continued use of it as an example that must be done by government.

 

 

 

 

So what if it desirable? There are lots of things that are desirable (e.g., "free" health care for everyone). It doesn't mean that the government needs to do them. I didn't even say they would be built for profit. That's another straw man.

 

Here are some not that far from you actually.

 

 

 

Wow. One huge straw man and an ad hominem. You and BR should get together and share notes.

 

 

 

You're welcome!

 

 

 

I don't mind someone sharing their opinion that my ideas are unrealistic. Of course your opinion doesn't make it so.

 

 

 

I've admitted that my views are radical compared to the currently held popular views. What's your point?

 

 

 

Wrong. Being wrong makes me wrong. All you've done so far is express your opinion that these ideas are "irrational" "foolish" and "unrealistic." That opinion doesn't make it fact.

 

 

 

This is going nowhere.  You refuse to support your claims with reason, much less proof.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #102 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

 

tumblr_m6l4snPjlM1qgtxw5o1_400.jpg

 

 

I have never, ever claimed that.  I have claimed we need SOME government.  MJ disagrees, and I've opined that I think his view is nuts.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #103 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

This is going nowhere.

 

You're right. Because...

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

You refuse to support your claims with reason, much less proof.  

 

And all you're doing is spitting at the screen and pounding your fist on the table shouting "Delusional!" "Irrational!" "Foolish!" "Extremist!" "Radical!" "Unrealistic!" "Fantasy!" (not to mention engaging in repeated fallacies.)

 

What would be the point in presenting you with any logical reasoning when you appear to deal in nothing but logical fallacies and disparaging, unsupportable comments like these?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #104 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

...and I've opined that I think his view is nuts.  

 

Says the man accusing others of lacking and reasoned arguments. lol.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #105 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh for God's sake what a stupid premise for this thread. I feel sorry for any sane people left here as it seems like there's nothing but wingnuts posting anymore. That's the main reason I don't come here much anymore. I realized I wasn't debating with people who have a good connection to reality.

 

Leave for awhile and come back and you'll see what I mean.

 

Sorry BR, Hands, marvfox or anyone else who's still lurking here who has a brain

 

It's  sad, really sad.

 

Oh well.

 

Let me see if I understand this.  We have documented proof that Obama was a registered member of the New Party, which was a clearly and proudly socialist.  Moreover, Obama's campaign unequivocally denied the same in 2008.  Hmmm.  And this is a "stupid" premise for a thread.  If the media were fair, we'd see a headline read "Obama was Member of Socialist Party, Campaign Lied in 2008."  Stupid, indeed, jimmac.  

 

As for not posting here anymore, I seriously doubt it's about your perception regarding the quality of debate.  You've never been interested in real debate.  You don't support your arguments.  You have demonstrated a clear lack of reasoning skills and an inability to communicate your point clearly in writing.  No jimmac, I think it's about the fact that many of the lefty loons are now gone or far less active.  It's just not fun for you anymore, because few people agree with your leftism.  I suspect you considered yourself part of Team Lefty here for years.  Many of these liberal posters were intelligent and argued aggressively.  The fact that you happened to agree on certain issues gave you a sense of belonging to their little group and allowed you to team up on conservatives.   But now the game is over.  The Left's fantasy and failure of our Community Organizer in Chief have been laid bare.  Your allies are gone.  

 

Man, that's gotta suck. 

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #106 of 208
Quote:

Originally Posted by SDW2001 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Oh for God's sake what a stupid premise for this thread. I feel sorry for any sane people left here as it seems like there's nothing but wingnuts posting anymore. That's the main reason I don't come here much anymore. I realized I wasn't debating with people who have a good connection to reality.

 

Leave for awhile and come back and you'll see what I mean.

 

Sorry BR, Hands, marvfox or anyone else who's still lurking here who has a brain

 

It's  sad, really sad.

 

Oh well.

 

Let me see if I understand this.  We have documented proof that Obama was a registered member of the New Party, which was a clearly and proudly socialist.  Moreover, Obama's campaign unequivocally denied the same in 2008.  Hmmm.  And this is a "stupid" premise for a thread.  If the media were fair, we'd see a headline read "Obama was Member of Socialist Party, Campaign Lied in 2008."  Stupid, indeed, jimmac.  

 

As for not posting here anymore, I seriously doubt it's about your perception regarding the quality of debate.  You've never been interested in real debate.  You don't support your arguments.  You have demonstrated a clear lack of reasoning skills and an inability to communicate your point clearly in writing.  No jimmac, I think it's about the fact that many of the lefty loons are now gone or far less active.  It's just not fun for you anymore, because few people agree with your leftism.  I suspect you considered yourself part of Team Lefty here for years.  Many of these liberal posters were intelligent and argued aggressively.  The fact that you happened to agree on certain issues gave you a sense of belonging to their little group and allowed you to team up on conservatives.   But now the game is over.  The Left's fantasy and failure of our Community Organizer in Chief have been laid bare.  Your allies are gone.  

 

Man, that's gotta suck. 

 So you guys spamed a section of a once nice forum to death ( and no I don't mean totally liberal by saying it was nice ). As far as my allies being gone the conservative wingnuts simply made it miserable for anyone else and they went to other places that deal with reality. Not extreme partisan stupidity. You're mistaking victory for apathy for this little place. As for not supporting my arguments well that's just an untruth ( a lie if you want to see it that way I think of it more of an extreme blindspot ) as I have shown many times but you refuse to see. Blindspot. But this thread is really sad SDW. So now you guys are king of this tiny mole hill. Do you really think it will matter elsewhere?  If I were you I wouldn't hold your breath. Have fun calling white black in your little hole here but a little bit of caution don't try your brand of altered vision out in the real world. You won't find it as friendly there. By the way you guys were accusing Obama for being resposible for high gas prices. Using that same logic are you guys now praising him for them going lower fast? Just a thought to leave you with.


Edited by jimmac - 7/4/12 at 9:15am
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #107 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 So you guys spamed a section of a once nice forum to death ( and no I don't mean totally liberal by saying it was nice ). As far as my allies being gone the conservative wingnuts simply made it miserable for anyone else and they went to other places that deal with reality. Not extreme partisan stupidity. You're mistaking victory for apathy for this little place. As for not supporting my arguments well that's just an untruth ( a lie if you want to see it that way I think of it more of an extreme blindspot ) as I have shown many times but you refuse to see. Blindspot. But this thread is really sad SDW. So now you guys are king of this tiny mole hill. Do you really think it will matter elsewhere?  If I were you I wouldn't hold your breath. Have fun calling white black in your little hole here but a little bit of caution don't try your brand of altered vision out in the real world. You won't find it as friendly there. By the way you guys were accusing Obama for being resposible for high gas prices. Using that same logic are you guys now praising him for them going lower fast? Just a thought to leave you with.

 

And, yet, you came back. I can't help but wonder why. Perhaps to show off your faux intellectual and moral superiority?


Edited by MJ1970 - 7/4/12 at 3:50pm

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #108 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 So you guys spamed a section of a once nice forum to death ( and no I don't mean totally liberal by saying it was nice ). As far as my allies being gone the conservative wingnuts simply made it miserable for anyone else and they went to other places that deal with reality. Not extreme partisan stupidity. You're mistaking victory for apathy for this little place. As for not supporting my arguments well that's just an untruth ( a lie if you want to see it that way I think of it more of an extreme blindspot ) as I have shown many times but you refuse to see. Blindspot. But this thread is really sad SDW. So now you guys are king of this tiny mole hill. Do you really think it will matter elsewhere?  If I were you I wouldn't hold your breath. Have fun calling white black in your little hole here but a little bit of caution don't try your brand of altered vision out in the real world. You won't find it as friendly there. By the way you guys were accusing Obama for being resposible for high gas prices. Using that same logic are you guys now praising him for them going lower fast? Just a thought to leave you with.

 

1.  No one is spamming.  Well, almost no one ;)  

 

2.  You don't support your opinions with reason and logic, much less facts.  This is, ironically, well-documented.  

 

3.  This thread is about documented proof Obama was a member of a socialist political party, and the fact his campaign lied about in 2008.  That's correct...the President of the United States was a member of a socialist party.  And you don't care.  

 

4. You seem to be the one concerned about being king of "the mole hill."  The rest of us just keep discussing.  Speaking of which, you really have no idea WTF you're talking about.  The conservatives and libertarians who remain actually have had some very intense debates.  That's because we debate ideas as opposed to platitudes.  Jazz, MJ and I have all ripped into each other pretty harshly.  But unlike you, we're not blindly partisan and don't accuse each other of being such.  

 

5.  Gas prices:  My claim was that Obama's policies were at least partially responsible for their rise.  Despite them being somewhat lower, that is still true.  Prices have not "fallen fast."  They'v come down a bit, which is good.  Gas remains well over $3 a gallon in most places.  Much of that is attributable to Obama's polices, from energy to those that contribute to geopolitical instability.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #109 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

 So you guys spammed a section of a once nice forum to death ( and no I don't mean totally liberal by saying it was nice ). As far as my allies being gone the conservative wingnuts simply made it miserable for anyone else and they went to other places that deal with reality. Not extreme partisan stupidity. You're mistaking victory for apathy for this little place. As for not supporting my arguments well that's just an untruth ( a lie if you want to see it that way I think of it more of an extreme blindspot ) as I have shown many times but you refuse to see. Blindspot. But this thread is really sad SDW. So now you guys are king of this tiny mole hill. Do you really think it will matter elsewhere?  If I were you I wouldn't hold your breath. Have fun calling white black in your little hole here but a little bit of caution don't try your brand of altered vision out in the real world. You won't find it as friendly there. By the way you guys were accusing Obama for being responsible for high gas prices. Using that same logic are you guys now praising him for them going lower fast? Just a thought to leave you with.

 

1.  No one is spamming.  Well, almost no one ;)  

 

2.  You don't support your opinions with reason and logic, much less facts.  This is, ironically, well-documented.  

 

3.  This thread is about documented proof Obama was a member of a socialist political party, and the fact his campaign lied about in 2008.  That's correct...the President of the United States was a member of a socialist party.  And you don't care.  

 

4. You seem to be the one concerned about being king of "the mole hill."  The rest of us just keep discussing.  Speaking of which, you really have no idea WTF you're talking about.  The conservatives and libertarians who remain actually have had some very intense debates.  That's because we debate ideas as opposed to platitudes.  Jazz, MJ and I have all ripped into each other pretty harshly.  But unlike you, we're not blindly partisan and don't accuse each other of being such.  

 

5.  Gas prices:  My claim was that Obama's policies were at least partially responsible for their rise.  Despite them being somewhat lower, that is still true.  Prices have not "fallen fast."  They've come down a bit, which is good.  Gas remains well over $3 a gallon in most places.  Much of that is attributable to Obama's polices, from energy to those that contribute to geopolitical instability.  

1. The spamming has been by the conservative element almost exclusively. People like me just got tired and realized there were better places to go to talk ( and yes you can go and say " Yadda, yadda, yadda you came back "  but really it's out of nostalgia as I really don't spend much time here anymore since mainly only one side is being represented it's a huge waste of time ).

 

2. I have supported my facts when in a serious debate with you ( I just gave up because posting proof does no good as you ignore it ). You've even been corrected by other people than myself on this issue when you tried to claim otherwise.

 

3.  The question isn't that I don't care it should be why should I care?

 

4. Given that the clear agenda by the conservative element here has been to take over this part of the forum ( started by trumptman ) I'd say I'm not the one concerned by being king of the mole hill. And it really is that. This used to a be a nice place where people ( not just conservatives like mj, trumpy, SDW, and jazzy can argue with themselves ). The other side of things used to get fair play. However you've accomplished your goal and taken over this forum ( not the country I'm glad to say hence the " Mole hill " ).

 

5. Gas prices just a few months ago were over almost a dollar higher ( on average ) than they are now. Last month it cost me $50.00 and over to fill up my little Mustang now it's nearing 10 dollars less. I'd call that fast and yet you're not acknowledging that or using the same logic when looking at it. Here's your " Proof "  http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=3

And this is happening at a time when it usually goes up. Here's the 12 months to compare http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=12

 

6. And lastly there is much documentation of all of this. One just has to look back through the years.


Edited by jimmac - 7/5/12 at 1:45pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #110 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. The spamming has been by the conservative element almost exclusively.

 

That's certainly not true no matter how you define "spam." And I'm not even a conservative.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. ( and yes you can go and say " Yadda, yadda, yadda you came back "  but really it's out of nostalgia...

 

You may want to look up the definition of "nostalgia." lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

2. I have supported my facts when in a serious debate with you ( I just gave up because posting proof does no good as you ignore it ).

 

Never that I've ever seen.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

4. Given that the clear agenda by the conservative element here has been to take over this part of the forum ( started by trumptman ) I'd say I'm not the one concerned by being king of the mole hill. And it really is that. This used to a be a nice place where people ( not just conservatives like mj, trumpy, SDW, and jazzy can argue with themselves ). The other side of things used to get fair play. However you've accomplished your goal and taken over this forum ( not the country I'm glad to say hence the mole hill ).

 

First, I'm not a "conservative." Second, the "other side" got plenty of "fair play" when they actually played fair which was rare from what I could tell. I seriously doubt anyone had any goal to "take over" the forum. That's just stupid.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

5. Gas prices just a few months ago were almost two dollars higher ( on average ) than they are now. Last month it cost me $50.00 and over to fill up my little Mustang now it's nearing 10 dollars less. I'd call that fast and yet you're not acknowledging that or using the same logic when looking at it.

 

That your time horizon is incredibly short is no real surprise. When looking at a month we see a drop of around 5-6%. However, this is nothing when we take a longer time horizon where prices are up almost 30%.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #111 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. The spamming has been by the conservative element almost exclusively.

 

That's certainly not true no matter how you define "spam." And I'm not even a conservative.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. ( and yes you can go and say " Yadda, yadda, yadda you came back "  but really it's out of nostalgia...

 

You may want to look up the definition of "nostalgia." lol.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

2. I have supported my facts when in a serious debate with you ( I just gave up because posting proof does no good as you ignore it ).

 

Never that I've ever seen.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

4. Given that the clear agenda by the conservative element here has been to take over this part of the forum ( started by trumptman ) I'd say I'm not the one concerned by being king of the mole hill. And it really is that. This used to a be a nice place where people ( not just conservatives like mj, trumpy, SDW, and jazzy can argue with themselves ). The other side of things used to get fair play. However you've accomplished your goal and taken over this forum ( not the country I'm glad to say hence the mole hill ).

 

First, I'm not a "conservative." Second, the "other side" got plenty of "fair play" when they actually played fair which was rare from what I could tell. I seriously doubt anyone had any goal to "take over" the forum. That's just stupid.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

5. Gas prices just a few months ago were almost two dollars higher ( on average ) than they are now. Last month it cost me $50.00 and over to fill up my little Mustang now it's nearing 10 dollars less. I'd call that fast and yet you're not acknowledging that or using the same logic when looking at it.

 

That your time horizon is incredibly short is no real surprise. When looking at a month we see a drop of around 5-6%. However, this is nothing when we take a longer time horizon where prices are up almost 30%.

And you.  Mr. "  I won't tie myself down to too much of a position as people might label me ". You are a conservative. Ask any liberal here.

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #112 of 208

Aaaand welcome to another episode of "Let's Talk to a Brick Wall"! Let's see if it the conversation goes anywhere this time!

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #113 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

Aaaand welcome to another episode of "Let's Talk to a Brick Wall"! Let's see if it the conversation goes anywhere this time!

Yes the real trick is knowing which side the brick wall's on. lol.gif

 

Unfortunately this site doesn't offer anything other than a laughing emoticon ( another reason I don't like the new format ).

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #114 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. The spamming has been by the conservative element almost exclusively. People like me just got tired and realized there were better places to go to talk ( and yes you can go and say " Yadda, yadda, yadda you came back "  but really it's out of nostalgia as I really don't spend much time here anymore since mainly only one side is being represented it's a huge waste of time ).

 

2. I have supported my facts when in a serious debate with you ( I just gave up because posting proof does no good as you ignore it ). You've even been corrected by other people than myself on this issue when you tried to claim otherwise.

 

3.  The question isn't that I don't care it should be why should I care?

 

4. Given that the clear agenda by the conservative element here has been to take over this part of the forum ( started by trumptman ) I'd say I'm not the one concerned by being king of the mole hill. And it really is that. This used to a be a nice place where people ( not just conservatives like mj, trumpy, SDW, and jazzy can argue with themselves ). The other side of things used to get fair play. However you've accomplished your goal and taken over this forum ( not the country I'm glad to say hence the " Mole hill " ).

 

5. Gas prices just a few months ago were over almost a dollar higher ( on average ) than they are now. Last month it cost me $50.00 and over to fill up my little Mustang now it's nearing 10 dollars less. I'd call that fast and yet you're not acknowledging that or using the same logic when looking at it. Here's your " Proof "  http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=3

And this is happening at a time when it usually goes up. Here's the 12 months to compare http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=12

 

6. And lastly there is much documentation of all of this. One just has to look back through the years.

 

1.  I really don't think you know what spamming is.  

 

2.   If you'd like, we can go back and look at how many times I posted hard data versus how many times you did.  The only thing you did was link to opinion pieces or random snapshot polls, then follow it up with a bunch of smilies.  In response to my facts, you simply dismissed them by stating people could make numbers say anything they wanted.  

 

3.  You don't care if the President of the United States was a member of a socialist political party?  You don't care that there is no evidence he ever changed his views?  

 

4.  It's not our fault that the liberals have gone running for the hills over the past two years.  It must be hard to constantly defend the indefensible.  

 

5.  Gas prices:  LOL.  Your link shows CANADIAN prices.  lol.gif   The USA data shows the decline is approximately 50 cents a gallon from its peak.  Not $1.00.  50 cents.  Given supply and demand, the price should be far lower.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #115 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. The spamming has been by the conservative element almost exclusively. People like me just got tired and realized there were better places to go to talk ( and yes you can go and say " Yadda, yadda, yadda you came back "  but really it's out of nostalgia as I really don't spend much time here anymore since mainly only one side is being represented it's a huge waste of time ).

 

2. I have supported my facts when in a serious debate with you ( I just gave up because posting proof does no good as you ignore it ). You've even been corrected by other people than myself on this issue when you tried to claim otherwise.

 

3.  The question isn't that I don't care it should be why should I care?

 

4. Given that the clear agenda by the conservative element here has been to take over this part of the forum ( started by trumptman ) I'd say I'm not the one concerned by being king of the mole hill. And it really is that. This used to a be a nice place where people ( not just conservatives like mj, trumpy, SDW, and jazzy can argue with themselves ). The other side of things used to get fair play. However you've accomplished your goal and taken over this forum ( not the country I'm glad to say hence the " Mole hill " ).

 

5. Gas prices just a few months ago were over almost a dollar higher ( on average ) than they are now. Last month it cost me $50.00 and over to fill up my little Mustang now it's nearing 10 dollars less. I'd call that fast and yet you're not acknowledging that or using the same logic when looking at it. Here's your " Proof "  http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=3

And this is happening at a time when it usually goes up. Here's the 12 months to compare http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_retail_price_chart.aspx?time=12

 

6. And lastly there is much documentation of all of this. One just has to look back through the years.

 

1.  I really don't think you know what spamming is.  

 

2.   If you'd like, we can go back and look at how many times I posted hard data versus how many times you did.  The only thing you did was link to opinion pieces or random snapshot polls, then follow it up with a bunch of smilies.  In response to my facts, you simply dismissed them by stating people could make numbers say anything they wanted.  

 

3.  You don't care if the President of the United States was a member of a socialist political party?  You don't care that there is no evidence he ever changed his views?  

 

4.  It's not our fault that the liberals have gone running for the hills over the past two years.  It must be hard to constantly defend the indefensible.  

 

5.  Gas prices:  LOL.  Your link shows CANADIAN prices.  lol.gif   The USA data shows the decline is approximately 50 cents a gallon from its peak.  Not $1.00.  50 cents.  Given supply and demand, the price should be far lower.  

1. I do and probably more than you.

 

2. Yes let's but you get to go first ( this means you have to show where I didn't supply data and a link to the page and everything ). Also you do realize it's a useless endevor as anything that says things you don't like you discount the source ( no matter how recognized ).

 

3. No and it's all speculation on your part. Also why hasn't this been big news? Oh yeah it's that special connection you have to the facts. The SDW news network.

 

4. As I've stated before they didn't run for the hills. They left in disgust as they realized they weren't talking to reasonable people that deal with reality. They were dealing with extreme viewpoints that really don't have anywhere else to go .

 

5. What are you saying here as I just looked again on both and it says " Reg. Price US " ? Also I can read the price at the pump where I go. And before you start the NW had abnormally higher prices than the rest of the country so what's your point?

 

Also I knew you were going to say this so I said " Almost " and it's more than .50. It also says " US average ". So what is your point? There's a link for Canadian but I didn't click on that. Perhaps you's like to supply your own link with data that says different.

 

And of course there's this ( which I know is an isolated case but it does show the trend to support my statement : http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jun/26/knox-gasoline-falls-below-3-us-prices-cheapest/?comments_id=2256799

 

Quote:

Fuel costs are down across the state and nation, but Knoxville is the only major Tennessee market with an average below $3.

Nationally, the price of gasoline has dropped to the lowest level in five months, giving motorists some relief ahead of the July 4 holiday.

The national average fell below $3.40 per gallon on Tuesday. It has fallen steadily since peaking at $3.94 in April as oil prices dropped and supplies of summer-grade gasoline grew around the country. Gas is now below $3 in South Carolina and under $4 in every other state in the continental U.S.

Also as far as your logic goes my original question was if you were blaming Obama for high prices at a certain time and then it went down in the same manner ( and much quicker ) why aren't you praising him for that? Let me guess sophistry.lol.gif


Edited by jimmac - 7/5/12 at 8:07pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #116 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And you.  Mr. "  I won't tie myself down to too much of a position as people might label me ". You are a conservative. Ask any liberal here.

 

Again we're dealing with your comprehension issues. Why do you even bother to come back. I don't look to liberals to define me. And we all see you failed to address any of the substance of my post. Same old jimmac.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #117 of 208
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. I do and probably more than you.

 

2. Yes let's but you get to go first ( this means you have to show where I didn't supply data and a link to the page and everything ). Also you do realize it's a useless endevor as anything that says things you don't like you discount the source ( no matter how recognized ).

 

3. No and it's all speculation on your part. Also why hasn't this been big news? Oh yeah it's that special connection you have to the facts. The SDW news network.

 

4. As I've stated before they didn't run for the hills. They left in disgust as they realized they weren't talking to reasonable people that deal with reality. They were dealing with extreme viewpoints that really don't have anywhere else to go .

 

5. What are you saying here as I just looked again on both and it says " Reg. Price US " ? Also I can read the price at the pump where I go. And before you start the NW had abnormally higher prices than the rest of the country so what's your point?

 

Also I knew you were going to say this so I said " Almost " and it's more than .50. It also says " US average ". So what is your point? There's a link for Canadian but I didn't click on that. Perhaps you's like to supply your own link with data that says different.

 

And of course there's this ( which I know is an isolated case but it does show the trend to support my statement : http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jun/26/knox-gasoline-falls-below-3-us-prices-cheapest/?comments_id=2256799

 

Also as far as your logic goes my original question was if you were blaming Obama for high prices at a certain time and then it went down in the same manner ( and much quicker ) why aren't you praising him for that? Let me guess sophistry.lol.gif

 

1.  Not only do you not understand what spamming is, you also seem to enjoy taking part in pissing contests.  Anyone with a brain can look at the forums and determine what is spam and what is not.  Hint:  spam is not threads you don't like.  

 

2.  Well, if it's useless, perhaps I won't waste the time.  You decide.  

 

3.  Speculation?  Hardly.  This is the article I linked to to open the thread:  Here is the relevant section: 

 

 

 

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review Online that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

 

......

 

 

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicagochapter read as follows:

 

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

 

 

 

4.   I don't believe you, nor have you ever shown yourself to be a reasonable person who deals in reality.  You're the man who, when asked about the 2008 Dem primary about your support go Hillary Clinton, replied "yes, but I prefer Obama."  When asked why, you stated "because he'd probably put through programs for the poor."   Uh, OK.  

 

5.  I'm telling you what it came up as when I clicked on it.  Either way, I doubt any reasonable person would agree that "almost $1" is equal to 50 cents.  And no, a link showing prices from one city does not help your argument.  Obviously prices have come down off their highs.  No one disputes this.  

 

6.  I haven't avoided your question...in fact, I answered it earlier.  The answer is that Obama's policies are partly to blame for gas prices being high.   And yes, jimmac, despite coming down a bit, they are still too high when we look at overall supply and demand of oil.   

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Again we're dealing with your comprehension issues. Why do you even bother to come back. I don't look to liberals to define me. And we all see you failed to address any of the substance of my post. Same old jimmac.

 

Yup.  

I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #118 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And you.  Mr. "  I won't tie myself down to too much of a position as people might label me ". You are a conservative. Ask any liberal here.

 

Again we're dealing with your comprehension issues. Why do you even bother to come back. I don't look to liberals to define me. And we all see you failed to address any of the substance of my post. Same old jimmac.

No. I'm sure you look at " You " to define yourself. Unfortunately if it's like the way you look at other things in the world..............

Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #119 of 208

Obama's past is indeed very shady and people are trying to cover up for it. The media did a very poor job of vetting the guy. They were so in the tank for the guy, it was beyond disgusting.

 

I'm not one of those people who believes that Obama is not an American or that he wasn't born in the US, but I do believe that he is a serial liar and canine eating socialist whose books are made up of many untruths, half truths and composite characters in order to fabricate a mythical reality about the guy that is completely false.

post #120 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

And you.  Mr. "  I won't tie myself down to too much of a position as people might label me ". You are a conservative. Ask any liberal here.

 

Again we're dealing with your comprehension issues. Why do you even bother to come back. I don't look to liberals to define me. And we all see you failed to address any of the substance of my post. Same old jimmac.

No. I'm sure you look at " You " to define yourself. Unfortunately if it's like the way you look at other things in the world..............

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

1. I do and probably more than you.

 

2. Yes let's but you get to go first ( this means you have to show where I didn't supply data and a link to the page and everything ). Also you do realize it's a useless endeavor as anything that says things you don't like you discount the source ( no matter how recognized ).

 

3. No and it's all speculation on your part. Also why hasn't this been big news? Oh yeah it's that special connection you have to the facts. The SDW news network.

 

4. As I've stated before they didn't run for the hills. They left in disgust as they realized they weren't talking to reasonable people that deal with reality. They were dealing with extreme viewpoints that really don't have anywhere else to go .

 

5. What are you saying here as I just looked again on both and it says " Reg. Price US " ? Also I can read the price at the pump where I go. And before you start the NW had abnormally higher prices than the rest of the country so what's your point?

 

Also I knew you were going to say this so I said " Almost " and it's more than .50. It also says " US average ". So what is your point? There's a link for Canadian but I didn't click on that. Perhaps you'd like to supply your own link with data that says different.

 

And of course there's this ( which I know is an isolated case but it does show the trend to support my statement : http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2012/jun/26/knox-gasoline-falls-below-3-us-prices-cheapest/?comments_id=2256799

 

Also as far as your logic goes my original question was if you were blaming Obama for high prices at a certain time and then it went down in the same manner ( and much quicker ) why aren't you praising him for that? Let me guess sophistry.lol.gif

 

1.  Not only do you not understand what spamming is, you also seem to enjoy taking part in pissing contests.  Anyone with a brain can look at the forums and determine what is spam and what is not.  Hint:  spam is not threads you don't like.  

 

2.  Well, if it's useless, perhaps I won't waste the time.  You decide.  

 

3.  Speculation?  Hardly.  This is the article I linked to to open the thread:  Here is the relevant section: 

 

 

 

In late October 2008, when I wrote here at National Review On-line that Obama had been a member of the New Party, his campaign sharply denied it, calling my claim a “crackpot smear.” Fight the Smears, an official Obama-campaign website, staunchly maintained that “Barack has been a member of only one political party, the Democratic Party.” I rebutted this, but the debate was never taken up by the mainstream press.

Recently obtained evidence from the updated records of Illinois ACORN at the Wisconsin Historical Society now definitively establishes that Obama was a member of the New Party. He also signed a “contract” promising to publicly support and associate himself with the New Party while in office.

 

......

 

 

Minutes of the meeting on January 11, 1996, of the New Party’s Chicagochapter read as follows:

 

Barack Obama, candidate for State Senate in the 13th Legislative District, gave a statement to the membership and answered questions. He signed the New Party “Candidate Contract” and requested an endorsement from the New Party. He also joined the New Party.

Consistent with this, a roster of the Chicago chapter of the New Party from early 1997 lists Obama as a member, with January 11, 1996, indicated as the date he joined.

 

 

 

4.   I don't believe you, nor have you ever shown yourself to be a reasonable person who deals in reality.  You're the man who, when asked about the 2008 Dem primary about your support go Hillary Clinton, replied "yes, but I prefer Obama."  When asked why, you stated "because he'd probably put through programs for the poor."   Uh, OK.  

 

5.  I'm telling you what it came up as when I clicked on it.  Either way, I doubt any reasonable person would agree that "almost $1" is equal to 50 cents.  And no, a link showing prices from one city does not help your argument.  Obviously prices have come down off their highs.  No one disputes this.  

 

6.  I haven't avoided your question...in fact, I answered it earlier.  The answer is that Obama's policies are partly to blame for gas prices being high.   And yes, jimmac, despite coming down a bit, they are still too high when we look at overall supply and demand of oil.   

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Again we're dealing with your comprehension issues. Why do you even bother to come back. I don't look to liberals to define me. And we all see you failed to address any of the substance of my post. Same old jimmac.

 

Yup.  

How about an unbiased or less blatantly biased magazine? The National Review with main headlines like :

 

Jeez! If I answered with a clearly biased liberal example to one of your questions you'd have thrown it out without a look. Tell me does anyone but republican sympathizers read this rag? Really?

 

1. In this case spamming is loading the forum ( to the top ) with ridiculous threads that are clearly partisan in nature ( some are dismissed by others from the start they're so ridiculous ).

 

2. Don't like the work when you realize you've got nothing eh?

 

3. Once again does everyone read the national review or does it pertain to a certain partisan demographic? Please find this on a big news site that's read by everyone.

 

4. Funny I don't recall this quote. Perhaps you have a link? I do however remember saying Obama was young and had fresh ideas. Something we need right now. Now I will say this in hindsight. Obama is a bit of a dreamer ( not that there is anything wrong with that ). I've read Science Fiction all of my life and consider " Dreaming " a very important issue to our culture now days. We need people to seriously consider our situation and to be open to new ways of approaching things ( MJ will probably like this one ). However for this time and place I was wrong. Yes SDW and you can quote me! There's nothing wrong with Mr. Obama's thinking. It's just right now we need more action. With Hillary we would have had the same economic policies of the Clinton administration and we can all see from history what that did for the country back in the 90's. 

 

And yes when confronted with the truth you've had to at least run and hide at times so I guess you wouldn't consider me " Reasonable ".

 

5. Sorry but I looked at it many times yesterday and it was for the US. Like I've said there was a link for Canada that you could click on. And looking at the chart I'm pretty sure any " Reasonable " person would see it's more than .50.

 

6. Funny this answer really reminds me of another blind spot in a discussion we had years ago about the difference between real supply and demand unhampered by human generated political shortfalls and what we really have. A supply and demand that's dictated not by how much there is in the ground and how much people are purchasing but by political manipulation for other agenda's. Funny now that you think the shoe's on the other foot you suddenly see this!lol.gif

 

As far as " Yup " it's nice that you two are in agreement. It's funny ( and refreshing ) to watch the two of you go at it. I'm sure MJ doesn't like me back as we disagree on a great many things. The funny thing is we agree on somethings you and I strongly disagree on. As far as addressing the substance of his post  was it his insults ( which made up the bulk of the post ) or was it his time question?  Which quick draw obviously didn't see that one of the charts showed the entire past year.

 

Yup!lol.gif


Edited by jimmac - 7/6/12 at 5:10pm
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Confirmed: Obama WAS a member of the Socialist New Party