|
|
I think you mean "dissent." Yours is not a voice of dissent. It is a voice with a lack of character and integrity. This post trying to draw comparisons with Nazis and murderers is another example, and is another reason I would ban you. And my post was aimed at your use of profanity and name calling, not any dissent you were attempting to convey.Originally Posted by Statboy
It's very obvious to me that you have a heart problem. I'll help you with that if you sincerely desire help.
Last edited by RhythmDawg; 04-19-2016 at 09:10 PM.
Ditto!
Yeah that's it. That's exactly what i meant... Bravo!
No....you want me ban for the same age old reason the weak majority wants to control everything that doesn't conform to their way of thinking. The fact that you're trying to use the lame ass excuse about my using profanity on this board points to your hypocrisy and is beyond laughable. But not unexpected.
Hypocrisy is a way of life with folks that think like you do.
We don't want goverment involved in our lives. But it's okay to have goverment force my religious morals on others
We don't want goverment giving welfare to the needy. But its okay for goverment to pay coporations creating jobs and give them bonuses by letting them get away with paying little to no taxes.
We don’t think McDonald's worker's should get a raise. But it's okay for a CEO to get millions if dollars in bonus money for not giving employees a living wage.
You believe in democracy and the 1st Amendment. Until we disagree with you than we have to fabricate reasons to silence you.
Blah, blah, blah...blah.
I love a good quality debate, but you aren't living up to your screen name. I posted a bunch of facts refuting your numbers, some wrong and some spun half truths, you found online somewhere without doing any actual research. I did it without political bias...as you'll notice in not one post did I bash democrats. I challenged you to disprove them...which you still haven't responded to...and you launched into a tyraid of name calling and telling me what I think, trying to distract from the debate. You've made yourself look desperate and defensive to everyone in this thread to the point that trying to debate with you is pointless.Yeah that's it. That's exactly what i meant... Bravo!
No....you want me ban for the same age old reason the weak majority wants to control everything that doesn't conform to their way of thinking. The fact that you're trying to use the lame ass excuse about my using profanity on this board points to your hypocrisy and is beyond laughable. But not unexpected.
Hypocrisy is a way of life with folks that think like you do.
We don't want goverment involved in our lives. But it's okay to have goverment force my religious morals on others
We don't want goverment giving welfare to the needy. But its okay for goverment to pay coporations creating jobs and give them bonuses by letting them get away with paying little to no taxes.
We don’t think McDonald's worker's should get a raise. But it's okay for a CEO to get millions if dollars in bonus money for not giving employees a living wage.
You believe in democracy and the 1st Amendment. Until we disagree with you than we have to fabricate reasons to silence you.
Blah, blah, blah...blah.
You obviously aren't interested in debating...I'm assuming because you are poor at it based on this thread...and your "stats" are nothing more than worthless leftist propaganda. That's disappointing because I was looking forward to a good exchange when I initially posted. While you accused me of getting my talking points from Fox...which is humerous now when reading all of your posts and following the disclosure of my actual source of info...there is nothing in my posts which reveals to you my political leanings. Perhaps you should start thinking for yourself.
Last edited by RhythmDawg; 04-20-2016 at 01:09 PM.
Exactly!
If government is staying out of our lives, we shouldn't have to force them to ensure we can practice our religion and morals. That's actually in the Constitution.
I personally don't believe the government should be a charitable organization. I think that's the role of moral people, churches, and actual charitable organizations. Isn't that really a form of the government forcing us to give to charities?
McDonald's workers should get raises based on merit and time with the company, but the government shouldn't force them to pay a wage the employee has not earned. If wages are forced up, it will only hurt the people who are currently filling those jobs. Those jobs will become highly sought after jobs by people with a lot more experience than a teenage kid. I agree with you on the tax loopholes... everyone should pay what they owe. CEO bonuses are not determined by the government though. I don't want the government forcing business decisions, even if I don't agree with the bonuses.
Last edited by RhythmDawg; 04-20-2016 at 02:13 PM.
Loser!!!
Saudi snub? Royal family skips Obama's arrival
Apr 20th 2016 6:10PM
President Barack Obama landed in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, but his welcome crew at the airport probably wasn't what he expected.
Saudi Arabia's King Salman didn't greet the president at the airport, nor did any senior members of the royal family. Instead, he was greeted by the local governor.
SEE ALSO: UNHCR: Up to 500 migrants might have drowned in Mediterranean tragedy
"These two leaders have been drifting apart, have dissimilar doctrines and strategically view things in a much different light. And that is straining everything. And I think what we saw at the airport today is symbolic of that," a CNN international editor said.
Obama did meet with King Salman to kick off his visit to Saudi Arabia. The two leaders discussed a variety of topics, including the fight against ISIS, social challenges in the region and Iran's recent actions.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/2...ival/21348250/
More
magazine
An awkward silence in Riyadh
By Ray Takeyh
Barack Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday in what could be his last—and likely most futile—visit as president. It’s not just that there’s bad blood over Congress’ effort to make Riyadh liable for lawsuits from the families of 9/11 victims. These days, when the United States and Saudi Arabia look at the region, they see two completely different landscapes and conflicting sets of interests. Riyadh sees a series of conflicts that the United States must resolve and a series of failing states that it must rehabilitate. The Saudis would like a commitment from Obama to defang Iran, change the balance of power in the Syrian civil war to the detriment of Bashar Assad and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Washington's gaze is much more narrow and its ambitions more circumscribed. The United States remains committed to its war on terrorism in the region with its reliance on drones. It is seeking to degrade the Islamic State and prevent it from taking over strategic cities of Iraq. And it is hoping that somehow diplomatic meetings in Vienna can come to an agreement easing the Syrian civil war.
Story Continued Below
Beyond that, Obama comes armed with no real new U.S. Middle East policy, apart from the latest developments in the Iran nuclear deal—which is not anything the Tehran-phobic Saudis want to talk about. Obama, who recently expressed his pique over U.S. allies he called “free riders,” plainly is not eager to get any more embroiled in the region than he already is; he has expressed a vague desire that Iran and Saudi Arabia should “share the neighborhood” without saying how he hopes that will be accomplished. And after much investment, the administration seems disinclined to resume its peacemaking efforts between Israel and the Palestinian entity. America has no desire for nation-building even among nations it helped to destroy such as Iraq and Libya.
As far as containing Iran, while America may not go as far as resuming ties with Iran as the Gulf regimes fear, it is not beyond reaching tactical accommodations with Tehran in places such as Iraq and on issues such as dealing with the Islamic State. For the Obama administration, its nuclear agreement with Iran is truly a landmark achievement, testifying to benefits of reaching out to an ideologically implacable adversary. It is perhaps the first time that America does not seem to object to the Islamic Republic's aggrandizement in the strategically vital Persian Gulf.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/#ixzz46Q5L1Ihf
Loser!!!
Saudi snub? Royal family skips Obama's arrival
Apr 20th 2016 6:10PM
President Barack Obama landed in Saudi Arabia on Wednesday, but his welcome crew at the airport probably wasn't what he expected.
Saudi Arabia's King Salman didn't greet the president at the airport, nor did any senior members of the royal family. Instead, he was greeted by the local governor.
SEE ALSO: UNHCR: Up to 500 migrants might have drowned in Mediterranean tragedy
"These two leaders have been drifting apart, have dissimilar doctrines and strategically view things in a much different light. And that is straining everything. And I think what we saw at the airport today is symbolic of that," a CNN international editor said.
Obama did meet with King Salman to kick off his visit to Saudi Arabia. The two leaders discussed a variety of topics, including the fight against ISIS, social challenges in the region and Iran's recent actions.
http://www.aol.com/article/2016/04/2...ival/21348250/
More
magazine
An awkward silence in Riyadh
By Ray Takeyh
Barack Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia on Tuesday in what could be his last—and likely most futile—visit as president. It’s not just that there’s bad blood over Congress’ effort to make Riyadh liable for lawsuits from the families of 9/11 victims. These days, when the United States and Saudi Arabia look at the region, they see two completely different landscapes and conflicting sets of interests. Riyadh sees a series of conflicts that the United States must resolve and a series of failing states that it must rehabilitate. The Saudis would like a commitment from Obama to defang Iran, change the balance of power in the Syrian civil war to the detriment of Bashar Assad and resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Washington's gaze is much more narrow and its ambitions more circumscribed. The United States remains committed to its war on terrorism in the region with its reliance on drones. It is seeking to degrade the Islamic State and prevent it from taking over strategic cities of Iraq. And it is hoping that somehow diplomatic meetings in Vienna can come to an agreement easing the Syrian civil war.
Story Continued Below
Beyond that, Obama comes armed with no real new U.S. Middle East policy, apart from the latest developments in the Iran nuclear deal—which is not anything the Tehran-phobic Saudis want to talk about. Obama, who recently expressed his pique over U.S. allies he called “free riders,” plainly is not eager to get any more embroiled in the region than he already is; he has expressed a vague desire that Iran and Saudi Arabia should “share the neighborhood” without saying how he hopes that will be accomplished. And after much investment, the administration seems disinclined to resume its peacemaking efforts between Israel and the Palestinian entity. America has no desire for nation-building even among nations it helped to destroy such as Iraq and Libya.
As far as containing Iran, while America may not go as far as resuming ties with Iran as the Gulf regimes fear, it is not beyond reaching tactical accommodations with Tehran in places such as Iraq and on issues such as dealing with the Islamic State. For the Obama administration, its nuclear agreement with Iran is truly a landmark achievement, testifying to benefits of reaching out to an ideologically implacable adversary. It is perhaps the first time that America does not seem to object to the Islamic Republic's aggrandizement in the strategically vital Persian Gulf.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/#ixzz46Q5L1Ihf
So because he's trying to get them to pay for the 9/11 attacks legally and he's not going to compromise his position by letting Iran have more access to build nuclear weapons or help switch power to Syrians he's a loser.
This is a prime example of why having an intelligent debate is a virtual impossibility with some of you Einsteins.
Surely a big shot can handle Stat boy
What a moronic response. Where did you read that spin?
Hey Statboy, how do you reconcile this with your party?
Fact: The Republican Party was founded primarily to oppose slavery, and Republicans eventually abolished slavery. The Democratic Party fought them and tried to maintain and expand slavery. The 13th Amendment, abolishing slavery, passed in 1865 with 100% Republican support but only 23% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: During the Civil War era, the "Radical Republicans" were given that name because they wanted to not only end slavery but also to endow the freed slaves with full citizenship, equality, and rights.
Fact: The 14th Amendment, giving full citizenship to freed slaves, passed in 1868 with 94% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress. The 15th Amendment, giving freed slaves the right to vote, passed in 1870 with 100% Republican support and 0% Democrat support in congress.
Fact: The Ku Klux Klan was originally and primarily an arm of the Southern Democratic Party.
Fact: In the 1950s, President Eisenhower, a Republican, integrated the US military and promoted civil rights for minorities. Eisenhower pushed through the Civil Rights Act of 1957. One of Eisenhower's primary political opponents on civil rights prior to 1957 was none other than Lyndon Johnson, then the Democratic Senate Majority Leader. LBJ had voted the straight segregationist line until he changed his position and supported the 1957 Act.
Fact: The historic Civil Rights Act of 1964 was supported by a higher percentage of Republicans than Democrats in both houses of Congress. In the House, 80 percent of the Republicans and 63 percent of the Democrats voted in favor. In the Senate, 82 percent of the Republicans and 69 percent of the Democrats voted for it.
I'm pretty sure I did. But I'm still a little disappointed that an admin hasn't at least edited the profanity in that post. I even reported it.
All true. Jeffery Lord and Van Jones had discussion about this on CNN when Van said there is element of racism to Trump's campaign. Lord pointed out the KKK started out in the democrat party.
O
1) You're making the normal right wing assumption because somebody doesn't see everything your way they have to be a democrat. Nevermind that Barack Hussain Obama got a fair percentage of the Republican vote.
We're just pretend that didn't happen because it doesn't fit our narrative and quite frankly it makes my head hurt to think about it.
2) You're making the normal right wing 1/4 truth 3/4 exclusion argument
3) What does any of that have to do with the Lunatic Frenze, Neo-Nazi's, Racist, Sexcist that have infested the Republican party since then and now hold traditional Republicans and the country hostage?
This is not a question/questions for serious honest debate. But more of the typical childish antics of a foxnews reporter trying to ambush an uneducated voter.
Not to mention it doesn't have a damn thing to do with the topic to the thread. Oops my bad....but damn is in your bible.
Last edited by Statboy; 04-21-2016 at 12:19 AM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
