Dante Calls Out the Toughest Conservative Out There: Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair
Be there or be square.
Be there or be square.
Navigation
Install the app
How to install the app on iOS
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
More options
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Dante Calls Out the Toughest Conservative Out There: Clint Eastwood's Empty Chair
- Thread starter Procrustes Stretched
- Start date
Yurt
Gold Member
are you serious? or are you dante?
- Thread starter
- #3
are you serious? or are you dante?
dante is a dead dawg...and Dante is serious. He is setting it up now. Then gonna ask the admin for help
Quantum Windbag
Gold Member
- May 9, 2010
- 58,308
- 5,099
- 245
Dante thinks Obama is a conservative?
Yurt
Gold Member
are you serious? or are you dante?
dante is a dead dawg...and Dante is serious. He is setting it up now. Then gonna ask the admin for help
they can't help you lose to me dante...that would be unfair
- Thread starter
- #7
Dante thinks Obama is a conservative?
Well there seems to be no other willing....wait! Did Yurt just burp?
Yurt
Gold Member
you're not wussying out already dante....?
Yurt
Gold Member
dante believes this thread is not challenging someone to a debate
LOL
i phear the debate may not be that interesting....
LOL
i phear the debate may not be that interesting....
Yurt
Gold Member
btw...i'm not the "toughest conservative" i just want to see if dante will actually debate, i doubt it, but if he does...ok
- Thread starter
- #11
you're not wussying out already dante....?
There is a Community Form
in there is a Bull Ring sub forum
in there is
Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
Losing to a chair, should have seen it coming. The chair must have at least 10 IQ points on Dante.
Yurt
Gold Member
you're not wussying out already dante....?
There is a Community Form
in there is a Bull Ring sub forum
in there is
Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs
in english please
- Thread starter
- #14
Yurt Agrees To Step in For Eastwood's Chair. Dante Agrees to Challange
A debate was scheduled for 7:00PM EST...a no show. Now Yurt wants a debate.
Dante accepts. 8:00PM EST | 5:00PM PT
Dante will be gracious and allow Yurt to pick the topic.
No side need be taken. A true subject worthy of debate (outside of high school and undergraduate college) should do. Unless of course Yurt is unable to think of anything he disagrees with Dante on?
If this is the case...how about The changes @ USMB and the hysterical reaction to IT?
..............................................
- Oct 12, 2009
- 58,613
- 10,629
- 2,030
you're not wussying out already dante....?
There is a Community Form
in there is a Bull Ring sub forum
in there is
Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs
in english please
He wants you to do the call out, so it is less embrassing when he loses.
- Thread starter
- #16
Yurt
Gold Member
There is a Community Form
in there is a Bull Ring sub forum
in there is
Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs
in english please
He wants you to do the call out, so it is less embrassing when he loses.
that makes sense, but too late for him now. i already threw out my first salvo.
- Thread starter
- #18
There is a Community Form
in there is a Bull Ring sub forum
in there is
Bull Ring Discussions and Call-Outs
in english please
He wants you to do the call out, so it is less embrassing[sic - how embarraskink popeye!) when he loses.
looks like things turned out better for everyone involved...but for trolls like you
http://www.usmessageboard.com/the-bull-ring/276439-yurt-v-dante.html
Dear Dante and Yurt:
I'm confused, I thought you were challenging a tough Conservative (Yurt?)
to debate something regarding Clint Eastwood's speech using the empty chair.
When I looked through this thread it was indeed empty of any content.
Is this a Zen Koan version of a debate?
Where there is no question and no wrong answers?
If one step to enlightenment is first to achieve emptiness
well either the chair or the thread may have achieved that step.
In the future if you would like to debate something with a liberal
Constitutionalist, I am not legalistic about the Constitution so much
as I am into the spirit of the laws, like consent of the governed,
equal protection of interests, due process and representation for
people of all groups and views, including treating political parties
as religious beliefs that should not be competing to dominate or exclude each other.
For a progressive Democrat I am Conservative and many of my
Republican conservative friends don't see how I can be associated
and working with fellow members of the Democrat Party, but that
is where I see there is the greatest need to reconcile and unite
across party lines along Constitutional values and principles.
If there is something that someone won't debate, I am happy
to help rephrase it where it could be debated. I can take the side
of a liberal or a conservative, either way, and defend points
within the bounds of Constitutional inclusion but I don't believe
in crossing that line and starting to impose on or exclude the
opposing position, so I would mostly argue from the viewpoint
of where both sides could agree and why THAT is more beneficial.
So I would argue on the side of where there can be a consensus,
while including the input of both sides and not negating those concerns.
Most people don't believe consensus is possible, so I end up debating
with both sides to present ways these can both be accommodated equally.
BTW I liked Eastwood's impromptu use of the chair to symbolize Obama.
It cleverly avoided any racist or stereotypical representation by leaving
it to the imagination. Thought that was brilliant and know it was not
planned but spontaneous, so that was the art of the moment and
not necessarily coming from him.
As for your question about the history of govt regulation of guns,
the real issue is whether people consent to the laws or not. If they
consent, they feel that THEY are the govt doing the self-regulation.
If people DON'T consent they feel someone else is abusing govt
to impose or control them and that is why they fight it. Govt is
supposed to reflect the consent of the public and not be abused
to push beliefs onto others whether religious or now political.
If you notice, liberals will yell about separation of church and state
when it goes against their beliefs, but when it comes to gay marriage
suddenly they want the state to sanction marriage instead of remove
it from state jurisdiction and keep it private under the church of one's choice.
So it's really about consent, not about the legalistic arguments.
Once people don't consent they could use any manner of law to explain
where this crosses the line. The AZ immigration bill did not violate the spirit of the
law, since anyone can choose to enforce federal laws and report violations; but it violated the letter of the law giving federal govt responsibility for enforcement not the states.
And vice versa with the health care bill, one side argued it was within the bounds of promoting the general welfare and regulating commerce while the other side said no that is abusing govt to regulate areas left to the states and to the people; so it was constitutional by the letter that allows Congress, President and Supreme Court to act and rule as they did, but by the spirit there was disagreement and not consent of the people to change the interpretation to include health care as a federal responsibility. I think the bill would NOT have passed if (a) it was written and presented as a tax as the Supreme Court later ruled (b) an amendment was first needed to approve interpreting the commerce clause or the general welfare clause as including health care; either of those would have established consent of the public instead of deliberately attempting to bypass the opposition.
So the real issue is resorting to political bullying instead of consent of the governed to forge social contracts and laws: people abusing party politics and majority rule to bypass opposition and only defend the consent of supporters of an issue, while deliberately subverting the checks and balances and idea of Constitutional inclusion of representation that would have defended the other interests equally. So I find that tactic unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment and 1st Amendment if you consider political beliefs equally protected as religious beliefs as I do.
I believe in conflict resolution and decisions by consensus, or else separation of policies instead of imposing on one group or another. such a standard would either compel parties to solve problems and find mutual solutions, or only focus legislation and govt powers on the few areas where all parties agree, and leave the rest to private funding and program support independent of govt. Either way it would solve the conflicts over govt funding and policies to stick to areas of agreement where all views are protected and represented equally as Constitutional laws require. And it would push responsibility for individual or party agenda back on the parties or states to fund and develop themselves locally.
I'm confused, I thought you were challenging a tough Conservative (Yurt?)
to debate something regarding Clint Eastwood's speech using the empty chair.
When I looked through this thread it was indeed empty of any content.
Is this a Zen Koan version of a debate?
Where there is no question and no wrong answers?
If one step to enlightenment is first to achieve emptiness
well either the chair or the thread may have achieved that step.
In the future if you would like to debate something with a liberal
Constitutionalist, I am not legalistic about the Constitution so much
as I am into the spirit of the laws, like consent of the governed,
equal protection of interests, due process and representation for
people of all groups and views, including treating political parties
as religious beliefs that should not be competing to dominate or exclude each other.
For a progressive Democrat I am Conservative and many of my
Republican conservative friends don't see how I can be associated
and working with fellow members of the Democrat Party, but that
is where I see there is the greatest need to reconcile and unite
across party lines along Constitutional values and principles.
If there is something that someone won't debate, I am happy
to help rephrase it where it could be debated. I can take the side
of a liberal or a conservative, either way, and defend points
within the bounds of Constitutional inclusion but I don't believe
in crossing that line and starting to impose on or exclude the
opposing position, so I would mostly argue from the viewpoint
of where both sides could agree and why THAT is more beneficial.
So I would argue on the side of where there can be a consensus,
while including the input of both sides and not negating those concerns.
Most people don't believe consensus is possible, so I end up debating
with both sides to present ways these can both be accommodated equally.
BTW I liked Eastwood's impromptu use of the chair to symbolize Obama.
It cleverly avoided any racist or stereotypical representation by leaving
it to the imagination. Thought that was brilliant and know it was not
planned but spontaneous, so that was the art of the moment and
not necessarily coming from him.
As for your question about the history of govt regulation of guns,
the real issue is whether people consent to the laws or not. If they
consent, they feel that THEY are the govt doing the self-regulation.
If people DON'T consent they feel someone else is abusing govt
to impose or control them and that is why they fight it. Govt is
supposed to reflect the consent of the public and not be abused
to push beliefs onto others whether religious or now political.
If you notice, liberals will yell about separation of church and state
when it goes against their beliefs, but when it comes to gay marriage
suddenly they want the state to sanction marriage instead of remove
it from state jurisdiction and keep it private under the church of one's choice.
So it's really about consent, not about the legalistic arguments.
Once people don't consent they could use any manner of law to explain
where this crosses the line. The AZ immigration bill did not violate the spirit of the
law, since anyone can choose to enforce federal laws and report violations; but it violated the letter of the law giving federal govt responsibility for enforcement not the states.
And vice versa with the health care bill, one side argued it was within the bounds of promoting the general welfare and regulating commerce while the other side said no that is abusing govt to regulate areas left to the states and to the people; so it was constitutional by the letter that allows Congress, President and Supreme Court to act and rule as they did, but by the spirit there was disagreement and not consent of the people to change the interpretation to include health care as a federal responsibility. I think the bill would NOT have passed if (a) it was written and presented as a tax as the Supreme Court later ruled (b) an amendment was first needed to approve interpreting the commerce clause or the general welfare clause as including health care; either of those would have established consent of the public instead of deliberately attempting to bypass the opposition.
So the real issue is resorting to political bullying instead of consent of the governed to forge social contracts and laws: people abusing party politics and majority rule to bypass opposition and only defend the consent of supporters of an issue, while deliberately subverting the checks and balances and idea of Constitutional inclusion of representation that would have defended the other interests equally. So I find that tactic unconstitutional by the 14th Amendment and 1st Amendment if you consider political beliefs equally protected as religious beliefs as I do.
I believe in conflict resolution and decisions by consensus, or else separation of policies instead of imposing on one group or another. such a standard would either compel parties to solve problems and find mutual solutions, or only focus legislation and govt powers on the few areas where all parties agree, and leave the rest to private funding and program support independent of govt. Either way it would solve the conflicts over govt funding and policies to stick to areas of agreement where all views are protected and represented equally as Constitutional laws require. And it would push responsibility for individual or party agenda back on the parties or states to fund and develop themselves locally.
- Thread starter
- #20
BTW I liked Eastwood's impromptu use of the chair to symbolize Obama.
So you like failure. What else can you yell Dante about yourself?
Similar threads
- Replies
- 5
- Views
- 148
- Replies
- 141
- Views
- 1K
- Replies
- 0
- Views
- 89
Latest Discussions
- Replies
- 103
- Views
- 436
- Replies
- 29
- Views
- 115
- Replies
- 100
- Views
- 578
Forum List
-
-
-
-
-
Political Satire 8054
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
ObamaCare 781
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Member Usernotes 469
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-