Delegates....a rigged system?

[kaz]

Just because you monitor doesn't help you chase down thousands of people across a thousand miles.

U.S. Army vehicles vs. illegals traveling on foot or piled into a truck.

Ooh, that's a tough one! So evenly matched!

Someone gets a big gun and blasts a hole in one spot and government converges there or they chase thousands of people individually across a thousand miles. And you don't get the difference, it's the same to you. LOL. You're not a smart boy. Here's a ball, look it's bouncy ...

We can successfully monitor and enforce a no-fly zone across all of Iraq all the way from Incirlik, Türkiye but the military is incompetent when it comes to a no-walk zone in Texas?

Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?

You're flailing. Badly.

The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.

Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:

I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?

 

[hadit]

By saying parties should not be private instituations, you are saying you want government to control the parties

Nope.

Government sets rules on whether a company can dump their toxic waste into a river. Does that mean government is "controlling" that company?

Again, your argument boils down to a very simple idea. You don't like the way parties nominate their candidates and you want the government to force them to do it the way you want them to.

A political party is nothing more than a group of citizens pooling their resources to promote a political agenda and to nominate for office candidates that will further that agenda. The government does not need to be involved.

Can't answer my question?

I'm SHOCKED!

It's easy to answer that question. I simply choose not to do so because the question is flawed and doesn't relate to the discussion for this reason. A company that dumps toxic waste negatively impacts people that have no choice in the matter. A political party's nomination process only impacts those who voluntarily associate with the party and have a vested interest in the outcome. If I belong to the Green party, for instance, it doesn't matter to me how messed up the democrats are, because I'm not voting for any of the drones they're going to run (parenthetically, should Hillary be erased from the political landscape, my happiness quotient would rise from very happy to very happy plus one).

 

[kaz]

So religious control the Republican party and focus all that power on abortion skirmishes. There you have it, my point exactly

No, your point was that social conservatives have not gotten Republicans to do anything on their behalf in Congress.

I proved you wrong with a 10 second search for the link.

I guess "libertarians" don't admit when they are wrong.

I see, so in the discussion about your claim religious control the Republican party, you think that minor abortion skirmishes are what they have chosen to do with all that power. Having made your point, I have a problem admitting I'm wrong.

Actually, you do. Obviously they don't control the Republican party, you just like the talking point

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?

So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...

This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.

You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.

Your examples were all the Republicans not wanting to move to the left. So your argument is the religious right control the Republican party because they are fighting moving to the left?

Gawd, you are a nit wit. I'm not even a Christian and I agree with Republicans on most of those, I don't want to move to the left on those either. Grown men shitting and peeing with 12 year old girls as you demand is an abomination to civilization. You've opened the door to every bathroom to pedophiles. You are as sick as they are

 

[SwimExpert]

Of course it's rigged, but the salient point is that it's always been that way, and for Trump or Bernie supporters to complain about it now is a bit too late, since both candidates entered the race with the full knowledge of what they were getting into. The party power structure knows which candidate they want, and will manipulate the process to push for that candidate.

So, a convention setting its own rules is rigged?

You know, if you go back a few years. Go all the way to a small little town called Philadelphia. There was another convention there once upon a time. Delegates from all the states joined in. They had some minor business to attend to. And you know what was one of the first things they did? They set their own rules.

Just imagine if they had somehow been bound to follow rules set by England. Now THAT would have been a rigged system.

Think about it. They wait until the convention to set the rules. This is AFTER months of endless debates, straw polls, caucuses, primary votes, and delegate selections. It's rigged in the sense that the party can simply set rules to knock a candidate down or lift one up, REGARDLESS of their performance before that point. That convention you reference was not preceded by months of campaigning based on a previous set of rules, unlike this case.

After that obtuse reply, you want me to think?

Drumpfodder are just mad that they're not getting things handed to them. Entitled pieces of shit, all of you.

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax cuts trigger economic activity that offsets the decreased tax revenue.

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Then WTF is this push to to raise MW all about?

 

[kaz]

Tax cuts trigger economic activity that offsets the decreased tax revenue.

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Then WTF is this push to to raise MW all about?

What he means is that poor people buying more beer and cigarettes with other people's money is good for the economy. The rest of us investing our own money and giving them jobs does nothing for the economy. Get it now?

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax cuts trigger economic activity that offsets the decreased tax revenue.

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Then WTF is this push to to raise MW all about?

What he means is that poor people buying more beer and cigarettes with other people's money is good for the economy. The rest of us investing our own money and giving them jobs does nothing for the economy. Get it now?

You're preaching to the choir.

 

[Synthaholic]

I don't take homework assignments from nit wits.

No, you just make statements that you are unable to back up.

As I pointed out in the rest of the post you cut, I didn't say anything about W's tax cuts. You brought it up. Stop being a moron

So, tax cuts spur economic activity, except for any examples I highlight. Right?

 

[Synthaholic]

U.S. Army vehicles vs. illegals traveling on foot or piled into a truck.

Ooh, that's a tough one! So evenly matched!

Someone gets a big gun and blasts a hole in one spot and government converges there or they chase thousands of people individually across a thousand miles. And you don't get the difference, it's the same to you. LOL. You're not a smart boy. Here's a ball, look it's bouncy ...

We can successfully monitor and enforce a no-fly zone across all of Iraq all the way from Incirlik, Türkiye but the military is incompetent when it comes to a no-walk zone in Texas?

Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?

You're flailing. Badly.

The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.

Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:

I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?

Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!

 

[Synthaholic]

A political party's nomination process only impacts those who voluntarily associate with the party and have a vested interest in the outcome. If I belong to the Green party, for instance, it doesn't matter to me how messed up the democrats are, because I'm not voting for any of the drones they're going to run

Really? Then why are Republicans so obsessed that Hillary is running? Just worry about your own Party.

 

[Synthaholic]

No, your point was that social conservatives have not gotten Republicans to do anything on their behalf in Congress.

I proved you wrong with a 10 second search for the link.

I guess "libertarians" don't admit when they are wrong.

I see, so in the discussion about your claim religious control the Republican party, you think that minor abortion skirmishes are what they have chosen to do with all that power. Having made your point, I have a problem admitting I'm wrong.

Actually, you do. Obviously they don't control the Republican party, you just like the talking point

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?

So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...

This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.

You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.

Your examples were all the Republicans not wanting to move to the left. So your argument is the religious right control the Republican party because they are fighting moving to the left?

How is removing religion from taxpayer-funded public buildings "moving to the Left"? The Constitution separates church and state. Is the Constitution a Leftist document?

Are you claiming that religion belongs to the Right?

 

[Synthaholic]

Tax cuts trigger economic activity that offsets the decreased tax revenue.

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

 

[Synthaholic]

The rest of us investing our own money and giving them jobs does nothing for the economy.

Show where tax cuts = more jobs.

Oh, that's right - you don't back up your bullshit.

 

[kaz]

I don't take homework assignments from nit wits.

No, you just make statements that you are unable to back up.

As I pointed out in the rest of the post you cut, I didn't say anything about W's tax cuts. You brought it up. Stop being a moron

So, tax cuts spur economic activity, except for any examples I highlight. Right?

Of the several points I made about W's tax cuts, that wasn't any of them

 

[kaz]

Someone gets a big gun and blasts a hole in one spot and government converges there or they chase thousands of people individually across a thousand miles. And you don't get the difference, it's the same to you. LOL. You're not a smart boy. Here's a ball, look it's bouncy ...

We can successfully monitor and enforce a no-fly zone across all of Iraq all the way from Incirlik, Türkiye but the military is incompetent when it comes to a no-walk zone in Texas?

Yes, obviously given their record. OK, I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

You really are not bright. Your argument actually sounds good to you?

You're flailing. Badly.

The U.S. Army and Air Force could easily monitor the border if we moved enough of them there from their useless current locations in Utah, Kansas, and other interior locations that are only there for make-work and to spread the Defense money around to all the states in order to make them dependent upon it.

Your failing, badly. I didn't say we can't monitor them and my example wasn't monitoring. I didn't say anything with the marbles about you being able to see them. here's a question:

I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

Where in that example am I doubting your ability to see the marbles?

Our military has...what do you call it . . . oh, yeah - technology. Infrared, motion detection, helicopters, binoculars - all kinds of neat stuff, Wally!

Begging the question. I have a question though.
I sit at one end of a room with no furniture and a hardwood floor and you at the other. Your goal it to prevent balls I roll from hitting the other wall. Do you want option a or option b?

a) I roll an occasional bowling ball

b) I take the material and weight of the bowling balls would roll and create thousands of marbles that have the same total volume and weight at the bowling balls. Put them in a bucket, and fling them across the floor.

So what's your answer? You're an inane little boy making an idiotic argument

 

[mudwhistle]

Tax cuts trigger economic activity that offsets the decreased tax revenue.

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

 

[kaz]

I see, so in the discussion about your claim religious control the Republican party, you think that minor abortion skirmishes are what they have chosen to do with all that power. Having made your point, I have a problem admitting I'm wrong.

Actually, you do. Obviously they don't control the Republican party, you just like the talking point

You asked for an example, I gave you one.

I could give you many more. Want to see their efforts on marriage equality, or religious liberty, prayer in schools, or ten commandments in public buildings, or nativity scenes on public property, or . . . or are you ready to admit you are wrong?

So your proof the religious right is controlling the Republican party is that they're opposing you people moving to the left. With "marriage equality," we didn't have gay marriage until you people created it illegally through the courts. That isn't the Republicans moving to the right, it's you moving to the left. Guys whipping out their dick in bathrooms with 12 year old girls is you moving to the left. Taking the ten commandments off of walls is you moving to the left. If you want to make the case you're controlled by anti-religious fanatics, that you can support. Well, unless they are Muslim ...

This post perfectly illustrates that you are a Cafeteria Constitutionalist.

You asked for an example, and I gave you multiple examples. Now you want to claim it's the Left's fault that you're wrong.

Your examples were all the Republicans not wanting to move to the left. So your argument is the religious right control the Republican party because they are fighting moving to the left?

How is removing religion from taxpayer-funded public buildings "moving to the Left"? The Constitution separates church and state. Is the Constitution a Leftist document?

Are you claiming that religion belongs to the Right?

Separation of church and State isn't in the Constitution, that was a statement by a judge 100 years ago. Also, it doesn't contradict what I said. I didn't argue it was or wasn't. The law is changing by moving us to the left. It wasn't prohibited to post the 10 commandments, you people fought for it. Try to follow the discussion.

On your point though. I'm not a Christian, but I'm not seeing the issue in what is actually in the Constitution. How is posting the 10 commandments a violation of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion?" Which commandment do you disagree with?

 

[kaz]

The rest of us investing our own money and giving them jobs does nothing for the economy.

Show where tax cuts = more jobs.

Oh, that's right - you don't back up your bullshit.

Sure I can, but I'm not interested in explaining the field of economics to an imbecile. Take econ 101. If you turn off the lawyers in your head, it'll change your life when you realize the leftist lawyers are full of shit

 

[kaz]

That's been proven false.

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

 

[HUGGY]

Well, that's true in the sense that leftist lawyers tell you they know more economics than economists do and you believe them.

It's not true if you believe empirical data.

Tom-ay-to, tom-ah-to

Show me the empirical data that proves Bush's tax cuts were beneficial to the U.S. economy.

Oh......people having more money to spend isn't good for the economy?

Not unless they are spending it.

Isn't that the point?

Spending on the economy rather than paying taxes is better for the economy.

Yep. Government doesn't produce anything. So net it can't grow the economy. All it does is shrink it by what it wastes

I hope that is a sarcastic post. Repairing and improving the infrastructure, maintaining the military payroll and making the purchases necessary to supply and re-supply the military are just a few aspects of how government adds to the economy. Local, state and national police agencies and the various courts add a lot to the economy also.