POLL: Conservatives & Progressives: What is your goal here?

[Rustic]

Of course it wouldn't, but it would be nice.

Whats makes driving constantly from the Land of the Free (my nation) to American Taliban held territory nice?

''Red" state America has really nothing to do with you, you don't go there anyways.
We are not all in this together… Getting along is way overrated

The country should be six or so smaller nations. I want nothing to do with your kind, Rez boy. The American Taliban is all yours.

My "kind" is all about individuality and freedom, obviously we've lost in this country… LOL

If that were true - you'd be a liberal.

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power."

There cannot be any sort of freedom and individuality in socialism/progressivism/liberalism… Fact

 

[RightyTighty]

Whats makes driving constantly from the Land of the Free (my nation) to American Taliban held territory nice?

''Red" state America has really nothing to do with you, you don't go there anyways.
We are not all in this together… Getting along is way overrated

The country should be six or so smaller nations. I want nothing to do with your kind, Rez boy. The American Taliban is all yours.

My "kind" is all about individuality and freedom, obviously we've lost in this country… LOL

If that were true - you'd be a liberal.

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power."

There cannot be any sort of freedom and individuality in socialism/progressivism/liberalism… Fact

So, then, since the Founders were liberals and used Liberalism to found this nation, how is it that you have - liberty (freedom and individuality) if there is no such thing in, liberalism?

 

[Rustic]

''Red" state America has really nothing to do with you, you don't go there anyways.
We are not all in this together… Getting along is way overrated

The country should be six or so smaller nations. I want nothing to do with your kind, Rez boy. The American Taliban is all yours.

My "kind" is all about individuality and freedom, obviously we've lost in this country… LOL

If that were true - you'd be a liberal.

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power."

There cannot be any sort of freedom and individuality in socialism/progressivism/liberalism… Fact

So, then, since the Founders were liberals and used Liberalism to found this nation, how is it that you have - liberty (freedom and individuality) if there is no such thing in, liberalism?

Political correctness has killed the individual and their freedom in this country… The whole purpose of socialism/communism/progressivism/liberalism… LOL

 

[JustAnotherNut]

I assure you......you are not alone in that fight.

Of course he isn't. You conservatives always form your little little mobs to help each other deflect. You have to, because none of you can face a liberal in an honest discussion. Intellectual cowardice is the defining trait of the modern conservative, along with butthurt.

TTFN. I'm off to carve some notches.

Really??? I seem to remember we've (you & I) had some of those 'discussions' and you've always been the one to deflect the issue, calling names like a 6 yo, and hurling insults in a panic.........just before you ran off in silence because I used your own words against you and that was just a few days ago......similar to post #170 here. Where you were telling Mac1958 how he was being what? 'High &mighty and self important'??? Or something to that same effect.

Anytime you want to have an HONEST DISCUSSION.......without the petty chit.....and I do mean a RESPECTFUL discussion or debate, you just let me
know.
.

He's as high & mighty as it gets here, constantly belittling people, and that's saying something. He's just desperate to change the subject.

And note the "carve some notches" thing. That's another element of this: They so often declare "victory". That's why I'm convinced much of this is a matter of self esteem, a temporary boost based on so little. Attack and mock and insult, and then they feel a little better about themselves for a while.

This isn't about politics. Politics is just the vehicle.
.

He constantly describes liberals to a tee and says that's what conservatives are. Seems like a very politically confused person if you ask me.

Yet he's not the only one doing that.....seems to be the Liberals way. They have taken everything Conservatives have said about them during the campaign & election......and now throwing it back as if they thought of it first......because they don't have anything else.
They've even realized that their precious MSM outlets for 'credible' news has failed, so they don't bother linking to source to back up any claims. I have twice in the last week or two threw NYT & CNN (actual events) to 2 different people (King Shit from Turd Island here was one) and both screamed 'fake news-it never happened'.
They know they've lost, they know they're screwed.....yet keep arguing to make themselves feel better. Kinda like 'not going down without a fight' as they're caught in the whirlpool going round & round.

 

[Harry Dresden]

why isnt she president then?.....did she win or lose?....you try again....

She won, she got the most votes, but Trump was appointed by the EC anyway. Very undemocratic.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic.

You and I get into an argument about who the best pool player is, so we agree to a game of 8-ball to determine who is right.

I break, and get two solids in and a stripe. Because of the placement of the striped balls, I choose stripes.

As I knock my balls into the pocket, I accidentally knock in another solid ball. I miss the eighth ball and it's your turn. You knock in all the solid balls and then the eight ball to win the game. But I protest saying I am the better player because I knocked in more balls than you did. Would you agree with that?

Of course not. We were not playing to see who could knock the most balls in, we were playing to see who could knock the most selected balls in.

If we had a popular vote race, Trump would have spent much more time in blue states to get every last vote. But he chose red and swing states to capture the most electoral votes. You can't say Hillary won anything because neither were after popular votes. They both played by the same rules, after the same goals, and Hil-Liar lost.

In a democracy the majority rules. The majority isn't ruling in this case. That is a problem in our democratic republic that needs to be - fixed.

We know how it works, even why it was done, but it's simply wrong.

the majority rules?....was that your thinking when california voted down gay marriage ...twice.....but was overruled anyway?....

The people don't get to vote on the rights of others. Soon no one would have any.

That's mob rule and we don't have that either.

you just said....."In a democracy the majority rules".....California is a democracy,the majority voted....words have meaning,if you were as smart as the founders you would have known this....

 

[JustAnotherNut]

the election wasnt stolen....it was lost by one hillary clinton....next time run someone who at least has likability factor on the positive side and doesnt have the baggage and taint she had........

When you get the most votes - you didn't lose. Do try again.

why isnt she president then?.....did she win or lose?....you try again....

She won, she got the most votes, but Trump was appointed by the EC anyway. Very undemocratic.

Not true and you know it.......or if you don't then learn it. A President is voted into office by the Electoral vote, that is based on the voters in their state/district........always has been & always will be.

No, it's going to be changed. It's very undemocratic and the majority doesn't like to - lose.

Why? Because you said so??? You can't keep changing the rules as you go along, just because you don't like the results.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I assure you......you are not alone in that fight.

Of course he isn't. You conservatives always form your little little mobs to help each other deflect. You have to, because none of you can face a liberal in an honest discussion. Intellectual cowardice is the defining trait of the modern conservative, along with butthurt.

TTFN. I'm off to carve some notches.

Really??? I seem to remember we've (you & I) had some of those 'discussions' and you've always been the one to deflect the issue, calling names like a 6 yo, and hurling insults in a panic.........just before you ran off in silence because I used your own words against you and that was just a few days ago......similar to post #170 here. Where you were telling Mac1958 how he was being what? 'High &mighty and self important'??? Or something to that same effect.

Anytime you want to have an HONEST DISCUSSION.......without the petty chit.....and I do mean a RESPECTFUL discussion or debate, you just let me
know.
.

He's as high & mighty as it gets here, constantly belittling people, and that's saying something. He's just desperate to change the subject.

And note the "carve some notches" thing. That's another element of this: They so often declare "victory". That's why I'm convinced much of this is a matter of self esteem, a temporary boost based on so little. Attack and mock and insult, and then they feel a little better about themselves for a while.

This isn't about politics. Politics is just the vehicle.
.

He constantly describes liberals to a tee and says that's what conservatives are. Seems like a very politically confused person if you ask me.

Yet he's not the only one doing that.....seems to be the Liberals way. They have taken everything Conservatives have said about them during the campaign & election......and now throwing it back as if they thought of it first......because they don't have anything else.
They've even realized that their precious MSM outlets for 'credible' news has failed, so they don't bother linking to source to back up any claims. I have twice in the last week or two threw NYT & CNN (actual events) to 2 different people (King Shit from Turd Island here was one) and both screamed 'fake news-it never happened'.
They know they've lost, they know they're screwed.....yet keep arguing to make themselves feel better. Kinda like 'not going down without a fight' as they're caught in the whirlpool going round & round.

I especially love when they say it's Republicans that divide people. You just have to laugh out loud.

The Democrat party survives by two groups of people: government dependents and victims. Democrats love victims and victims love Democrats. To try and expand their base, they need to create more victims, and the only possible way to do that is division.

So all the so-called victims are told they are by the Democrat party. Victims of Big Pharma, victims of Big Business, victims of race, victims of gender, victims of Big Oil, victims of discrimination, victims, victims, victims.

The only way to fight BIG anything is with BIG government. When you create victims, they have to be victims of somebody or some people, and that's how they divide us.

 

[Mac1958]

So a winger from one end shoots a Congressman from the other end, and we on USMB take that serious and thought-provoking occasion to keep right on attacking, mocking & insulting each other. Pretty much immediately. Tell me, what is the goal of non-stop attacks on the other side?.

They did it to us. Try to act better next time you're the minority. And you've shown us how to win. Obstruct obstruct obstruct

Um, I voted for Hillary.

And I do remember the phrase, "two wrongs don't make a right".

Some of those old sayings do make sense, at least for those who are thinking clearly.
.

 

[Mac1958]

I assure you......you are not alone in that fight.

Of course he isn't. You conservatives always form your little little mobs to help each other deflect. You have to, because none of you can face a liberal in an honest discussion. Intellectual cowardice is the defining trait of the modern conservative, along with butthurt.

TTFN. I'm off to carve some notches.

Really??? I seem to remember we've (you & I) had some of those 'discussions' and you've always been the one to deflect the issue, calling names like a 6 yo, and hurling insults in a panic.........just before you ran off in silence because I used your own words against you and that was just a few days ago......similar to post #170 here. Where you were telling Mac1958 how he was being what? 'High &mighty and self important'??? Or something to that same effect.

Anytime you want to have an HONEST DISCUSSION.......without the petty chit.....and I do mean a RESPECTFUL discussion or debate, you just let me
know.
.

He's as high & mighty as it gets here, constantly belittling people, and that's saying something. He's just desperate to change the subject.

And note the "carve some notches" thing. That's another element of this: They so often declare "victory". That's why I'm convinced much of this is a matter of self esteem, a temporary boost based on so little. Attack and mock and insult, and then they feel a little better about themselves for a while.

This isn't about politics. Politics is just the vehicle.
.

He constantly describes liberals to a tee and says that's what conservatives are. Seems like a very politically confused person if you ask me.

Yet he's not the only one doing that.....seems to be the Liberals way. They have taken everything Conservatives have said about them during the campaign & election......and now throwing it back as if they thought of it first......because they don't have anything else.
They've even realized that their precious MSM outlets for 'credible' news has failed, so they don't bother linking to source to back up any claims. I have twice in the last week or two threw NYT & CNN (actual events) to 2 different people (King Shit from Turd Island here was one) and both screamed 'fake news-it never happened'.
They know they've lost, they know they're screwed.....yet keep arguing to make themselves feel better. Kinda like 'not going down without a fight' as they're caught in the whirlpool going round & round.

"Progressives", not liberals. These people are NOT liberal, no matter what they claim. They're what REAL liberals used to fight AGAINST.
.

 

[RightyTighty]

When you get the most votes - you didn't lose. Do try again.

why isnt she president then?.....did she win or lose?....you try again....

She won, she got the most votes, but Trump was appointed by the EC anyway. Very undemocratic.

Not true and you know it.......or if you don't then learn it. A President is voted into office by the Electoral vote, that is based on the voters in their state/district........always has been & always will be.

No, it's going to be changed. It's very undemocratic and the majority doesn't like to - lose.

Why? Because you said so??? You can't keep changing the rules as you go along, just because you don't like the results.

This is one rule we can - change. And I liked the results - we won.

 

[RightyTighty]

She won, she got the most votes, but Trump was appointed by the EC anyway. Very undemocratic.

We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic.

You and I get into an argument about who the best pool player is, so we agree to a game of 8-ball to determine who is right.

I break, and get two solids in and a stripe. Because of the placement of the striped balls, I choose stripes.

As I knock my balls into the pocket, I accidentally knock in another solid ball. I miss the eighth ball and it's your turn. You knock in all the solid balls and then the eight ball to win the game. But I protest saying I am the better player because I knocked in more balls than you did. Would you agree with that?

Of course not. We were not playing to see who could knock the most balls in, we were playing to see who could knock the most selected balls in.

If we had a popular vote race, Trump would have spent much more time in blue states to get every last vote. But he chose red and swing states to capture the most electoral votes. You can't say Hillary won anything because neither were after popular votes. They both played by the same rules, after the same goals, and Hil-Liar lost.

In a democracy the majority rules. The majority isn't ruling in this case. That is a problem in our democratic republic that needs to be - fixed.

We know how it works, even why it was done, but it's simply wrong.

the majority rules?....was that your thinking when california voted down gay marriage ...twice.....but was overruled anyway?....

The people don't get to vote on the rights of others. Soon no one would have any.

That's mob rule and we don't have that either.

you just said....."In a democracy the majority rules".....California is a democracy,the majority voted....words have meaning,if you were as smart as the founders you would have known this....

They can rule on what they are allowed to. The rights of others they are not allowed to. It's not up for a vote.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

And how do you propose to do that, tax the wealthy even more? So government gets more money and the "middle-class" still makes the same. You support job creation? How do you support that, by making more government regulations against them, by having the highest corporate tax rate in the world, by supporting unions that chased millions of jobs out of the country as it is?

Yes tax the rich so that the government can provide adequate services to everyone, protect the environment, provide national security, fund the arts and education, subsidise health care and to do all of the things that an advanced industrial nation should do without blowing up the deficit.

The middle class would stay the same? That is an example of how you misrepresent us. We want tax relief for the middle class, not chump change like the current tax plan provides. When they have more disposable income, they spend it. That creates jobs.
Government regulations are necessary to protect workers, the environment and consumers. Allowing workers to be abused, polutiong the air and water, and undermining consumer confidence is not the way to create jobs.

Unions? Thak you for proving my point that you guys have a poor grasp of the issues. This is just more proof of how you don't really care about the middle class, workers, and the poor. This country is built on a long tradition of organized labor. Unions are responsable for helping to create the midddle class, lifting millions out of poverty, and making working conditions tollerable and safe.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Last year we had over 50,000 overdose deaths in the US--a new record for those kinds of deaths. Yeah, I would say drugs ruin lives: ruin lives of the drug user, ruing the lives of their families, ruing the lives of those who get killed in gang wars. And those are just the people that get killed over drugs. There are many more lives ruined by people who are hooked on them.

Yes it's a problem but what the hell does that have to do with what I said:

"We support a fair and rational system of law enforcement and criminal justice. We support the police while recognizing the fact that some cops use excessive for and that more controls are needed to reign in some departments. We do not support mandatory minimum sentences for drug offenses which clog our jails at taxpayers expense, and ruin lives."

You don't want to ruin their lives? Bullshit . What will putting them away for prolonged periods of time do to their lives? Just more lip service of claiming to care about something.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

They do have a path to citizenship, it's called waiting in line like all the other people that want to come here. If they are so worried about their children, why did they have children in a country they knew they could get kicked out of any day?

If I robbed a bank seven years ago, but just got caught today, should I be given a pass because between the time I robbed the bank and today, I had three children and started a family? Of course not, I go to jail regardless. I knew that I was running from the law when I decided to have kids.

You are talking about immigrants as though they are not real people. Immigrants also helped to build this country. The fact that some are undocumented now does not negate the fact that they came for a better life, had families and most are hard working members of society, who pay taxes and reap little in benefits and services. Would you penalize the children who were born here by deporting the parents? Who will care for those children

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

There is no law that states kids have to stay in the US because their parents are forced to leave. Take your kids with you. Business people do it every day in this country. Some just decide they wish to live somewhere else and take their family with them.

That is stupid and insensitive! We are talking about kids who know no other home. This is just further proof that you guys do not have an adequate grasp of the issues and really don't care about people.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Sure you can have it both ways. If you don't make enough money, get training for a career and make more money. Work more hours. Start your own business. Here is a good place to start. Some companies will not only train you for your job and license, but pay you while you learn:

Truck drivers are running more miles and hauling more freight than ever, in part because of a driver shortage. It's been a growing issue in the industry for years, and much of it can be attributed to an aging workforce. The average age of a truck driver is 49, and many of them are now retiring. This, combined with a lack of qualified drivers and industry turnover, in general, has some projections showing a need for 100,000 drivers heading into in 2017, according to Driver Solutions.

Yes of course. The old phantasy about how anyone can make it by just trying and working harder. Classic blaming the victim. I have seen this nonsense about truck drivers before. Should a 5'5" single parent board her kids out and become a long haul truck driver. And where is the investment in education and vocational training in the Trump budget? Tell me in practical, workable terms how you can "have it both ways" ...true full employment and a free market economy.

 

[RightyTighty]

There is no law that states kids have to stay in the US because their parents are forced to leave. Take your kids with you. Business people do it every day in this country. Some just decide they wish to live somewhere else and take their family with them.

That is stupid and insensitive! We are talking about kids who know no other home. This is just further proof that you guys do not have an adequate grasp of the issues and really don't care about people.

They just like to mean. It makes them feel like what they aren't - men.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

The Democrats want more people on government assistance. The more government dependents, the more likely Democrat voters. When DumBama got into the white house, he doubled the food stamp role. He also started Commie care, another government dependency program. Between Commie Care and food stamps, they created over 40 million more new government dependents, and it was no accident either, it was deliberate.

Classic misrepresentation of us. Exactly what I was talking about. It is just horseshit to say the we want more people on assistance. We want assistance to be there for people who need it, when they need it and that is not the same thing. Obama double the food stamp rolls? How the hell did he do that. Obama was dealing with Bush recession. Bush did it. More proof of the fact that half of the times, you guys are knowingly lying and willfully ignorant the rest of the time.

 

[Harry Dresden]

We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic.

You and I get into an argument about who the best pool player is, so we agree to a game of 8-ball to determine who is right.

I break, and get two solids in and a stripe. Because of the placement of the striped balls, I choose stripes.

As I knock my balls into the pocket, I accidentally knock in another solid ball. I miss the eighth ball and it's your turn. You knock in all the solid balls and then the eight ball to win the game. But I protest saying I am the better player because I knocked in more balls than you did. Would you agree with that?

Of course not. We were not playing to see who could knock the most balls in, we were playing to see who could knock the most selected balls in.

If we had a popular vote race, Trump would have spent much more time in blue states to get every last vote. But he chose red and swing states to capture the most electoral votes. You can't say Hillary won anything because neither were after popular votes. They both played by the same rules, after the same goals, and Hil-Liar lost.

In a democracy the majority rules. The majority isn't ruling in this case. That is a problem in our democratic republic that needs to be - fixed.

We know how it works, even why it was done, but it's simply wrong.

the majority rules?....was that your thinking when california voted down gay marriage ...twice.....but was overruled anyway?....

The people don't get to vote on the rights of others. Soon no one would have any.

That's mob rule and we don't have that either.

you just said....."In a democracy the majority rules".....California is a democracy,the majority voted....words have meaning,if you were as smart as the founders you would have known this....

They can rule on what they are allowed to. The rights of others they are not allowed to. It's not up for a vote.

then the majority does not rule does it?... .....

 

[Dogmaphobe]

The country should be six or so smaller nations. I want nothing to do with your kind, Rez boy. The American Taliban is all yours.

My "kind" is all about individuality and freedom, obviously we've lost in this country… LOL

If that were true - you'd be a liberal.

"Liberalism, political doctrine that takes protecting and enhancing the freedom of the individual to be the central problem of politics. Liberals typically believe that government is necessary to protect individuals from being harmed by others; but they also recognize that government itself can pose a threat to liberty. As the revolutionary American pamphleteer Thomas Paine expressed it in “Common Sense” (1776), government is at best “a necessary evil.” Laws, judges, and police are needed to secure the individual’s life and liberty, but their coercive power may also be turned against him. The problem, then, is to devise a system that gives government the power necessary to protect individual liberty but also prevents those who govern from abusing that power."

There cannot be any sort of freedom and individuality in socialism/progressivism/liberalism… Fact

So, then, since the Founders were liberals and used Liberalism to found this nation, how is it that you have - liberty (freedom and individuality) if there is no such thing in, liberalism?

Political correctness has killed the individual and their freedom in this country… The whole purpose of socialism/communism/progressivism/liberalism… LOL

I agree with you here except for one word.

What political correctness has killed more than anything else is liberalism. You may be arguing with authoritarians who CALL themselves liberal, but they are really just leftist authoritarians since they demand unthinking conformity the way they do.