Democrats

[Rattler]

4 minutes ago, Splitear_Leland said:

Fine, Rattler, we'll start simple, please provide a factual defense of your definition of the word "ignorance". Something from Webster's would be fine.

I really don't want to argue with you, because you are so staunch, even when you are demonstrably wrong, it's an exercise in futility. Samuel Clemens had a great saying about folks of your Ilk, but I'm sure you can make up a Mark Twain quote of your own, or at least find a meme where someone else made one up.

Taking the definition of the word out of the context of the sentence it was used in would serve no purpose, as it relates to the idea of knowing truth, not it's general definition.

I didn't suggest an argument.  I proposed a civil debate.  Intellectual in nature.  You may not realize it, but you have devolved into ad hominem attacks here, which seems to indicate you have noting of substance to offer which would refute my prior claims.  I'm disappointed.

Anyway, this isn't where the debate should take place, as this thread would be derailed.  Feel free to PM me and we can hopefully have a civil go round that will inevitably go on for some time with no change of mind likely.

[Deleted Account]

14 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Taking the definition of the word out of the context of the sentence it was used in would serve no purpose, as it relates to the idea of knowing truth, not it's general definition.

I didn't suggest an argument.  I proposed a civil debate.  Intellectual in nature.  You may not realize it, but you have devolved into ad hominem attacks here, which seems to indicate you have noting of substance to offer which would refute my prior claims.  I'm disappointed.

Anyway, this isn't where the debate should take place, as this thread would be derailed.  Feel free to PM me and we can hopefully have a civil go round that will inevitably go on for some time with no change of mind likely.

I'll pass Rattler, I have no I'll will towards you, but I have seen enough of your "civil debate" to know that we will never come to much of an agreement on anything, really. Congratulations, you have defeated me with your experience

Edited February 21, 2020 by Splitear_Leland

[Deleted Account]

19 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Taking the definition of the word out of the context of the sentence it was used in would serve no purpose, as it relates to the idea of knowing truth, not it's general definition.

I didn't suggest an argument.  I proposed a civil debate.  Intellectual in nature.  You may not realize it, but you have devolved into ad hominem attacks here, which seems to indicate you have noting of substance to offer which would refute my prior claims.  I'm disappointed.

Anyway, this isn't where the debate should take place, as this thread would be derailed.  Feel free to PM me and we can hopefully have a civil go round that will inevitably go on for some time with no change of mind likely.

You know what, upon further reflection, I want to clarify my reference to the famous Twain quote. I do not think you are an idiot, you have shown yourself on many occasions to be at least researched and logical in your posts, even though I do not agree with them.

However, I do stand by my referenced quote in regards to arguing the established definition of a word like ignorance. It's such a small thing, that really has nothing to do with the original post, but goodness gracious, you will debate anything

[Rattler]

Damn, I'm out of "likes" again.  But you are correct there.  So here goes.....  LOL!!

Maybe because of my age I prefer original meanings of words to modern day perversions. 

Why is not wanting to know ignorant?  To ignore truth is ignorant.

ORIGIN OF IGNORANT

1325–75; Middle English ignora(u)nt < Latin ignōrant- (stem of ignōrāns), present participle of ignōrāre to ignore

[GreeneHunter]

[Deleted Account]

4 minutes ago, Rattler said:

Damn, I'm out of "likes" again.  But you are correct there.  So here goes.....  LOL!!

Maybe because of my age I prefer original meanings of words to modern day perversions. 

Why is not wanting to know ignorant?  To ignore truth is ignorant.

ORIGIN OF IGNORANT

1325–75; Middle English ignora(u)nt < Latin ignōrant- (stem of ignōrāns), present participle of ignōrāre to ignore

Come on Rattler, you're stretching so much on that one I feel like I'm watching a yoga class

From Webster's: 

Definition of ignorance

 

: the state or fact of being ignorant : lack of knowledge, education, or awareness

[Rattler]

And never the Twain shall meet.  LOL!

[crappyice]

Thank you gentleman for offering a prime example of our political climate right now. Arguing for arguing sake where the result of said argument are irrelevant. And even if both of you are reasonably intelligent neither can accept learning something from the other. Sounds like the State of the Union address where Dems can’t applaud for clearly Trump “wins” that even supports Dem ideals.
Anyone want to offer a definition of “implode” that we can not agree upon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ApexerER]

I guess I will jump back in this. I actually had no idea how many people I knew were democrats until Obama was elected. It wasn't something I ever talked about with friends. Maybe occasionally with family. Now the Democrats that I know were more like Buckmaster and were like...whoa...what is going on here and we started having conversations about it. 

I just don't understand how, in this day and age, a hard working middle class American like what I assume most of us are on here could vote for any of these Democratic candidates. The days of the JFK or even Bill Clinton democratic party are gone. I am a conservative republican and I can admit that Clinton along with Newt did some good things even though I disagree a lot of what he did. Maybe if Senator Manchin was running but he isn't and even he has voted along party lines, I could see him getting elected as a middle of the road guy. 

The democratic party has gone so far left that candidates like Bernie Sanders and AOC are the loudest voices in the room. That is downright scary. They yell and scream for free college, free housing, free health care, enlightening the class from the bottom up. That isn't how the real world works, and who pays for it all, us dumbasses that go to work everyday. You can take 100% of the money from the rich every year and it doesn't even cover the deficit in our budget. 

I have never felt more screwed over by a president than I did by Obama. I had a great affordable healthcare plan that skyrocketed when Obama care went into effect. To the point my family had to switch to an 80/20 plan where I am responsible for 20% up to $12000 buck and it cost about the same as my HMO did previously.  My daughter had to have ankle surgery this year, my out of pocket expense for that was over $5000 bucks. I am having some health issues as well and they can't figure out what exactly is wrong and I have stopped going to the doctor because I can't just keep racking up doctor bills while they guess. So as a hard working middle class family I have to worry about what I pay in health care and my health but anyone who doesn't work never has a care in the world because its all free. Add in the tax increases under Obama and all the policies I disagreed with and he is easily the worst President in my lifetime. 

I can just imagine how much worse it will get for us middle class Americans if we go to a President farther left than Obama most of these candidates are about as left as they come. The most centered person even the people from South Bend won't vote for their Mayor. They say he has made some new roads and added some coffee shops to downtown but they are literally afraid to go out at night.

The way the young people in this country want Socialism and refuse to look at how socialism has failed time and time again has me very scared for my daughters future. 

 

[Deleted Account]

7 minutes ago, crappyice said:

Thank you gentleman for offering a prime example of our political climate right now. Arguing for arguing sake where the result of said argument are irrelevant. And even if both of you are reasonably intelligent neither can accept learning something from the other. Sounds like the State of the Union address where Dems can’t applaud for clearly Trump “wins” that even supports Dem ideals.
Anyone want to offer a definition of “implode” that we can not agree upon?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a fair assessment, I'll give you that. However, I realize I got fired up, and we have handled it on the side. I'll be the first to invite everyone to the flag pole at 3:00  I'm joking, I'll admit I got wrapped up in things, and look pretty foolish because of it. It's not the first time it's happened, and it would be safe to bet that it won't be the last  

[Marion]

That's a fair assessment, I'll give you that. However, I realize I got fired up, and we have handled it on the side. I'll be the first to invite everyone to the flag pole at 3:00  I'm joking, I'll admit I got wrapped up in things, and look pretty foolish because of it. It's not the first time it's happened, and it would be safe to bet that it won't be the last  

Grammar Nazi

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[Deleted Account]

Just now, The Jerkman said:

Grammar Nazi

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk
 

Guilty as charged

[Marion]

Guilty as charged

Ah damnit I read that post as having been done by crappy. Who is actually an English teacher. Maybe I need to get some tutoring in how to read properly

Sent from my SM-G935V using Tapatalk

[greg54]

Downtown Upneck

[steve863]

1 hour ago, goosifer said:

I'd be curious to know what your definition of "pal around" is. How many minutes has Trump spend in live or phone conversation with Putin? What did he give Putin accolades about?

I'll let you look up the Helsinki news conference where Trump downplays American intelligence and said he believes Putin as just one example.  Trump has been kissing Putin's butt long before he got elected.  Trump has an affinity for corrupt individuals.  How many respectable people have you heard say nice things about Trump after having worked for him?  Like the saying goes, if a person gets thrown out of a bar once or twice, it might be the bars fault.  If one gets thrown out 50 times it probably the person who is the problem.

[wolc123]

9 hours ago, crappyice said:

 Has there ever been a modern president who didn’t take a pay cut to do the job and then do quite well financially when done?


 

US Grant (depending on your definition of "modern").   

[wolc123]

11 hours ago, Splitear_Leland said:

Deleted

What is your stance on abortion ?  Do you realize that there have been about 10 times as many of those in the USA, since Roe vs Wade, than the number of post-birth human exterminations carried out by the Nazis during WW II.    The single best thing about the current collapse of the Democratic party will be the end of this 10 X Holocaust. 

Ethically, the abortions are even worse because the innocent victims had zero chance of escape.      

Edited February 21, 2020 by wolc123

[goosifer]

9 hours ago, Rattler said:

You would think the Russians would be supporting a fellow Communist in America, like Bernie Sanders.  Or, at the very least, a leftist like Hillary.  Why would they support an American patriot that despises communism?  

I guess they heard you. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/bernie-sanders-briefed-by-us-officials-that-russia-is-trying-to-help-his-presidential-campaign/2020/02/21/5ad396a6-54bd-11ea-929a-64efa7482a77_story.html

[NonTypical]

It seems that everything that the Democrats accuse the Republicans of doing, they are guilty of. I’m sure during the last election, Russia would have rather seen Clinton win as well. They probably are in the market to purchase some more Uranium. And didn’t Obama tell them that he would have more flexibility after the next election? Lol

[Buckmaster7600]

The question I have is has the Democratic Party really moved that far left as a whole or is it just the old squeaky wheel thing and the farthest left have the loudest voice and the rest of the party caters to them?

I don’t know a single person that thinks gov healthcare is a good thing?

I don’t know a single person that wants illegals to come and go as they please?

I font know anyone that thinks babies should be aborted while hanging half out.

There’s many other topics as well but my point is I honestly don’t think the average democrat is as far left as these imbeciles and the left wing media make them out to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deleted Account]

2 hours ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

The question I have is has the Democratic Party really moved that far left as a whole or is it just the old squeaky wheel thing and the farthest left have the loudest voice and the rest of the party caters to them?

I don’t know a single person that thinks gov healthcare is a good thing?

I don’t know a single person that wants illegals to come and go as they please?

I font know anyone that thinks babies should be aborted while hanging half out.

There’s many other topics as well but my point is I honestly don’t think the average democrat is as far left as these imbeciles and the left wing media make them out to be.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I resemble every one of those remarks. I think the government can do a better job of helping with healthcare costs, but I'm not smart enough to offer a clear solution. I think basic human services is where capitalism fails though, when the dollar is worth more than human life or human dignity, it's time to make some changes.

[Buckmaster7600]

I resemble every one of those remarks. I think the government can do a better job of helping with healthcare costs, but I'm not smart enough to offer a clear solution. I think basic human services is where capitalism fails though, when the dollar is worth more than human life or human dignity, it's time to make some changes.

I agree the government could do better than what we currently have. By getting their hands out of it and allowing capitalism to work. Like most everything in the US especially college and healthcare one reason the government started getting involved it’s completely went to shit.

Prove me wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Deleted Account]

1 minute ago, Buckmaster7600 said:

I agree the government could do better than what we currently have. By getting their hands out of it and allowing capitalism to work. Like most everything in the US especially college and healthcare one reason the government started getting involved it’s completely went to shit.

Prove me wrong?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I cannot prove you wrong. Like I said, I don't have a solution to offer. All I know is that when people can't afford simple but necessary drugs like insulin, but CEO's of the companies producing the product are getting disgustingly rich off of the product, there is something fundamentally wrong. Maybe it's government interference, maybe it's pure greed, maybe both, maybe it's neither, I don't know.

However, we spend billions of dollars on defense to protect Americans and American "interests", but our people run a far greater risk of going bankrupt due to healthcare costs than they do being a victim of let's say a terrorist attack. I guess that may tie back into people making money though, I'm sure that someone is making a lot money off of defense spending, and we know darn well that it isn't the men and women who risk their lives for Freedom. But again, I don't know enough to offer any type of solution, so I guess I'm just complaining

[ApexerER]

2 hours ago, Splitear_Leland said:

I cannot prove you wrong. Like I said, I don't have a solution to offer. All I know is that when people can't afford simple but necessary drugs like insulin, but CEO's of the companies producing the product are getting disgustingly rich off of the product, there is something fundamentally wrong. Maybe it's government interference, maybe it's pure greed, maybe both, maybe it's neither, I don't know.

However, we spend billions of dollars on defense to protect Americans and American "interests", but our people run a far greater risk of going bankrupt due to healthcare costs than they do being a victim of let's say a terrorist attack. I guess that may tie back into people making money though, I'm sure that someone is making a lot money off of defense spending, and we know darn well that it isn't the men and women who risk their lives for Freedom. But again, I don't know enough to offer any type of solution, so I guess I'm just complaining

I know where I would start. Allow us to get insurance across state lines so we have more than a choice or two for health care. I currently have 2. The unaffordable one I used to have and the one I got now. Allow our insurance companies to purchase drugs from anywhere. It is crazy you can order the same drug from Canada or Mexico for 1/3 the cost. Take 10% of what we pay for medicade and put it into pharmaceutical research and make any company that wants a piece of that money and develops a new drug to share that drug with other pharmacies so there isn't a monopoly on the drug before a generic can be made. Those are 3 easy steps that would go a long way in cutting cost while also limiting government interference.

[Rattler]

The Leftmedia is awash today with stories that Russia is at it again. The New York Times broke the story: "Intelligence officials warned House lawmakers last week that Russia was interfering in the 2020 campaign to try to get President Trump re-elected."

We've seen this pathetic movie before, so there's no need in rehashing how Democrats and their Leftmedia super PAC seized on phony allegations that Trump "colluded" with Russia to defeat Hillary Clinton in 2016. They spent nearly three years yammering about it only to finally be distracted by the Ukraine fiasco. But that doesn't mean there aren't some aspects of this story that deserve a refresher.

First of all, this isn't new. As Mark Alexander argues, "Russia has strived to interfere with American elections since the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917 and the rise of the Soviet communists. The only thing new about this 'interference' is that it has been, and remains, fodder for the Left to undermine Trump's presidency. The irony is, leftists and their Leftmedia propagandists are, as they were in 2016, backing a communist who they hope will defeat Trump."

Anyone remember when Ted Kennedy requested Soviet interference to help defeat Ronald Reagan in the 1984 election? The New York Times doesn't, because that inconvenient history doesn't help Democrats now.

Today's news follows the same template used in 2017. As the Times reminds us, "The intelligence community issued an assessment in early 2017 that President Vladimir V. Putin personally ordered a campaign of influence in the previous year's election and developed 'a clear preference for President-elect Trump.' But Republicans have long argued that Moscow's campaign was intended to sow chaos, not aid Mr. Trump specifically."

Republicans were exactly right. Besides, Trump has been tough on Russia throughout his presidency, and his work to bolster U.S. energy production (especially via fracking), strengthen NATO, and stabilize Europe and the Middle East are directly counter to Putin's objectives. The idea that Putin truly prefers Trump over Sanders or any other Democrat is ludicrous.

Moreover, Moscow generally interferes in a way that supports the expected loser in order to undermine the eventual winner. Given that everyone thought Clinton was going to win in 2016, that left the Russians with the obvious choice of "backing" Trump. Their objective succeeded beyond Putin's wildest dreams, as Democrats aided him in peddling the narrative that American election integrity was compromised and a duly elected president was somehow corrupt, even going so far as to impeach that president. Putin got four years of chaos out of a few Facebook ads. Of course he's going to run that same play (with necessary operational tweaks), and Democrats, the Leftmedia, and apparently some deep-state intelligence officials are all too eager to help him.

One final history lesson: Barack Obama's administration was well aware of Russian efforts to interfere all throughout 2016, yet Obama and his cadre of deep-staters said and did nothing to stop it, in part because it was so ineffectual but primarily because they didn't want to taint Clinton's supposedly certain victory. Only when Trump shocked the world by winning did Obama's gang decide to turn this "crisis" into an opportunity to undermine the incoming president with the Russia-collusion hoax.

After last week's report to Congress, Trump removed acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire and chose German ambassador Richard Grenell to take his place. It's part of a general and much-needed house cleaning after Trump's impeachment and acquittal. Nevertheless, the Democrats' 2020 playbook is now evident.