Birthers ..... it's over.

[DankNuggs 305]

For the record, I'm not arguing that companies shouldn't move overseas....I understand why they do. Nor am I advocating voters voting for handouts...they shouldn't.

 

I just don't agree with blanket generalizations...and don't understand why folks continue to use them. There are always exceptions.

 

And if you take that statement at face value Unless the citizenry actually cares about the country more than themselves the system can't work......it kinda rings of socialism, doesn't it? That folks should disavow themselves of their own individual interests in the name of what's good for the whole of society.

 

Is Dank a closet commie? Dude doth protest a bit too much, eh?

 

Its the same differnce between our grandparents generation, which abhored debt and spent their lives being frugal and efficient and moving as quickly as possible to pay any debt they owed...vs our generation of 0% down and walking away from the mortgage/credit cards when you run out of credit. Its turned 180 degrees in our persepctive towards fiscal responsibility, also social responsibility, also personal responsibility.... thats what i mean, all this aid is destructive to the lower class as it sets dependancy, and a level of assitance that is unsustainable. It drives people from working and gives them a false sense of comfort than unfortunately has to end at some point.

[DankNuggs 305]

What about the CEO who picks up shop and moves overseas to make a bigger buck? Yeah, yeah, yeah...I get it. Taxes and what not. But strictly applying your quote above to any corporation who picks up and ships jobs overseas in order to help themselves rather than worrying about the country as a whole, do you feel the same level of indignation? Because on a certain level, all those CEOs are doing is helping themselves at the expense of the country as a whole....they could take a hit (and let's face it, they could still make a nice living remaining in the US) but the utility of their decision to remain on American soil is much greater (wrt Americans) than moving overseas.

 

Otherwise you're saying it's ok for one group to act in their self interest, but not another group. Seems inconsistent, and is nothing more than a divisive, US vs THEM philosophy.

 

It isn't the fault of the company that the regulatory landscape they operate in is toxic as compared to their foreign competitors, that is a govt failing. Govt sets the rules.

 

You are equating the givers and the takers and saying they are equal. They aren't when speaking towards their contribution to the prosperity of the country.

[DankNuggs 305]

I just don't agree with blanket generalizations...and don't understand why folks continue to use them. There are always exceptions.

 

 

because you can't explain concisely the entire human condition... One-off single data point retorts to general statements are pointless. Obviously if i make a statement like liberals are beggars or apologists it doesn't cover everyone, but it covers a large swath of the viewpoint. Yes there are exceptions, but you can't have meaningful discussions if you have to include the individual viewpoint of every person in america.

[FeelingMN 273]

Generally speaking (), wouldn't you say that those who pay little to nothing in taxes will continue to vote for those politicians who want to continue to soak "the rich"?

 

Maybe....maybe not. But probably, yes. And I hate it. Dayton ran on this platform, and I voted against him (and Emmer). But because I disagree with his policy, doesn't mean anyone who voted for him (be they property owners or not) should have their right to vote restricted. That's just the way democracy works....better luck in a few years.

 

Case in point, Minnesota is thinking about introducing a referendum to define marriage between a man and a woman. I'm against this. The majority of Minnesota is probably for this. I think it limits civil rights, and think it has basis in bigotry and ignorance. But I wouldn't want to remove these folks right to vote though I believe it contradicts democratic principles. Better luck in a few years.

 

 

 

They're only my interests because they're morally correct, and I believe them to be morally and fiscally best for everyone.

 

Even meglamaniac thinks this is over the top. Jesus Christ you're focking crazy.

 

 

You absolutely gloss over the ramifications of removing the checks and balances within the voting system by making this statement. You're full of sh!t because you love the convenience of claiming that I'm 'limiting or eliminating rights' and in the process saying something 'dangerous to democracy', but you aren't living up to any model of consist principles, because you're supporting a system which will allow the majority to vote money out of the pockets of the minority!

 

See above. I don't support a system that allows the majority to vote money out of the pockets of the minority. I just don't believe in stripping voting rights from the have nots to benefit the haves. There's a better way. I've provided an example of how a vote might go against my own principles...but like I've said, freedom can be messy and you just gotta work through it. You don't solve it by silencing folks. To do that is tyrannical.

 

 

You explain to me how that isn't a threat to our Republic, and I'll listen. The Constitution was framed expressly to ensure that all men are treated equally under the law. How could what you're saying have any legitimate basis when you're a proponent of the opposite?

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. I absolutely agree with you; we shouldn't soak the rich. Folks shouldn't vote money out of the pockets of the minority. Absolutely not. But where we differ is in the solution. You wanna strip folks of their right to vote. I think that's wrong, and runs counter to what America stands for. How can you tell me that limiting anyone's right to vote is not in any way a threat to our Republic? That's the very focking essence of our Republic.

 

 

 

On a serious not, though: how does such a problem find itself separating conservatives and liberals? It doesn't: by definition {a} either a liberal or a conservative could donate without checking the charity; {b} either a liberal or a conservative has more power to change their donations based upon their personal responsibility to put their money where they believe it will help the most, and {c} we're comparing this to Government, which is far less efficient than the average charity regardless.

 

This point is a deflection from the real issue. You've spent some e-ink fretting about charities wasting money, when the point that really means more is that Individual Responsibility is the best check and balance on such a charity. There is no such limiting factor with Government within everyone having equal stake in the payment, and the bottom 50% have no stake.

 

And Government is clearly far more inefficient than nearly any charity. Charities go out of business when they're not efficient. Governments merely print more money, devaluing our assets and increasing our taxes.

 

Uhm....I agree.

 

 

I bolded your comment to ask you if this is condescension. When you libs respond, you're indignant, and cannot believe you have to waste time on we conservatives. When we conservatives respond, we're condescending.

 

He said he was appalled by my comprehension. That's pretty condescending. My feelings were hurt.

 

Does FeelingMN advocate eliminating the equal voice of one subset of people by creating unequal circumstances unique to them that result in them being targetted? Yep. Your policies have ruined the Constitutionality of your own objection. That is a fact.

 

What you've said here could apply to yourself and the issue of gay marriage. Are you an advocate of gay marriage? Will you vote against any ammendment seeking to restrict the rights of gays.....through unequal circumstances unique to them that result in them being targeted?

 

Even though I'm against the vote of the populace (wrt gay marriage), I respect it....as a basic tennet of Democracy. Freedom is messy. Quit your b!tching.

 

 

Like I said: you condone a tactic and a policy that results in some of us being unfairly targetted, and at the mercy of the voting whims of others, and you lose your right to object when I then espouse removing voting rights of those who are gaining benefits without paying for them.

 

Again, I see a parallel to gay activists. I think it's wrong that groups are targeted. I vote/argue against anyone who supports such a stance. I still don't want to limit voting rights.

 

Rights carry responsibilities. There are no rights when there are no equal responsibilities. Period.

 

I have a job, a wife, and two kids. I have more responsibilities than half the geeks on this bored.

 

But I'm not about to argue I have more rights than anyone else here.

 

Aren't these rights....inalienable?

 

You scare me.

[DankNuggs 305]

some quality retorts MN... nice work

[FeelingMN 273]

You are equating the givers and the takers and saying they are equal. They aren't when speaking towards their contribution to the prosperity of the country.

 

Ok....maybe. But wouldn't the contribution of the CEO be maximized if he kept jobs here in the good ol' USofA?

 

I understand why he wants to move overseas. Whatever, that's his perogative. But if you're talking about what's good for the country....and I'm being absolutely literal....then isn't it better for America if American CEOs kept their corporations on American soil and employed American citizens?

 

You've said yourself that globalization is at root for shifting the inequality between rich and poor. Couldn't that be ameliorated by businesses staying here?

 

Look, CEOs' objective is to make money. Moving overseas helps them do that. Fine. But from the perspective of civic responsibility, wouldn't it be refreshing if some companies took a hit to their bottom lines to keep jobs here?

 

Whatever....I agree with your point in general. Folks should educate themselves and look at the big picture. The country is in trouble and we all need to make some concessions. Hard policy decisions aren't necessarily gonna be popular...but it's something that needs to be done.

 

because you can't explain concisely the entire human condition... One-off single data point retorts to general statements are pointless. Obviously if i make a statement like liberals are beggars or apologists it doesn't cover everyone, but it covers a large swath of the viewpoint. Yes there are exceptions, but you can't have meaningful discussions if you have to include the individual viewpoint of every person in america.

 

Fair enough. I guess I just take umbrage to constantly being labeled as such and such...and folks like you and Mensa do it...all...the....focking....time.

 

Maybe I should stop being a pussy.

[DankNuggs 305]

Ok....maybe. But wouldn't the contribution of the CEO be maximized if he kept jobs here in the good ol' USofA?

 

I understand why he wants to move overseas. Whatever, that's his perogative. But if you're talking about what's good for the country....and I'm being absolutely literal....then isn't it better for America if American CEOs kept their corporations on American soil and employed American citizens?

 

You've said yourself that globalization is at root for shifting the inequality between rich and poor. Couldn't that be ameliorated by businesses staying here?

 

Sounds like you are a proponent for Japanese-esque isolationism....and i agree to an extent. I think the tariff situation is FUBAR here and they need to incentivize domestic manufacturing and jobs, its the only way to combat an uneven playing field. Not complete isolationism, but enough to tilt the balance in our favor.

You don't have to offer PILOT programs and deferred taxes to lure companies here if they know their cost of doing business will increase by going overseas...Its politically palatable as well because we are basically just screwing foreign manufacturers.

[IMMensaMind 460]

Maybe....maybe not. But probably, yes. And I hate it. Dayton ran on this platform, and I voted against him (and Emmer). But because I disagree with his policy, doesn't mean anyone who voted for him (be they property owners or not) should have their right to vote restricted. That's just the way democracy works....better luck in a few years.

 

What "soak the rich" policies did Dayton and Emmer support? Do you support Obama in his plan to raise taxes on "the rich"? That's what we're talking about here: skewing the progressive tax system even further up the ladder, so that an increasing percentage of Americans join the group of constituents catered to by leftist politicians.

 

They are literally turning "the rich" into the resented/hated class, so that they can more easily take their assets.

 

If you are saying that you do not support that, when what do you support? I thought you were in favor of progressive taxation.

 

 

Case in point, Minnesota is thinking about introducing a referendum to define marriage between a man and a woman. I'm against this. The majority of Minnesota is probably for this. I think it limits civil rights, and think it has basis in bigotry and ignorance. But I wouldn't want to remove these folks right to vote though I believe it contradicts democratic principles. Better luck in a few years.

 

I think you're playing fast and loose with what is and what isn't a civil right. It isn't a "civil right" merely because you happen to agree with it. It would be the same argument that an animal lover would use to be allowed to legally marry their dog.

 

We've had this conversation before, and I do not want to get too far afield - but I have to address this one thing: laws are built around the morality of the people. What the Founding Fathers recognized is that Federalism (strong states; weak federal government) was the best Government structure to address the differences between people, and the most flexible structure within which to allow differences and still retain harmony.

 

That is to say that each state has every right to pass such a law. It is no more an encroachment upon the civil rights of each other than is banning bestiality. Morals are the limits which laws put to ink to define. The beauty of Federalism is that allows each State's population to live in a moral framework which they have collectively decided is best for them, and it simultaneously allows each individual to GTFO of dodge and move to a state more in line with their own personal views.

 

One of the problems with Federal Government this large is that it stomps on our collective civil rights by forcing National Laws by superceding each State's sovereignty. I believe this Government is unConstitutional. It has walked far beyond its Constitutionally limited function, and these are but some of the ramifications.

 

Even meglamaniac thinks this is over the top. Jesus Christ you're focking crazy.

 

Saying you disagree is sufficient. I am nothing approaching crazy. I believe my positions to be morally correct, and in the best fiscal interest of the country. Nothing about that statement can be construed as being crazy; I would be utterly amazed to find out that you believe any differently about your own beliefs.

 

See above. I don't support a system that allows the majority to vote money out of the pockets of the minority. I just don't believe in stripping voting rights from the have nots to benefit the haves. There's a better way. I've provided an example of how a vote might go against my own principles...but like I've said, freedom can be messy and you just gotta work through it. You don't solve it by silencing folks. To do that is tyrannical.

 

No, you're missing the point. Marriage applies to all men equally, and all women equally. The subject of gay marriage is not synonymous with this issue, no matter how you attempt to contort the subject to fit.

 

Two wrongs don't make a right. I absolutely agree with you; we shouldn't soak the rich. Folks shouldn't vote money out of the pockets of the minority. Absolutely not. But where we differ is in the solution. You wanna strip folks of their right to vote. I think that's wrong, and runs counter to what America stands for. How can you tell me that limiting anyone's right to vote is not in any way a threat to our Republic? That's the very focking essence of our Republic.

 

Originally, only property owners could vote. These were the Founding Fathers who set such restrictions. Let's not get all hyperbolic and claim that it threatens our way of life, since our very way of life started out based upon this premise I'm forwarding.

 

But let's be more specific: I said that the only reason I favor such a rule is if the injustice of soaking the rich is allowed to continue via the progressive tax system (which also didn't exist at the time). I said that if the progressive tax was repealed, I would have no problem reverting to the position of every American of legal age being allowe to vote.

 

 

 

 

Uhm....I agree.

 

If you agree, then you'll have to agree that bringing up that charities can be wasteful was a deflection. People who contribute are the best check and balance upon that wastefulness, and that either leftists or conservatives can act as that check&balance. It was a deflection from the very real point being made by conservatives that the structure of Government under leftist guidance as been to supercede charities by forcing increasingly higher levels of tax for purposes that private charity is not only more capable of managing, but would manage in a manner that would ensure freedom of choice for the contributor.

 

He said he was appalled by my comprehension. That's pretty condescending. My feelings were hurt.

 

You only have a basis to complain if you hadn't be extremely condescending yourself. Since that isn't the case, I would suggest that you take the advice of Frank M, Nikki, or any number of other leftist of double standard who exhorts everyone else to "sack up".

[IMMensaMind 460]

What you've said here could apply to yourself and the issue of gay marriage. Are you an advocate of gay marriage? Will you vote against any ammendment seeking to restrict the rights of gays.....through unequal circumstances unique to them that result in them being targeted?

 

Even though I'm against the vote of the populace (wrt gay marriage), I respect it....as a basic tennet of Democracy. Freedom is messy. Quit your b!tching.

 

As I said earlier, your gay marriage issue is a strawman. Since the institution of marriage treats every man and every woman exactly the same, this isn't analogous. Any man can take advantage of marriage by marrying a woman. That a man doesn't want to marry a woman doesn't change that he has access; it just means that what he wants to do is something else.

 

Regardless, as a Conservative with heavy libertarian leanings, I am a Federalist: go and do what you want in your State. Just don't expect my State to comply, or even recognize what you've done - and if my State somehow does, I am free to comply myself, or move.

 

Again, I see a parallel to gay activists. I think it's wrong that groups are targeted. I vote/argue against anyone who supports such a stance. I still don't want to limit voting rights.

 

Non sequitur; I've told you why. By that standard, the law against murders targets a group as well: murderers.

 

I have a job, a wife, and two kids. I have more responsibilities than half the geeks on this bored.

 

We're not talking about you - but I can tell that you're far more mature and reasonable than many/most others here, and you can have fun with an edge, but not take it too far. I respect that; you are a poster that I respect. I'm not sure that feeling is mutual, even though it should be.

 

But I'm not about to argue I have more rights than anyone else here.

 

I believe that you are confusing rights with responsibilities. There are two kinds of rights: alienable, and inalienable. If you murder someone, you lose the right to keep and bear arms. Clearly, that is among those rights which are not inalienable. Those guilty of felonies can also lose their right to vote. Again: not inalienable.

 

My right to equal treatment under the law is being suppressed by forcing me into a minority group which can have its money confiscated by the will of the majority. That is a true abrogation of rights under the Constitution, which is why I have always asserted that Progressive Taxation is unConstitutional. I would bet my life that the Founding Fathers would agree.

 

Aren't these rights....inalienable?

 

What rights? The rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness: those are inalienable. The others...are not. Don't confuse the two, and don't additionally mix in privileges and call them rights.

 

You scare me.

 

You are misinformed. If you weren't, you would not be afraid.

[IMMensaMind 460]

 

 

Fair enough. I guess I just take umbrage to constantly being labeled as such and such...and folks like you and Mensa do it...all...the....focking....time.

 

Maybe I should stop being a pussy.

 

Anyone involved in an argument that is defending an ideology is going to feel this. Nuggs and I get boxed in exactly the same way all the time as well.

 

What we're pointing out to you, though, is that it is impossible to argue on large subjects without generalizing. What matters is if the general principle is correct. The only argument that should stem from it is if someone wants to contest the accuracy of a generalization. It is not legitimate to attempt to disqualify it merely because there are exceptions.

 

Frank was guilty as hell of this when he attempted to claim that seniors are objecting to Paul Ryan's budget plan. They're not: no amount of video showing blue hairs b!tching changes the fact that polling has proven that seniors are more behind Ryan's plan than they are the alternative.

[Dr.Grimm 0]

So why did this because a "concern" right now, when actually having a long form birth certificate released to the public was never even a question in the past? No other president has ever been asked to release this info. Why is Obama held to a higher level of disclosure? I never saw Clinton or Bush's long-form birth certificates and they served two terms.

 

 

 

I don't think that was his strategy at all. I think Obama worried that releasing the long form would encourage the right wing to come up with further and further loony conspiracy theories, demanding more and more rings for him to jump through. When in fact these people are just crackpots and deserve to be ignored.

 

Come on man. You guys need to get a grip with this race BS. One thing that was different about Obama than the others was that there was video with Obama's grandmother saying she witnessed his birth in Kenya. Now, some folks learned it was a miss translation, but most never saw the retraction.

 

We all know there are tons of people who are easily manipulated and stupid. Knowing that this video with misinformation was viral for a while, Obama STILL chose to not address this and put it to bed immediately for some focked up reason.

 

One thing there is no doubt about. This next election will be the racist election. Racism will likely DOMINATE the 2012 election. That is the only card the libs have left.

[5-Points 2,759]

So when I quote someone, I'm really responding to who they responded to....and to who they responded to....and to who they responded to...ad infinitum.

 

You wanna clarify your position, then by all means....clarify....sans condescension.

 

 

Secondly, yeah you're probably right. Just saying we'll never really know how folks vote, so it's just conjecture on our part.

 

Whatever....as long as you're not saying you wanna restrict voting rights then I'm cool with what you say....whoever the fock you are.

 

You used the term "faction", which implied a group of people were "advocating limiting citizens' rights". You quoted a response to me in your post thereby implying I was a part of said group. That was the basis for my response.

 

Also, I don't think you should be lecturing people on the use of condescension. You seem to be well versed in it yourself.

 

[IMMensaMind 460]

iTrump Unable to Produce Certificate Proving He's Not a Festering Pile of Shit

 

[Dr.Grimm 0]

Acording to these guys, this BC is such an obviuos fake, it had to be on purpose.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk&feature=player_embedded

[Dr.Grimm 0]

I just looked at the birth certificate they released. First glance, I noticed his dad's race says "African". I thought they used "Negro"' back then.

[Frank M 181]

Typical morally and intellectually bankrupt liberal. Deny the consequence of removing responsibility (paying taxes) from the person, but still give them the right to vote, and then complain when those who are put in the crosshairs of such a vote object to allowing those who are targeting them to continue to do so.

 

So now we're supposed to convince someone who isn't paying Federal Income taxes to pay more taxes?

 

That's nice. How come you're not giving me that right?

 

Nonsensical.

[JackARoot 2]

Typical morally and intellectually bankrupt liberal. Deny the consequence of removing responsibility (paying taxes) from the person, but still give them the right to vote, and then complain when those who are put in the crosshairs of such a vote object to allowing those who are targeting them to continue to do so.

 

So now we're supposed to convince someone who isn't paying Federal Income taxes to pay more taxes?

 

That's nice. How come you're not giving me that right?

 

Last I check, you do have that right. And the congress you helped vote in does have these people in their cross-hairs. So what are you complaining about?

[parrot 789]

Acording to these guys, this BC is such an obviuos fake, it had to be on purpose.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3g30VCl_cgk&feature=player_embedded

Well, if those guys said it, it must be true.

[NewbieJr 541]

Well, if those guys said it, it must be true.

I never make a final decision on a topic until the guy with the ponytail, bad beard, and gay glasses tells me what to think.

[Drizzay 648]

I never make a final decision on a topic until the guy with the ponytail, bad beard, and gay glasses tells me what to think.

 

 

Don't forget the dragonfly shirt, or whatever the fock those are.

[MDC 5,934]

Come on man. You guys need to get a grip with this race BS. One thing that was different about Obama than the others was that there was video with Obama's grandmother saying she witnessed his birth in Kenya. Now, some folks learned it was a miss translation, but most never saw the retraction.

 

We all know there are tons of people who are easily manipulated and stupid. Knowing that this video with misinformation was viral for a while, Obama STILL chose to not address this and put it to bed immediately for some focked up reason.

 

One thing there is no doubt about. This next election will be the racist election. Racism will likely DOMINATE the 2012 election. That is the only card the libs have left.

 

In the post you quoted I didn't say anything about race.

 

Don't be so sensitive.

[Mungwater 588]

I never make a final decision on a topic until the guy with the ponytail, bad beard, and gay glasses tells me what to think.

 

I don't know, he seems to be lacking some credibility, if he had a nice chain on or something, maybe

[Giants Fan 85]

 

I hafta commend you all for a properly formed, precisely put and well argued points. However ... I didn't see anyone use the words "ipso facto", which I was looking for .... so I am gonna give the following grades:

 

Dank: B-

Mensa: D

 

Everyone else gets a C

[IMMensaMind 460]

 

I hafta commend you all for a properly formed, precisely put and well argued points. However ... I didn't see anyone use the words "ipso facto", which I was looking for .... so I am gonna give the following grades:

 

Dank: B-

Mensa: D

 

Everyone else gets a C

 

I cannot see a difference between Dank Nuggs position and mine. Can you? Oh. Nevermind. I'm responding to GFIAFP. Your pvssy is obviously bruised. Tell you what though: since FeelingMN didn't respond to my last post to him, do you care to take a shot? If not, carry on...