8 hours ago, MedicineDan said:

 On the other hand, having the leftists accuse me of being a hypocrite, a charge so rich with irony, only makes me sure my path is righteous.  :huge grin:

muslim ban.

btw,

Here are the prominent Republicans backing Biden

politically we got far more in common with mitt romney than bernie sanders or even joe biden. 

and a more bipartisan list which should be compelling or at least thought provoking.

STATEMENT BY FORMER FEDERAL PROSECUTORS

HA! Good Fun!

2 minutes ago, Volourn said:

J

 

Also, one needs to be remidned that Rump is a liar which makes him perfect as a politician. Washington deserves to have deal with him for another 4 years. You reap what you sow.

volo do you honestly not trust any politician to be honest or well meaning or to have the right intentions? Including Canadian politicians ...I believe most politicians are honest and have the best interests of the people they represent but they need to be strictly scrutinized, monitored and financially  audited as its tax payers money that pays there salaries so we expect full accountability 

1 hour ago, Guard Dog said:

Of course. But debt can only be monetized if the currency is stable. Right now the dollar is stable. But only because there is no alternative. If the dollar collapses or if something like Bit Coin becomes a real currency for trade, the US will not survive the mismanagement of it's political class.

The US dollar is a bubble anyways even if stable, the minute we have alternatives to oil its going to drop. At least it would if we didn't own the companies that value currency and have kept the pound artificially inflated. It is kinda hard for me to take any talk about currency seriously because it is such a scam that the only way it makes sense if your in on it.

Trump says Department of Education will investigate use of 1619 Project in schools

broken record and almost pointless to highlight but, the department of education withholding funds 'cause o' individual school use o' 1619 is unambiguous unconstitutional.  Congress could, if they had a legitimate purpose, create a scheme whereby states would lose fed education dollars if schools w/i the state failed to meet certain standards. Congress could. am not even able to immediate imagine the way in which such might be crafted so as to avoid a certain Court auto fail.

am admitting to a morbid curiosity to see just how the wh would camouflage their attempt to get around or over multiple Constitutional hurdles such that senators would not respond. kinda like watching soldier ants bridge a small stream. is genuine fascinating the lengths to which this administration goes... to violate the Constitution.

regardless, is yet another example o' obvious dog whistle silliness leading up to the election. should be insulting to Americans that trump would use such transparent efforts to sway undecided voters, but am suspecting the wh is much aware how in 2020, a little bit o' racial animus goes a long way these days. 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited September 6, 20205 yr by Gromnir

https://www.businessinsider.com/cohen-trump-hired-obama-lookalike-to-humiliate-in-video-2020-9?r=US&IR=T

 

14 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

Trump says Department of Education will investigate use of 1619 Project in schools

broken record and almost pointless to highlight but, the department of education withholding funds 'cause o' individual school use o' 1619 is unambiguous unconstitutional.  Congress could, if they had a legitimate purpose, create a scheme whereby states would lose fed education dollars if schools w/i the state failed to meet certain standards. Congress could. am not even able to immediate imagine the way in which such might be crafted so as to avoid a certain Court auto fail.

am admitting to a morbid curiosity to see just how the wh would camouflage their attempt to get around or over multiple Constitutional hurdles such that senators would not respond. kinda like watching soldier ants bridge a small stream. is genuine fascinating the lengths to which this administration goes... to violate the Constitution.

regardless, is yet another example o' obvious dog whistle silliness leading up to the election. should be insulting to Americans that trump would use such transparent efforts to sway undecided voters, but am suspecting the wh is much aware how in 2020, a little bit o' racial animus goes a long way these days. 

HA! Good Fun!

No argument from me on your general point. However the very existence of the Department of Education is also arguably unconstitutional. Along with a lot of other crap that exists but shouldn’t

3 minutes ago, Guard Dog said:

No argument from me on your general point. However the very existence of the Department of Education is also arguably unconstitutional. Along with a lot of other crap that exists but shouldn’t

been down this road with others. if you try and give us the 10th amendment spiel, you are in for some pain. 

warning: sweary

HA! Good Fun!

 

Whatever.

So, in other news, I was thinking of something about Klacik running Maryland 7.  First of all, I don't believe she'll win.  This is pie in the sky territory for Republicans.  Yeah, I think she's doing a good job of it, but some districts are just plain off limits to one side or the other.  They can be switched, but that's a lightning strike.  Stupid to bet on it.  If I'm wrong and it *does* turn Republican, it's going to be early, and that will be a devastating sign for the Democrats.  We're talking wave election territory.

Anyhow, along those lines, I think the Democrats might want to throw extra money at the race.  Not because I think they're in danger, but because it *is* an early race.  I'd run up the score as high as possible.  Don't just beat her, but have another blowout at ~75 to 25%.  I think that's about how badly she got beat last time.  That could actually serve to discourage voters who hear the results from Maryland in other states where voting isn't closed.  Is it enough to make a huge dent?  Of course not, but if this is anything like last election, fractions of a percent will make the difference.  This is a high profile race and you can count on the media hitting the story hard if Klacik loses, which they consider preordained.  On the other hand, I think she's been a net benefit to the ticket, but not because she'll win.  She provides outreach to minority voters and helps encourage white voters to get off their assess and head to the polls.

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

politically we got far more in common with mitt romney than bernie sanders or even joe biden.

Ah, but you see, Romney isn't unilaterally loyal to Trump in every aspect of his life both personal and political. I would not be particularly surprised to hear that this would necessitate Romney also being an extreme leftist that is a part of the mercurial "forces of chaos", too...especially given how frequently Biden himself is labeled as a "radical leftist" (lmao, radical leftists wish!) by the same sort of partisan hacks.

Spoiler

On a side-note, the more I read from MedicineDan, the more I am understanding why I got him confused with ComradeMaster - the vague, deflecting, and empty writing style is painfully reminiscent of a certain hedgehog. Apparently, this is not the case, which is only more discouraging for me - alas.

 

Edited September 6, 20205 yr by Bartimaeus

11 minutes ago, Bartimaeus said:

Ah, but you see, Romney isn't unilaterally loyal to Trump in every aspect of his life both personal and political. I would not be particularly surprised to hear that this would necessitate Romney also being an extreme leftist that is a part of the mercurial "forces of chaos", too...especially given how frequently Biden himself is labeled as a "radical leftist" (lmao, radical leftists wish!) by the same sort of partisan hacks.

  Reveal hidden contents

On a side-note, the more I read from MedicineDan, the more I am understanding why I got him confused with ComradeMaster - the vague, deflecting, and empty writing style is painfully reminiscent of a certain hedgehog. Apparently, this is not the case, which is only more discouraging for me - alas.

 

“The supposed canons of GOP orthodoxy—limited government, free enterprise, institutional conservation, moral rectitude, fiscal restraint, global leadership—have in recent years gone from elastic to expendable.”

the problem for us is that we remain a traditional conservative save for our libertarian streak insofar as personal freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. am hardly able to recognize the republican party o' 2020.

HA! Good Fun!

33 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

“The supposed canons of GOP orthodoxy—limited government, free enterprise, institutional conservation, moral rectitude, fiscal restraint, global leadership—have in recent years gone from elastic to expendable.”

the problem for us is that we remain a traditional conservative save for our libertarian streak insofar as personal freedoms enshrined in the Constitution. am hardly able to recognize the republican party o' 2020.

HA! Good Fun!

More like non-existent. Goldwater & Reagan would have abandoned it if they could see it today. 

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

been down this road with others. if you try and give us the 10th amendment spiel, you are in for some pain. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

Does the Constitution specifically enumerate any power for education to the Federal government, Executive Branch specifically? The argument is not entirely without merit. 

However it is a bit more complicated than that I realize. The Dep of Ed did not magically spring into existence. It was once part of a single entity along with the Dept of Health and others stuff. And that entity was once part of a larger department. Government agencies grow like stock splits. Instead of 10 departments doing 20 between them you get 20 departments doing 60 things between them, then 40 departments doing 120 things. It's domination via increments. Leviathan did not emerge from the abyss fully formed. It grew before our very eyes. 

Edited September 6, 20205 yr by Guard Dog
autocorrect

"volo do you honestly not trust any politician to be honest or well meaning or to have the right intentions? Including Canadian politicians ...I believe most politicians are honest and have the best interests of the people they represent but they need to be strictly scrutinized, monitored and financially  audited as its tax payers money that pays there salaries so we expect full accountability "

 

Politicians are all about controlling people's life. They create laws and by definition laws tell you what you can and cannot do legally.

 

Of coruse, Obama would cheer those who oppose him being harmed, killed, maimed, and raped. He and Trump have that In ommon so that pick is funnily accurate. 😄

do you genuine want the lesson? am gonna give you a chance to rethink.

we can point out the first bank of the united states (1791) and mcculloch v. maryland (1819) (which you shoulda' been taught in school) which pretty much ends the purist 10th amendment argument. is not arguable, in 2020. is so freaking well established and clear the framers didn't read as does gd seeing as how they immediate started creating institutions which undercut such an argument. however, the 14th amendment is gd's big hurdle as equal protection were introduced and brown v. board o' education were the proverbial final nail in the coffin. once we combine necessary and proper clause with equal protection, is functional a legal impossibility to ignore the capacity for US fed education oversight. 

you now know where to look and what is relevant topics to self-educate, but we will cut you. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps south dakota v. dole. am not sure why we forgot to mention, is essential. the fed doesn't actual mandate education standards as many believe. states is free to educate as they will. however, the fed doesn't need give money to the states if they fail to meet various benchmarks and standards. 

Edited September 6, 20205 yr by Gromnir

I miss LoF

1 hour ago, Gromnir said:

do you genuine want the lesson? am gonna give you a chance to rethink.

we can point out the first bank of the united states (1791) and mcculloch v. maryland (1819) (which you shoulda' been taught in school) which pretty much ends the purist 10th amendment argument. is not arguable, in 2020. is so freaking well established and clear the framers didn't read as does gd seeing as how they immediate started creating institutions which undercut such an argument. however, the 14th amendment is gd's big hurdle as equal protection were introduced and brown v. board o' education were the proverbial final nail in the coffin. once we combine necessary and proper clause with equal protection, is functional a legal impossibility to ignore the capacity for US fed education oversight. 

you now know where to look and what is relevant topics to self-educate, but we will cut you. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps south dakota v. dole. am not sure why we forgot to mention, is essential. the fed doesn't actual mandate education standards as many believe. states is free to educate as they will. however, the fed doesn't need give money to the states if they fail to meet various benchmarks and standards. 

The role of the federal government had to play in the desegregation of schools and what that means for the existence of a Department of Education I already knew about. The others I’m afraid don’t ring a bell. I will do some reading.

Turning off the forum hyperbole and devils advocacy for just a moment. In an ideal world an ideal people could restrain their base instincts and not f—k with, discriminate against,  or otherwise treat their fellow humans with less than the kindness and respect they surely deserve as equally beloved by God.  But... we don’t .

In 1798 John Adams sent a letter to the Massachusetts Militia in which he said

We have no Government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge or galantry would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other

We were not that then, and we are even less so now. It’s why can’t have nice things like limited government. Instead we have a government that can crush us like bugs. And sometimes does. Oh sure the government does have limits, but it seldom fails to find its way around them

I am no anarchist. And I am not foolishly optimistic that people will behave themselves without the government gun to their heads. But I wouldn’t respect a man who didn’t chafe at authority. Who felt that people’s  lives were best managed by someone other than themselves. Someone must to be the ones to stand up and shout “no”whenever the government tries to do something. Sadly there is only one political party left in the United States that does that. And their voice is small indeed.

Edited September 6, 20205 yr by Guard Dog
Autocorrect screwed me

9 hours ago, Gromnir said:

the problem for us is that we remain a traditional conservative

https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/InformedAttribute

9 hours ago, Volourn said:

"volo do you honestly not trust any politician to be honest or well meaning or to have the right intentions? Including Canadian politicians ...I believe most politicians are honest and have the best interests of the people they represent but they need to be strictly scrutinized, monitored and financially  audited as its tax payers money that pays there salaries so we expect full accountability "

 

Politicians are all about controlling people's life. They create laws and by definition laws tell you what you can and cannot do legally.

 

Of coruse, Obama would cheer those who oppose him being harmed, killed, maimed, and raped. He and Trump have that In ommon so that pick is funnily accurate. 😄

But volo look at what happens to our societies when we have a breakdown of law and order ....look at the anarchy and violence we see when groups like Antifa are allowed to run rampant ?

So I am  very surprised you are okay with less laws and the enforcement of these laws that politicians are involved in considering how you understandably feel about violent protests?

 

Too funny.  I have had a lot of conversations with Socrates.  I mean, mostly through people like Plato and Xenophon, but still!  I don't doubt that Socrates, as we know him from the sources at hand, would have hated lil' ol' me, MedDan.  He would have hated Demosthenes even more.  GuardDog mentioned how Trump supporters care about Trump but he doesn't care about them.  Sure.  Okay.  Is the converse that Biden supporters believe Biden cares about his constituency?  Politicians use people, and that leads to a cycle that perhaps we live today.  Socrates, through Plato, observed this cycle.  Once again, fair enough.  As someone who has taken a liking to those ancient white Greek dudes, I sympathize with the notion.  However, you gotta be careful of ol' Socrates.  As much as I admire him, there's no evidence that the 'enlightened few' would steer the ship of state better for the common folk.  In fact, quite the contrary.  There is no philosopher king to save the day.  Only the beginnings of tyranny. 

I've always been willing to go down with the ship of state when the ridiculously foolish, the agitators, the Demosthenes of our society lead them down a crooked path by way of impassioned speeches and half-truth lies.  I'm not much of an impassioned speech kind of guy.  Just don't fool yourself that Socrates would have hated any of the 'enlightened' people in this thread less than any other.  Nope.  I would contend, quite the contrary.  For one thing, Socrates thought that anyone who thought themselves wise, or used too many videos to punctuate walls of text, was a fool.  Fact, is, ol' Socrates didn't believe anyone was truly wise and spent his life trying to prove himself wrong.  He never managed to do that to his satisfaction.  Also, while he was charged with not believing in the gods of the city and advocating against them, the real thought in many of the jurors' minds at his trial was that he was an atheist.  To be fair, as it seems from my conversations with him, Socrates wasn't an atheist.  He was just struggling with his own daimons.

EDIT:  "r" became "f."

Edited September 7, 20205 yr by MedicineDan

25 minutes ago, MedicineDan said:

Too funny.  I have had a lot of conversations with Socrates.  I mean, mostly through people like Plato and Xenophon, but still!  I don't doubt that Socrates, as we know him from the sources at hand, would have hated lil' ol' me, MedDan.  He would have hated Demosthenes even more.  GuardDog mentioned how Trump supporters care about Trump but he doesn't care about them.  Sure.  Okay.  Is the converse that Biden supporters believe Biden cares about his constituency?  Politicians use people, and that leads to a cycle that perhaps we live today.  Socrates, through Plato, observed this cycle.  Once again, fair enough.  As someone who has taken a liking to those ancient white Greek dudes, I sympathize with the notion.  However, you gotta be careful of ol' Socrates.  As much as I admire him, there's no evidence that the 'enlightened few' would steer the ship of state better for the common folk.  In fact, quite the contrary.  There is no philosopher king to save the day.  Only the beginnings of tyranny. 

I've always been willing to go down with the ship of state when the ridiculously foolish, the agitators, the Demosthenes of our society lead them down a crooked path by way of impassioned speeches and half-truth lies.  I'm not much of an impassioned speech kind of guy.  Just don't fool yourself that Socrates would have hated any of the 'enlightened' people in this thread less than any other.  Nope.  I would contend, quite the contrary.  For one thing, Socrates thought that anyone who thought themselves wise, or used too many videos to punctuate walls of text, was a fool.  Fact, is, ol' Socrates didn't believe anyone was truly wise and spent his life trying to prove himself wrong.  He never managed to do that to his satisfaction.  Also, while he was charged with not believing in the gods of the city and advocating against them, the real thought in many of the jurors' minds at his trial was that he was an atheist.  To be fair, as it seems from my conversations with him, Socrates wasn't an atheist.  He was just struggling with his own daimons.

EDIT:  "r" became "f."

You make some good and erudite points Dan, thanks for sharing 

 

"Someone must to be the ones to stand up and shout “no”whenever the government tries to do something. Sadly there is only one political party left in the United States that does that. And their voice is small indeed. "

 

they shout "no" at themselves?

11 hours ago, BruceVC said:

look at the anarchy and violence we see when groups like Antifa are allowed to run rampant

Still not sure why this belief appeals to you so much

6 minutes ago, ShadySands said:

Still not sure why this belief appeals to you so much

It is connected to numerous countries and a level of violence in certain types of protests, it  happens in SA in  some of our protests where basically people justify violence and damage to property. Some of these far left groups, like Antifa,  are loosely connected ideologically so there is also that consideration

So its not just  a US problem, its global and occurs in certain countries and we need to be concerned with this type of protest and what is acceptable 

Edited September 7, 20205 yr by BruceVC