Hello There, Guest! Registered users see far less ads! Register today and join our virtual tailgate. (Login — Register)

Post Reply 
***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
Author Message
THE NC Herd Fan Offline
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 16,735
Joined: Oct 2003
Reputation: 553
I Root For: Marshall
Location: Charlotte
Post: #741
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
Jim Carrey offers his take on Trump's debate summary.



09-15-2024 01:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redbanksdog Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,095
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 1277
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #742
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-15-2024 01:26 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:18 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:03 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:01 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 11:47 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Some of you are sissies.

More like they're looking for someone that is perfect.03-shhhh

Speaking just for myself, I’ll settle for someone who will simply not blow another completely winnable election.

So he should be like Harris and Walz and do nothing but tell lies and change accents and positions on issues depending on his audience?

*shrug*

You’d fit well on the Trump campaign, Bartlett.

“No need to prepare for the debate, boss. You’re doing great. Just keep up those tweets about Taylor Swift. Those are gold, baby, gold! Yeah, we got this in the bag.”

You could have answered his question. It was a yes or no question. 07-coffee3

"I’ll settle for someone who will simply not blow another completely winnable election"

As far as your statement, you have the right to believe what you want to believe.04-cheers
09-15-2024 01:32 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BartlettTigerFan Offline
Have gun Will travel
*

Posts: 47,622
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 6844
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Undetermined
Post: #743
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-15-2024 01:26 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:18 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:03 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:01 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 11:47 AM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  Some of you are sissies.

More like they're looking for someone that is perfect.03-shhhh

Speaking just for myself, I’ll settle for someone who will simply not blow another completely winnable election.

So he should be like Harris and Walz and do nothing but tell lies and change accents and positions on issues depending on his audience?

*shrug*

You’d fit well on the Trump campaign, Bartlett.

“No need to prepare for the debate, boss. You’re doing great. Just keep up those tweets about Taylor Swift. Those are gold, baby, gold! Yeah, we got this in the bag.”

Trump is going to be Trump. Nothing is going to change that. I’m the same way, so all I can do is respect that. Do I like much else about him? Not a lot, but he’s the one that is taking us to the dance, so we might as well dance with him.

And prepared or not that debate meant nothing.
09-15-2024 01:55 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AdoptedMonarch Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,928
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 3090
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Norfolk, Va.
Post: #744
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-15-2024 01:32 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 01:26 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:18 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:03 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:01 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  More like they're looking for someone that is perfect.03-shhhh

Speaking just for myself, I’ll settle for someone who will simply not blow another completely winnable election.

So he should be like Harris and Walz and do nothing but tell lies and change accents and positions on issues depending on his audience?

*shrug*

You’d fit well on the Trump campaign, Bartlett.

“No need to prepare for the debate, boss. You’re doing great. Just keep up those tweets about Taylor Swift. Those are gold, baby, gold! Yeah, we got this in the bag.”

You could have answered his question. It was a yes or no question. 07-coffee3

"I’ll settle for someone who will simply not blow another completely winnable election"

As far as your statement, you have the right to believe what you want to believe.04-cheers

Some questions are too stupid to answer.

To his credit, I am fully confident that Bartlett knows my position on this. But if your are struggling with it, you can refer back to my post #734 on this thread and think on it.
(This post was last modified: 09-15-2024 02:04 PM by AdoptedMonarch.)
09-15-2024 02:04 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
BartlettTigerFan Offline
Have gun Will travel
*

Posts: 47,622
Joined: Mar 2007
Reputation: 6844
I Root For: Freedom
Location: Undetermined
Post: #745
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-15-2024 02:04 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  To his credit, I am fully confident that Bartlett knows my position on this. But if your are struggling with it, you can refer back to my post #734 on this thread and think on it.

The main difference between you and me is one of us has TDS and the other one doesn't. We agree on most things.

And you have learned how to manage your TDS in recent months so we usually aren't very different at all.

But we can still fight if you want? 05-mafia


04-cheers
09-15-2024 02:24 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redbanksdog Online
Hall of Famer
*

Posts: 10,095
Joined: Nov 2010
Reputation: 1277
I Root For: Memphis
Location:
Post: #746
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-15-2024 02:04 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 01:32 PM)Redbanksdog Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 01:26 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:18 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  
(09-15-2024 12:03 PM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  Speaking just for myself, I’ll settle for someone who will simply not blow another completely winnable election.

So he should be like Harris and Walz and do nothing but tell lies and change accents and positions on issues depending on his audience?

*shrug*

You’d fit well on the Trump campaign, Bartlett.

“No need to prepare for the debate, boss. You’re doing great. Just keep up those tweets about Taylor Swift. Those are gold, baby, gold! Yeah, we got this in the bag.”

You could have answered his question. It was a yes or no question. 07-coffee3

"I’ll settle for someone who will simply not blow another completely winnable election"

As far as your statement, you have the right to believe what you want to believe.04-cheers

Some questions are too stupid to answer.

To his credit, I am fully confident that Bartlett knows my position on this. But if your are struggling with it, you can refer back to my post #734 on this thread and think on it.

It was a simple question. You calling it stupid is just your way of not answering the question.

Believe me when I tell you. I'm not struggling with your position and your point of view when it comes to President Trump. I just don't agree with all of them. 04-cheers
09-15-2024 02:42 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 86,713
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 11976
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: Hell House
Post: #747
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
from Gutfeld last night ... who'd a thunk it (beforehand ... as in, 'when announced') ... did nobody in your camp get the fk'n memo(s) ... just fk, me!

Quote:Former President Trump expressed regret for not going after ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis during last week's presidential debate.

https://csnbbs.com/thread-996763-post-19...id19737554

Quote:now y'all gittin' serious ... the move is to wear out the moderators...

all he needs to do is let her run her giggly fat arse yammer...
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 05:48 AM by stinkfist.)
09-19-2024 05:43 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
AdoptedMonarch Offline
Heisman
*

Posts: 8,928
Joined: May 2012
Reputation: 3090
I Root For: Old Dominion
Location: Norfolk, Va.
Post: #748
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 05:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  from Gutfeld last night ... who'd a thunk it (beforehand ... as in, 'when announced') ... did nobody in your camp get the fk'n memo(s) ... just fk, me!

Quote:Former President Trump expressed regret for not going after ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis during last week's presidential debate.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. We’ve all been there.

But only one is running as the Republican nominee. And he really doesn’t have the luxury of too many “Oh Well” moments.
09-19-2024 07:33 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 44,937
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 13463
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #749
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 07:33 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 05:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  from Gutfeld last night ... who'd a thunk it (beforehand ... as in, 'when announced') ... did nobody in your camp get the fk'n memo(s) ... just fk, me!

Quote:Former President Trump expressed regret for not going after ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis during last week's presidential debate.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. We’ve all been there.

But only one is running as the Republican nominee. And he really doesn’t have the luxury of too many “Oh Well” moments.
At some point all Americans need to ask themselves this question:

Why are we forced to choose between a Candidate and Party which forces all Americans to suspend law and order to accommodate what amounts to a swell of immigrants which strain our public support systems, raise crime against those the politicians are allegedly elected to protect, and which seeks to do business with our adversaries at our expense and a Candidate and Party which can't anticipate the problems raised by the first party whose policies and practices are detrimental to the nation at every level enough to challenge their failures over and over again at a debate?

The Democratic Party could not be further from what the average American believes needs to be done and are not advocates of an average working class citizen.

The Republican Party isn't competent enough to fill the void and address specifically the ills of their competition.

The public is screwed and forced to choose the lesser of two corporately connected evils.

When are we all going to stand up and say to the two parties, "Screw that, screw you! We insist on something New!" And then stand together to elect anyone but a former politician or a damned lawyer, and subsequently kick out all corporate donations so that those elected serve the People and not their own Greed!
09-19-2024 07:47 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Redwingtom Offline
Freaking Lunatic
*

Posts: 60,888
Joined: Dec 2003
Reputation: 1547
I Root For: B-G-S-U !!!!
Location: Soros' Basement
Post: #750
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
Also from Gutfield last night. Donny demento thinks there was a studio audience at the debate. Geez.

09-19-2024 08:02 AM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
stinkfist Offline
nuts zongo's in the house
*

Posts: 86,713
Joined: Nov 2011
Reputation: 11976
I Root For: Mustard Buzzards
Location: Hell House
Post: #751
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 07:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 07:33 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 05:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  from Gutfeld last night ... who'd a thunk it (beforehand ... as in, 'when announced') ... did nobody in your camp get the fk'n memo(s) ... just fk, me!

Quote:Former President Trump expressed regret for not going after ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis during last week's presidential debate.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. We’ve all been there.

But only one is running as the Republican nominee. And he really doesn’t have the luxury of too many “Oh Well” moments.
At some point all Americans need to ask themselves this question:

Why are we forced to choose between a Candidate and Party which forces all Americans to suspend law and order to accommodate what amounts to a swell of immigrants which strain our public support systems, raise crime against those the politicians are allegedly elected to protect, and which seeks to do business with our adversaries at our expense and a Candidate and Party which can't anticipate the problems raised by the first party whose policies and practices are detrimental to the nation at every level enough to challenge their failures over and over again at a debate?

The Democratic Party could not be further from what the average American believes needs to be done and are not advocates of an average working class citizen.

The Republican Party isn't competent enough to fill the void and address specifically the ills of their competition.

The public is screwed and forced to choose the lesser of two corporately connected evils.

When are we all going to stand up and say to the two parties, "Screw that, screw you! We insist on something New!" And then stand together to elect anyone but a former politician or a damned lawyer, and subsequently kick out all corporate donations so that those elected serve the People and not their own Greed!

ya had me up until the bold ... it's why DJT chose to run pub ... even he knew it wasn't plausible...

we live in a two-party system or single party depending on one's take ... I can't argue against either position, "if" ... three-party is never happening before either of us kick the proverbial bucket (or ever) ... "Sic est"

04-cheers
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 07:06 PM by stinkfist.)
09-19-2024 07:05 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 44,937
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 13463
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #752
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 07:05 PM)stinkfist Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 07:47 AM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 07:33 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 05:43 AM)stinkfist Wrote:  from Gutfeld last night ... who'd a thunk it (beforehand ... as in, 'when announced') ... did nobody in your camp get the fk'n memo(s) ... just fk, me!

Quote:Former President Trump expressed regret for not going after ABC News anchors David Muir and Linsey Davis during last week's presidential debate.

Woulda, coulda, shoulda. We’ve all been there.

But only one is running as the Republican nominee. And he really doesn’t have the luxury of too many “Oh Well” moments.
At some point all Americans need to ask themselves this question:

Why are we forced to choose between a Candidate and Party which forces all Americans to suspend law and order to accommodate what amounts to a swell of immigrants which strain our public support systems, raise crime against those the politicians are allegedly elected to protect, and which seeks to do business with our adversaries at our expense and a Candidate and Party which can't anticipate the problems raised by the first party whose policies and practices are detrimental to the nation at every level enough to challenge their failures over and over again at a debate?

The Democratic Party could not be further from what the average American believes needs to be done and are not advocates of an average working class citizen.

The Republican Party isn't competent enough to fill the void and address specifically the ills of their competition.

The public is screwed and forced to choose the lesser of two corporately connected evils.

When are we all going to stand up and say to the two parties, "Screw that, screw you! We insist on something New!" And then stand together to elect anyone but a former politician or a damned lawyer, and subsequently kick out all corporate donations so that those elected serve the People and not their own Greed!

ya had me up until the bold ... it's why DJT chose to run pub ... even he knew it wasn't plausible...

we live in a two-party system or single party depending on one's take ... I can't argue against either position, "if" ... three-party is never happening before either of us kick the proverbial bucket (or ever) ... "Sic est"

04-cheers

Bush Daddy grandfathered those two onto the ballots in all 50 states. Any third party has to spend the money to qualify in each of the 50 states severally and that consumes their war chest before they can get started. IMO it was one of the most destructive moves his administration made and it was done in response to Perot. The most destructive move came later under his progeny when corporations were given the rights of citizens under the law. That move also helped open the way for the takeover of PAC money. Between those two mostly un-talked about actions the citizens of this nation lost their traction and the uber wealthy CEOs surged ahead in influence as never before. This is why I refer to Hebert Walker as a Patrician and he was like a Caesar that married into a royal bloodline. Barbara's family tree was quite impressive. But make no mistake my comparisons to Rome are extremely deliberate. Both are fascist.

I am a Republican, but in its oldest economic sense of conservative. I liked Ike and Ronald Reagan. My rebellious side adored Teddy Roosevelt and mistrusted Franklin Deleno Roosevelt and despised Woodrow Wison and was vitriolic over a Marxist like Obama. Biden has just proven to be horrible in all ways. Trump more than any other president has needed press handlers to school him on how public response would be spun. He's never been subject to how others could be twisted against a good idea, nor is he accustomed to having to negotiate a winning position which is less than the objective he had in mind. It is why "politician" is a word that is applicable to leadership and CEO is not.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 07:46 PM by JRsec.)
09-19-2024 07:39 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #753
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The most destructive move came later under his progeny when corporations were given the rights of citizens under the law.

Are you talking solely about the ruling in Citizens United, or about any number of rights under the law? Like --

Property rights: Corporations can own property.
Contract rights: Corporations can enter into contracts.
Sue and be sued: Corporations can sue and be sued.
Due process: Corporations have due process rights.
Equal protection: Corporations have equal protection rights.
Fourth Amendment privacy rights: Corporations have Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause: Corporations have Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause rights.
Sixth Amendment: Corporations have Sixth Amendment rights to speedy trial and jury trial in criminal prosecutions
Seventh Amendment right: Corporations have Seventh Amendment right to jury in civil matters

If solely to First Amendment rights, why precisely shouldnt a group of people (ex: gunowners) be able to band together (ex: NRA) and pursue political goals common to them under a common 'roof'?
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 08:34 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-19-2024 08:31 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 44,937
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 13463
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #754
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The most destructive move came later under his progeny when corporations were given the rights of citizens under the law.

Are you talking solely about the ruling in Citizens United, or about any number of rights under the law? Like --

Property rights: Corporations can own property.
Contract rights: Corporations can enter into contracts.
Sue and be sued: Corporations can sue and be sued.
Due process: Corporations have due process rights.
Equal protection: Corporations have equal protection rights.
Fourth Amendment privacy rights: Corporations have Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause: Corporations have Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause rights.
Sixth Amendment: Corporations have Sixth Amendment rights to speedy trial and jury trial in criminal prosecutions
Seventh Amendment right: Corporations have Seventh Amendment right to jury in civil matters

If solely to First Amendment rights, why precisely shouldnt a group of people (ex: gunowners) be able to band together (ex: NRA) and pursue political goals common to them under a common 'roof'?

Because it shifted the balance of power away from what is best for all citizens to what is best for coalitions of the wealthiest, which changes the equation of the consent of the governed by skewing it to what is actually what is best for a minority within the population base. And it permitted the broader use of political contribution money to buy candidates on both sides of the aisle instead of using the means simply to lobby. Now they didn't have to persuade representatives and senators but could essentially purchase them.

In short it was an overt step toward fascism and one that should have received condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Only none dare call it treason if it profits, huh? I find only a small opposition to it from within the Republican party and practically none from within the Democratic party and it is what has in essence created a Uni-party solely interested in global trade rather than the health of the nation.

Until then they couldn't claim carved out privileges permitted corporations and claim the rights of a common citizen. CEO's and the people in the boardroom always had the rights of a citizen, but when PAC money was made legal to direct toward any single candidate it skewed the balance, and we haven't recovered.

It reminds me of when the Southern Company placed on retainer solid graduates from a state law school when they returned to rural counties whether in Georgia, Florida, or Alabama. They would wait about 6 months after they graduated knowing that they would be cash poor and then offer to place them on retainer to represent the Southern Company for $500 a month. So in the 60's and 70's the Southern Company wound up with oodles of state house members and state senators who were once on their payroll for as cheap as $6000 a year. They knew attorneys would seek political office in rural counties to supplement or replace their legal practice.

That practice created a massive amount of loyalty to their interests in that tri state region. So much so that the Public Service Commissions allowed for the sale of power from one state to another in which added costs would jack up the rates for electricity in said transactions.

Put that on the national and global scale and you get what is happening with Corporate Multi Nationals who purchase favor in Parliament, the Bundestag, Congress, or whatever the form of government may take at the nation state level.

In the United States the citizens were once the only means of political contribution. The founding fathers of the nation grasped directly the necessity of this having suffered at the hands of the Hudson Bay Company and other large Trade interests in European countries.

The G20 or whatever the number is up to now controls more resources and more legislation than people realize, and Treaties for Trade circumvent the laws of nations by agreement of elected representatives and corporations.

The ills facing the world today could be more rationally addressed at the local levels of government if not for many of those treaties and the corporate interests behind them.

When the talking heads which represent those corporations speak in terms of there being 5 billion too many people on the planet the masses should be concerned. They have the power to purge. Marxism to them is another opiate for the masses of poor. When business controls government it's something else entirely, it's fascism. And if the 20th Century taught us anything at all it is that as Lord Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely and a dictatorial faceless nameless body can execute 100s of millions in a relatively short period of time. AI and control of Big Pharma means that next time around it will be billions efficiently done by mandated inoculations or with denial of the purchase of resources needed.

Sometimes what sounds paranoid and dystopian, is actually a legitimate concern. Can you imagine the horror that could have been exponentially multiplied if Stalin, Mao, or Hitler had possessed computers and had the means to track and impose sanctions upon every citizen without having to have a physical presence among the people in the form of secret police? What if they could have just caused their pagers to explode, or utilize a precision drone strike on their vehicles or homes? Or simply killed them with soundwaves, or EMPs which matched the frequency of a human heartbeat. And sadly, none of that is science fiction.

It's time the left and right quit having dumb*** catfights and thinking that in verbally counting coup they had accomplished anything but a waste of time. We have a greater enemy than any of us have ever faced and all people on the planet need to get up to speed about just how much lethal power is in the hands of the precious and privileged few who think there are 5 billion too many of us. And this time there are no Allies to liberate us from whatever form the death camp takes.

Verstehen sie?
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 09:18 PM by JRsec.)
09-19-2024 09:10 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #755
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The most destructive move came later under his progeny when corporations were given the rights of citizens under the law.

Are you talking solely about the ruling in Citizens United, or about any number of rights under the law? Like --

Property rights: Corporations can own property.
Contract rights: Corporations can enter into contracts.
Sue and be sued: Corporations can sue and be sued.
Due process: Corporations have due process rights.
Equal protection: Corporations have equal protection rights.
Fourth Amendment privacy rights: Corporations have Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause: Corporations have Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause rights.
Sixth Amendment: Corporations have Sixth Amendment rights to speedy trial and jury trial in criminal prosecutions
Seventh Amendment right: Corporations have Seventh Amendment right to jury in civil matters

If solely to First Amendment rights, why precisely shouldnt a group of people (ex: gunowners) be able to band together (ex: NRA) and pursue political goals common to them under a common 'roof'?

Because it shifted the balance of power away from what is best for all citizens to what is best for coalitions of the wealthiest, which changes the equation of the consent of the governed by skewing it to what is actually what is best for a minority within the population base. And it permitted the broader use of political contribution money to buy candidates on both sides of the aisle instead of using the means simply to lobby. Now they didn't have to persuade representatives and senators but could essentially purchase them.

In short it was an overt step toward fascism and one that should have received condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Only none dare call it treason if it profits, huh? I find only a small opposition to it from within the Republican party and practically none from within the Democratic party and it is what has in essence created a Uni-party solely interested in global trade rather than the health of the nation.

Until then they couldn't claim carved out privileges permitted corporations and claim the rights of a common citizen. CEO's and the people in the boardroom always had the rights of a citizen, but when PAC money was made legal to direct toward any single candidate it skewed the balance, and we haven't recovered.

It reminds me of when the Southern Company placed on retainer solid graduates from a state law school when they returned to rural counties whether in Georgia, Florida, or Alabama. They would wait about 6 months after they graduated knowing that they would be cash poor and then offer to place them on retainer to represent the Southern Company for $500 a month. So in the 60's and 70's the Southern Company wound up with oodles of state house members and state senators who were once on their payroll for as cheap as $6000 a year. They knew attorneys would seek political office in rural counties to supplement or replace their legal practice.

That practice created a massive amount of loyalty to their interests in that tri state region. So much so that the Public Service Commissions allowed for the sale of power from one state to another in which added costs would jack up the rates for electricity in said transactions.

Put that on the national and global scale and you get what is happening with Corporate Multi Nationals who purchase favor in Parliament, the Bundestag, Congress, or whatever the form of government may take at the nation state level.

In the United States the citizens were once the only means of political contribution. The founding fathers of the nation grasped directly the necessity of this having suffered at the hands of the Hudson Bay Company and other large Trade interests in European countries.

The G20 or whatever the number is up to now controls more resources and more legislation than people realize, and Treaties for Trade circumvent the laws of nations by agreement of elected representatives and corporations.

The ills facing the world today could be more rationally addressed at the local levels of government if not for many of those treaties and the corporate interests behind them.

When the talking heads which represent those corporations speak in terms of there being 5 billion too many people on the planet the masses should be concerned. They have the power to purge. Marxism to them is another opiate for the masses of poor. When business controls government it's something else entirely, it's fascism. And if the 20th Century taught us anything at all it is that as Lord Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely and a dictatorial faceless nameless body can execute 100s of millions in a relatively short period of time. AI and control of Big Pharma means that next time around it will be billions efficiently done by mandated inoculations or with denial of the purchase of resources needed.

Sometimes what sounds paranoid and dystopian, is actually a legitimate concern. Can you imagine the horror that could have been exponentially multiplied if Stalin, Mao, or Hitler had possessed computers and had the means to track and impose sanctions upon every citizen without having to have a physical presence among the people in the form of secret police? What if they could have just caused their pagers to explode, or utilize a precision drone strike on their vehicles or homes? Or simply killed them with soundwaves, or EMPs which matched the frequency of a human heartbeat. And sadly, none of that is science fiction.

It's time the left and right quit having dumb*** catfights and thinking that in verbally counting coup they had accomplished anything but a waste of time. We have a greater enemy than any of us have ever faced and all people on the planet need to get up to speed about just how much lethal power is in the hands of the precious and privileged few who think there are 5 billion too many of us. And this time there are no Allies to liberate us from whatever form the death camp takes.

Verstehen sie?

So shitcan the NRA? Shitcan Doctors Without Borders?

Just saying at a certain level, allowing people with similar goals to band together isn't per se the great evil you portray it to be even in the generalized sense.

At a level seems to be a generalized dismissal of a simple right to assemble and act in coordination with those whom share similar ideals.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 09:32 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-19-2024 09:30 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 44,937
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 13463
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #756
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 09:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The most destructive move came later under his progeny when corporations were given the rights of citizens under the law.

Are you talking solely about the ruling in Citizens United, or about any number of rights under the law? Like --

Property rights: Corporations can own property.
Contract rights: Corporations can enter into contracts.
Sue and be sued: Corporations can sue and be sued.
Due process: Corporations have due process rights.
Equal protection: Corporations have equal protection rights.
Fourth Amendment privacy rights: Corporations have Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause: Corporations have Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause rights.
Sixth Amendment: Corporations have Sixth Amendment rights to speedy trial and jury trial in criminal prosecutions
Seventh Amendment right: Corporations have Seventh Amendment right to jury in civil matters

If solely to First Amendment rights, why precisely shouldnt a group of people (ex: gunowners) be able to band together (ex: NRA) and pursue political goals common to them under a common 'roof'?

Because it shifted the balance of power away from what is best for all citizens to what is best for coalitions of the wealthiest, which changes the equation of the consent of the governed by skewing it to what is actually what is best for a minority within the population base. And it permitted the broader use of political contribution money to buy candidates on both sides of the aisle instead of using the means simply to lobby. Now they didn't have to persuade representatives and senators but could essentially purchase them.

In short it was an overt step toward fascism and one that should have received condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Only none dare call it treason if it profits, huh? I find only a small opposition to it from within the Republican party and practically none from within the Democratic party and it is what has in essence created a Uni-party solely interested in global trade rather than the health of the nation.

Until then they couldn't claim carved out privileges permitted corporations and claim the rights of a common citizen. CEO's and the people in the boardroom always had the rights of a citizen, but when PAC money was made legal to direct toward any single candidate it skewed the balance, and we haven't recovered.

It reminds me of when the Southern Company placed on retainer solid graduates from a state law school when they returned to rural counties whether in Georgia, Florida, or Alabama. They would wait about 6 months after they graduated knowing that they would be cash poor and then offer to place them on retainer to represent the Southern Company for $500 a month. So in the 60's and 70's the Southern Company wound up with oodles of state house members and state senators who were once on their payroll for as cheap as $6000 a year. They knew attorneys would seek political office in rural counties to supplement or replace their legal practice.

That practice created a massive amount of loyalty to their interests in that tri state region. So much so that the Public Service Commissions allowed for the sale of power from one state to another in which added costs would jack up the rates for electricity in said transactions.

Put that on the national and global scale and you get what is happening with Corporate Multi Nationals who purchase favor in Parliament, the Bundestag, Congress, or whatever the form of government may take at the nation state level.

In the United States the citizens were once the only means of political contribution. The founding fathers of the nation grasped directly the necessity of this having suffered at the hands of the Hudson Bay Company and other large Trade interests in European countries.

The G20 or whatever the number is up to now controls more resources and more legislation than people realize, and Treaties for Trade circumvent the laws of nations by agreement of elected representatives and corporations.

The ills facing the world today could be more rationally addressed at the local levels of government if not for many of those treaties and the corporate interests behind them.

When the talking heads which represent those corporations speak in terms of there being 5 billion too many people on the planet the masses should be concerned. They have the power to purge. Marxism to them is another opiate for the masses of poor. When business controls government it's something else entirely, it's fascism. And if the 20th Century taught us anything at all it is that as Lord Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely and a dictatorial faceless nameless body can execute 100s of millions in a relatively short period of time. AI and control of Big Pharma means that next time around it will be billions efficiently done by mandated inoculations or with denial of the purchase of resources needed.

Sometimes what sounds paranoid and dystopian, is actually a legitimate concern. Can you imagine the horror that could have been exponentially multiplied if Stalin, Mao, or Hitler had possessed computers and had the means to track and impose sanctions upon every citizen without having to have a physical presence among the people in the form of secret police? What if they could have just caused their pagers to explode, or utilize a precision drone strike on their vehicles or homes? Or simply killed them with soundwaves, or EMPs which matched the frequency of a human heartbeat. And sadly, none of that is science fiction.

It's time the left and right quit having dumb*** catfights and thinking that in verbally counting coup they had accomplished anything but a waste of time. We have a greater enemy than any of us have ever faced and all people on the planet need to get up to speed about just how much lethal power is in the hands of the precious and privileged few who think there are 5 billion too many of us. And this time there are no Allies to liberate us from whatever form the death camp takes.

Verstehen sie?

So shitcan the NRA? Shitcan Doctors Without Borders?

Just saying at a certain level, allowing people with similar goals to band together isn't per se the great evil you portray it to be even in the generalized sense

I see. You don't have the chops to discuss this, so you pettifog the issue with actual lobbying groups which are not under corporate privilege and use the loss of their rights to lobby as a blanket excuse for the Davos and Jackson's Hole crowd. Get out of my space! An old adversary would have called this attempt Pseudointellectualism. Achtung!
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 09:36 PM by JRsec.)
09-19-2024 09:33 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #757
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 07:39 PM)JRsec Wrote:  The most destructive move came later under his progeny when corporations were given the rights of citizens under the law.

Are you talking solely about the ruling in Citizens United, or about any number of rights under the law? Like --

Property rights: Corporations can own property.
Contract rights: Corporations can enter into contracts.
Sue and be sued: Corporations can sue and be sued.
Due process: Corporations have due process rights.
Equal protection: Corporations have equal protection rights.
Fourth Amendment privacy rights: Corporations have Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause: Corporations have Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause rights.
Sixth Amendment: Corporations have Sixth Amendment rights to speedy trial and jury trial in criminal prosecutions
Seventh Amendment right: Corporations have Seventh Amendment right to jury in civil matters

If solely to First Amendment rights, why precisely shouldnt a group of people (ex: gunowners) be able to band together (ex: NRA) and pursue political goals common to them under a common 'roof'?

Because it shifted the balance of power away from what is best for all citizens to what is best for coalitions of the wealthiest, which changes the equation of the consent of the governed by skewing it to what is actually what is best for a minority within the population base. And it permitted the broader use of political contribution money to buy candidates on both sides of the aisle instead of using the means simply to lobby. Now they didn't have to persuade representatives and senators but could essentially purchase them.

In short it was an overt step toward fascism and one that should have received condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Only none dare call it treason if it profits, huh? I find only a small opposition to it from within the Republican party and practically none from within the Democratic party and it is what has in essence created a Uni-party solely interested in global trade rather than the health of the nation.

Until then they couldn't claim carved out privileges permitted corporations and claim the rights of a common citizen. CEO's and the people in the boardroom always had the rights of a citizen, but when PAC money was made legal to direct toward any single candidate it skewed the balance, and we haven't recovered.

It reminds me of when the Southern Company placed on retainer solid graduates from a state law school when they returned to rural counties whether in Georgia, Florida, or Alabama. They would wait about 6 months after they graduated knowing that they would be cash poor and then offer to place them on retainer to represent the Southern Company for $500 a month. So in the 60's and 70's the Southern Company wound up with oodles of state house members and state senators who were once on their payroll for as cheap as $6000 a year. They knew attorneys would seek political office in rural counties to supplement or replace their legal practice.

That practice created a massive amount of loyalty to their interests in that tri state region. So much so that the Public Service Commissions allowed for the sale of power from one state to another in which added costs would jack up the rates for electricity in said transactions.

Put that on the national and global scale and you get what is happening with Corporate Multi Nationals who purchase favor in Parliament, the Bundestag, Congress, or whatever the form of government may take at the nation state level.

In the United States the citizens were once the only means of political contribution. The founding fathers of the nation grasped directly the necessity of this having suffered at the hands of the Hudson Bay Company and other large Trade interests in European countries.

The G20 or whatever the number is up to now controls more resources and more legislation than people realize, and Treaties for Trade circumvent the laws of nations by agreement of elected representatives and corporations.

The ills facing the world today could be more rationally addressed at the local levels of government if not for many of those treaties and the corporate interests behind them.

When the talking heads which represent those corporations speak in terms of there being 5 billion too many people on the planet the masses should be concerned. They have the power to purge. Marxism to them is another opiate for the masses of poor. When business controls government it's something else entirely, it's fascism. And if the 20th Century taught us anything at all it is that as Lord Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely and a dictatorial faceless nameless body can execute 100s of millions in a relatively short period of time. AI and control of Big Pharma means that next time around it will be billions efficiently done by mandated inoculations or with denial of the purchase of resources needed.

Sometimes what sounds paranoid and dystopian, is actually a legitimate concern. Can you imagine the horror that could have been exponentially multiplied if Stalin, Mao, or Hitler had possessed computers and had the means to track and impose sanctions upon every citizen without having to have a physical presence among the people in the form of secret police? What if they could have just caused their pagers to explode, or utilize a precision drone strike on their vehicles or homes? Or simply killed them with soundwaves, or EMPs which matched the frequency of a human heartbeat. And sadly, none of that is science fiction.

It's time the left and right quit having dumb*** catfights and thinking that in verbally counting coup they had accomplished anything but a waste of time. We have a greater enemy than any of us have ever faced and all people on the planet need to get up to speed about just how much lethal power is in the hands of the precious and privileged few who think there are 5 billion too many of us. And this time there are no Allies to liberate us from whatever form the death camp takes.

Verstehen sie?

So shitcan the NRA? Shitcan Doctors Without Borders?

Just saying at a certain level, allowing people with similar goals to band together isn't per se the great evil you portray it to be even in the generalized sense

I see. You don't have the chops to discuss this, so you pettifog the issue with actual lobbying groups which are not under corporate privilege and use the loss of their rights to lobby as a blanket excuse for the Davos and Jackson's Hole crowd. Get out of my space!

Most interest groups exist under a corporate existence. It expands their reach. No matter how much you dismiss the issue put of hand, or invoke Davos, or attempt to belittle the issue presented.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 10:05 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-19-2024 09:37 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 44,937
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 13463
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #758
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 08:31 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Are you talking solely about the ruling in Citizens United, or about any number of rights under the law? Like --

Property rights: Corporations can own property.
Contract rights: Corporations can enter into contracts.
Sue and be sued: Corporations can sue and be sued.
Due process: Corporations have due process rights.
Equal protection: Corporations have equal protection rights.
Fourth Amendment privacy rights: Corporations have Fourth Amendment privacy rights.
Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause: Corporations have Fifth Amendment Takings and Double Jeopardy Clause rights.
Sixth Amendment: Corporations have Sixth Amendment rights to speedy trial and jury trial in criminal prosecutions
Seventh Amendment right: Corporations have Seventh Amendment right to jury in civil matters

If solely to First Amendment rights, why precisely shouldnt a group of people (ex: gunowners) be able to band together (ex: NRA) and pursue political goals common to them under a common 'roof'?

Because it shifted the balance of power away from what is best for all citizens to what is best for coalitions of the wealthiest, which changes the equation of the consent of the governed by skewing it to what is actually what is best for a minority within the population base. And it permitted the broader use of political contribution money to buy candidates on both sides of the aisle instead of using the means simply to lobby. Now they didn't have to persuade representatives and senators but could essentially purchase them.

In short it was an overt step toward fascism and one that should have received condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Only none dare call it treason if it profits, huh? I find only a small opposition to it from within the Republican party and practically none from within the Democratic party and it is what has in essence created a Uni-party solely interested in global trade rather than the health of the nation.

Until then they couldn't claim carved out privileges permitted corporations and claim the rights of a common citizen. CEO's and the people in the boardroom always had the rights of a citizen, but when PAC money was made legal to direct toward any single candidate it skewed the balance, and we haven't recovered.

It reminds me of when the Southern Company placed on retainer solid graduates from a state law school when they returned to rural counties whether in Georgia, Florida, or Alabama. They would wait about 6 months after they graduated knowing that they would be cash poor and then offer to place them on retainer to represent the Southern Company for $500 a month. So in the 60's and 70's the Southern Company wound up with oodles of state house members and state senators who were once on their payroll for as cheap as $6000 a year. They knew attorneys would seek political office in rural counties to supplement or replace their legal practice.

That practice created a massive amount of loyalty to their interests in that tri state region. So much so that the Public Service Commissions allowed for the sale of power from one state to another in which added costs would jack up the rates for electricity in said transactions.

Put that on the national and global scale and you get what is happening with Corporate Multi Nationals who purchase favor in Parliament, the Bundestag, Congress, or whatever the form of government may take at the nation state level.

In the United States the citizens were once the only means of political contribution. The founding fathers of the nation grasped directly the necessity of this having suffered at the hands of the Hudson Bay Company and other large Trade interests in European countries.

The G20 or whatever the number is up to now controls more resources and more legislation than people realize, and Treaties for Trade circumvent the laws of nations by agreement of elected representatives and corporations.

The ills facing the world today could be more rationally addressed at the local levels of government if not for many of those treaties and the corporate interests behind them.

When the talking heads which represent those corporations speak in terms of there being 5 billion too many people on the planet the masses should be concerned. They have the power to purge. Marxism to them is another opiate for the masses of poor. When business controls government it's something else entirely, it's fascism. And if the 20th Century taught us anything at all it is that as Lord Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely and a dictatorial faceless nameless body can execute 100s of millions in a relatively short period of time. AI and control of Big Pharma means that next time around it will be billions efficiently done by mandated inoculations or with denial of the purchase of resources needed.

Sometimes what sounds paranoid and dystopian, is actually a legitimate concern. Can you imagine the horror that could have been exponentially multiplied if Stalin, Mao, or Hitler had possessed computers and had the means to track and impose sanctions upon every citizen without having to have a physical presence among the people in the form of secret police? What if they could have just caused their pagers to explode, or utilize a precision drone strike on their vehicles or homes? Or simply killed them with soundwaves, or EMPs which matched the frequency of a human heartbeat. And sadly, none of that is science fiction.

It's time the left and right quit having dumb*** catfights and thinking that in verbally counting coup they had accomplished anything but a waste of time. We have a greater enemy than any of us have ever faced and all people on the planet need to get up to speed about just how much lethal power is in the hands of the precious and privileged few who think there are 5 billion too many of us. And this time there are no Allies to liberate us from whatever form the death camp takes.

Verstehen sie?

So shitcan the NRA? Shitcan Doctors Without Borders?

Just saying at a certain level, allowing people with similar goals to band together isn't per se the great evil you portray it to be even in the generalized sense

I see. You don't have the chops to discuss this, so you pettifog the issue with actual lobbying groups which are not under corporate privilege and use the loss of their rights to lobby as a blanket excuse for the Davos and Jackson's Hole crowd. Get out of my space!

Most interest groups exist under a corporate existence. It expands their reach. No matter how much you dismiss the issue put of hand, or invoke Davos, or attempt to belittle the issue presented.

When you make equivalent the money necessary to control Political PAC contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties to the ability raise money for veterans, or fallen law officer's families, or breast cancer it is a disingenuous argument and a true adherent of liberalism or conservatism would not do that. An attorney only interested in the direct benefit of corporations to them, or the indirect benefits of endless lawsuits against their hegemony offer, or the hope to get a big office to line pockets with some of that PAC money becomes a motive. It is true that attorneys are pro big government in unprecedented numbers and why would that be so? Lawyers are passing laws that benefit their corporate benefactors and also will benefit and drive the demand for legal services. It's no small wonder that in the United States we have more attorneys per capita than any other nation. And it's a curse.

So, your position does not surprise me, it is in keeping with what you are, and I might add several others which post here, but you are neither conservative nor liberal, nor a true Democrat in the old sense of the word, nor a Republican in the old sense of the word, and not really a libertarian by that which you support. Politically speaking that would tend to make you an apparatchik, or for those with a limited understanding of early 20th century terms associated with communism, a parasite, or perhaps more eloquently labeled a legal remora. What I applaud you for is knowing yourself and having been honest in your description of your position relative to the discussion of this board. In that you have both known yourself and illustrated an integrity which the average poster here simply misunderstands because theirs is only a dualistic view of the world.
09-19-2024 10:02 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
tanqtonic Offline
Legend
*

Posts: 25,645
Joined: Nov 2016
Reputation: 1149
I Root For: rice
Location:
Post: #759
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:10 PM)JRsec Wrote:  Because it shifted the balance of power away from what is best for all citizens to what is best for coalitions of the wealthiest, which changes the equation of the consent of the governed by skewing it to what is actually what is best for a minority within the population base. And it permitted the broader use of political contribution money to buy candidates on both sides of the aisle instead of using the means simply to lobby. Now they didn't have to persuade representatives and senators but could essentially purchase them.

In short it was an overt step toward fascism and one that should have received condemnation from both sides of the aisle. Only none dare call it treason if it profits, huh? I find only a small opposition to it from within the Republican party and practically none from within the Democratic party and it is what has in essence created a Uni-party solely interested in global trade rather than the health of the nation.

Until then they couldn't claim carved out privileges permitted corporations and claim the rights of a common citizen. CEO's and the people in the boardroom always had the rights of a citizen, but when PAC money was made legal to direct toward any single candidate it skewed the balance, and we haven't recovered.

It reminds me of when the Southern Company placed on retainer solid graduates from a state law school when they returned to rural counties whether in Georgia, Florida, or Alabama. They would wait about 6 months after they graduated knowing that they would be cash poor and then offer to place them on retainer to represent the Southern Company for $500 a month. So in the 60's and 70's the Southern Company wound up with oodles of state house members and state senators who were once on their payroll for as cheap as $6000 a year. They knew attorneys would seek political office in rural counties to supplement or replace their legal practice.

That practice created a massive amount of loyalty to their interests in that tri state region. So much so that the Public Service Commissions allowed for the sale of power from one state to another in which added costs would jack up the rates for electricity in said transactions.

Put that on the national and global scale and you get what is happening with Corporate Multi Nationals who purchase favor in Parliament, the Bundestag, Congress, or whatever the form of government may take at the nation state level.

In the United States the citizens were once the only means of political contribution. The founding fathers of the nation grasped directly the necessity of this having suffered at the hands of the Hudson Bay Company and other large Trade interests in European countries.

The G20 or whatever the number is up to now controls more resources and more legislation than people realize, and Treaties for Trade circumvent the laws of nations by agreement of elected representatives and corporations.

The ills facing the world today could be more rationally addressed at the local levels of government if not for many of those treaties and the corporate interests behind them.

When the talking heads which represent those corporations speak in terms of there being 5 billion too many people on the planet the masses should be concerned. They have the power to purge. Marxism to them is another opiate for the masses of poor. When business controls government it's something else entirely, it's fascism. And if the 20th Century taught us anything at all it is that as Lord Acton said absolute power corrupts absolutely and a dictatorial faceless nameless body can execute 100s of millions in a relatively short period of time. AI and control of Big Pharma means that next time around it will be billions efficiently done by mandated inoculations or with denial of the purchase of resources needed.

Sometimes what sounds paranoid and dystopian, is actually a legitimate concern. Can you imagine the horror that could have been exponentially multiplied if Stalin, Mao, or Hitler had possessed computers and had the means to track and impose sanctions upon every citizen without having to have a physical presence among the people in the form of secret police? What if they could have just caused their pagers to explode, or utilize a precision drone strike on their vehicles or homes? Or simply killed them with soundwaves, or EMPs which matched the frequency of a human heartbeat. And sadly, none of that is science fiction.

It's time the left and right quit having dumb*** catfights and thinking that in verbally counting coup they had accomplished anything but a waste of time. We have a greater enemy than any of us have ever faced and all people on the planet need to get up to speed about just how much lethal power is in the hands of the precious and privileged few who think there are 5 billion too many of us. And this time there are no Allies to liberate us from whatever form the death camp takes.

Verstehen sie?

So shitcan the NRA? Shitcan Doctors Without Borders?

Just saying at a certain level, allowing people with similar goals to band together isn't per se the great evil you portray it to be even in the generalized sense

I see. You don't have the chops to discuss this, so you pettifog the issue with actual lobbying groups which are not under corporate privilege and use the loss of their rights to lobby as a blanket excuse for the Davos and Jackson's Hole crowd. Get out of my space!

Most interest groups exist under a corporate existence. It expands their reach. No matter how much you dismiss the issue put of hand, or invoke Davos, or attempt to belittle the issue presented.

When you make equivalent the money necessary to control Political PAC contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties to the ability raise money for veterans, or fallen law officer's families, or breast cancer it is a disingenuous argument and a true adherent of liberalism or conservatism would not do that. An attorney only interested in the direct benefit of corporations to them, or the indirect benefits of endless lawsuits against their hegemony offer, or the hope to get a big office to line pockets with some of that PAC money becomes a motive. It is true that attorneys are pro big government in unprecedented numbers and why would that be so? Lawyers are passing laws that benefit their corporate benefactors and also will benefit and drive the demand for legal services. It's no small wonder that in the United States we have more attorneys per capita than any other nation. And it's a curse.

So, your position does not surprise me, it is in keeping with what you are, and I might add several others which post here, but you are neither conservative nor liberal, nor a true Democrat in the old sense of the word, nor a Republican in the old sense of the word, and not really a libertarian by that which you support. Politically speaking that would tend to make you an apparatchik, or for those with a limited understanding of early 20th century terms associated with communism, a parasite, or perhaps more eloquently labeled a legal remora. What I applaud you for is knowing yourself and having been honest in your description of your position relative to the discussion of this board. In that you have both known yourself and illustrated an integrity which the average poster here simply misunderstands because theirs is only a dualistic view of the world.

At its core, my position is rooted in the right of people with similar mindsets to assemble with one another, and pursue similar goals.

As an actual on point example -- consider the *actual* issue in the Citizen's United case.

At the time of the suit, this was literally 6 guys that wanted to make a movie about a political subject.

As a practical matter -- fairly difficult to make a movie from the effort of 6 dudes without a corporate existence. I am currently doing work in movie production transactions -- I dont see how it could be done without those envelopes. The law at the time said releasing the movie in a certain time frame was prohibited by any corporate entity. But not individuals. Why shouldn’t the 6 dudes be able to make that movie as a corporate entity, or release it as a corporate entity? I'd like to hear your viewpoint on that very simple question.

In the manner I support Citizen's United, it is entirely in the realm of promoting free choice. Individual people have free choice in the manner that they present political views, including a free choice to expend on how to expend their own efforts, and their own money. Seems inane to allow that freedom to individuals, and bar groups of people from the very same activity. Actually - bar only selective groups of people from that activity.

In addition to the problems in the last sentence directly above, it seems to be a massive bar based in the concept of another rather important issue of freedom aside from expression -- the right to assemble with people whom they choose to assemble. And the right to pursue joint goals with people whom they agree with.

My position is highly libertarian, notwithstanding your attempt at painting it otherwise. People should have an absolute right to assemble with others, and to pursue political goals with others. Even when enveloped by a corporate structure.

Again, in the actual Citizen's United case, why should their joint endeavor literally be criminalized with a corporate structure, and highly protected if done individually? Seems inane in the limelight of what the 1st Amendment is designed to protect -- multiple portions of the 1st Amendment in fact.

And you will note I am not making comments on you as a poster, or any supposed personal foibles re: apparatchiks, or remoras or whatever. Which seems to appear in force in pretty much the entirety of your last paragraph above. Perhaps make the posts about the subject matter -- not the poster. As some have said should be the model to strive for around here just lately.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 10:44 PM by tanqtonic.)
09-19-2024 10:17 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
JRsec Offline
Super Moderator
*

Posts: 44,937
Joined: Mar 2012
Reputation: 13463
I Root For: SEC
Location:
Post: #760
RE: ***official 'debate' thread*** ... Kumswallah vs. the Orange Basterd (#groverII)
(09-19-2024 10:17 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 10:02 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:37 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:33 PM)JRsec Wrote:  
(09-19-2024 09:30 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  So shitcan the NRA? Shitcan Doctors Without Borders?

Just saying at a certain level, allowing people with similar goals to band together isn't per se the great evil you portray it to be even in the generalized sense

I see. You don't have the chops to discuss this, so you pettifog the issue with actual lobbying groups which are not under corporate privilege and use the loss of their rights to lobby as a blanket excuse for the Davos and Jackson's Hole crowd. Get out of my space!

Most interest groups exist under a corporate existence. It expands their reach. No matter how much you dismiss the issue put of hand, or invoke Davos, or attempt to belittle the issue presented.

When you make equivalent the money necessary to control Political PAC contributions to the Democratic and Republican parties to the ability raise money for veterans, or fallen law officer's families, or breast cancer it is a disingenuous argument and a true adherent of liberalism or conservatism would not do that. An attorney only interested in the direct benefit of corporations to them, or the indirect benefits of endless lawsuits against their hegemony offer, or the hope to get a big office to line pockets with some of that PAC money becomes a motive. It is true that attorneys are pro big government in unprecedented numbers and why would that be so? Lawyers are passing laws that benefit their corporate benefactors and also will benefit and drive the demand for legal services. It's no small wonder that in the United States we have more attorneys per capita than any other nation. And it's a curse.

So, your position does not surprise me, it is in keeping with what you are, and I might add several others which post here, but you are neither conservative nor liberal, nor a true Democrat in the old sense of the word, nor a Republican in the old sense of the word, and not really a libertarian by that which you support. Politically speaking that would tend to make you an apparatchik, or for those with a limited understanding of early 20th century terms associated with communism, a parasite, or perhaps more eloquently labeled a legal remora. What I applaud you for is knowing yourself and having been honest in your description of your position relative to the discussion of this board. In that you have both known yourself and illustrated an integrity which the average poster here simply misunderstands because theirs is only a dualistic view of the world.

At its core, my position is rooted in the right of people with similar mindsets to assemble with one another, and pursue similar goals.

As an actual on point example -- consider the *actual* issue in the Citizen's United case.

At the time of the suit, this was literally 6 guys that wanted to make a movie with a political subject.

Kind of difficult to make a movie between 6 dudes without a corporate existence. The law at the time said releasing the movie in a certain time frame was prohibited by any corporate entity. But not individuals.

Why shouldn’t the 6 dudes be able to make that movie as a corporate entity?

In the manner I support Citizen's United, it is entirely in the realm of promoting free choice.

Individual people have free choice in the manner that they present political views, including a free choice to expend on how to expend their own efforts, and their own money.

Seems utterly stupid to allow that freedom to individuals, and bar groups from the very same activity.

In addition to the problems in the last sentence, it seems to be a massive bar based in the concept of rather important issue of freedom -- the right to assemble with people whom they choose to assemble. And the right to pursue joint goals with people whom they agree with.

My position is highly libertarian, notwithstanding your attempt at painting it otherwise. People should have an absolute right to assemble with others, and to pursue political goals with others. Even when enveloped by a corporate structure.

Again, in the actual Citizen's United case, why should their joint endeavor literally be criminalized with a corporate structure, and highly protected if done individually? Seems absolutely stupid in the limelight of what the 1st Amendment is designed to protect -- multiple portions of the 1st Amendment in fact.

And you will note I am not making comments on you, or aspersions on your stance as you seemingly wish to do to me.

As long as Citizens United is money laundering much large corporate gifts and serving as shill front for the manipulation of a larger corporate entity. But then when it comes to politics there are so many shell organizations on both sides as to render the matter of any one of them inane to the larger reality, but you know that.

What is nefarious is that it poses as objectives for the citizens and people but in reality is merely one head of a hydra organization with its own hidden objectives.

Case in point a church based organizing group that thought it was marching for safer neighborhoods but the organizing group they used to assist them was merely using them to move one cartel out so another cartel which funded their activities in Venezuela and Southern Mexico could operate with funding from church folks in the United States who thought they were assisting better neighborhoods for children.

You can talk a blue streak because that's what lawyers do, but what is done in the name of any of these so-called citizen's lobby groups is seldom really known to the true believers who participate in them. The people that think they are helping are unknowingly serving the aims of a larger and often much more destructive organization than the street problems they are fighting. And that sir, I despise with every fiber of my being.

Corporate PAC money has stolen the voice of citizens regardless of the interests they think they represent. And tracking down these groups shell game corporate money to find the true agenda isn't something that political appointees over our alphabet agencies want to track down. Most people who are politically active, as they would describe themselves have no knowledge of who or what they really serve. In a society that claims to be free I find that disturbing, so you bet I'm for drying it all up, criminalizing it, and letting individual citizens donate to political campaigns at set levels. It won't end corruption, but it will slow it the hell down!

Then maybe people will start figuring out that St. Jude gets its money to treating children, and the United Way manages a nickel out of every dollar to get to the needy while its structure is supported fully. But hey, the Catholic church does that and the protestant mainline denominations average 3 cents of every dollar after all of the building costs, clergy salaries, clergy influence, clergy housing, clergy retirement, missionaries salaries, housing, insurance, and retirement are paid. It's an institution of the Clergy, for the Clergy and by the Clergy where salaries are classified as mission. It's a great gig when your whole organization becomes the beneficiary of calling every cent given a part of its mission and thereby nonprofit. Show me a citizen's group which has United after its name, and I'll show you a political Trojan Horse.

I give a tithe off of my gross revenue. It goes directly to an orphanage which accounts for all of the money to the children, directly to St. Judes where they account for all of the money straight to the children needing treatment, I give directly to the poor people and widows whose need I am aware of, and to the local food bank which gets 100% of the money to the people who are hungry because it is volunteer based.

I despise hucksterism and fraud whether political, religious, or both. PAC money in all forms and through all front organizations needs to go. It's the only way that the people truly have a voice. And frankly I'd be of all for the aggressive pursuit of all of those who lie to the public about what they represent!

Sine Die.
(This post was last modified: 09-19-2024 10:48 PM by JRsec.)
09-19-2024 10:38 PM
Find all posts by this user Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 




User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)


Copyright © 2002-2026 Collegiate Sports Nation Bulletin Board System (CSNbbs), All Rights Reserved.
CSNbbs is an independent fan site and is in no way affiliated to the NCAA or any of the schools and conferences it represents.
This site monetizes links. FTC Disclosure.
We allow third-party companies to serve ads and/or collect certain anonymous information when you visit our web site. These companies may use non-personally identifiable information (e.g., click stream information, browser type, time and date, subject of advertisements clicked or scrolled over) during your visits to this and other Web sites in order to provide advertisements about goods and services likely to be of greater interest to you. These companies typically use a cookie or third party web beacon to collect this information. To learn more about this behavioral advertising practice or to opt-out of this type of advertising, you can visit http://www.networkadvertising.org.
Powered By MyBB, © 2002-2026 MyBB Group.