|
SuzukiSavage.com
/cgi-bin/YaBB.pl General Category >> Politics, Religion (Tall Table) >> Succinct, elegant /cgi-bin/YaBB.pl?num=1458403136 Message started by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 08:58:56 |
|
Title: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 08:58:56 “With Republicans in power, man exploits man. With Democrats, just the opposite.” I need a bumper sticker. Richard B. Boddie Activist, lawyer; adjunct professor of law; first black banker in Rochester, NY; former Chairman Libertarian Party, Orange County, California. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/19/16 at 09:34:28 I got my own idea JOG...... The greatest difference between Democrat and Republican is, how they divide the spoils Raydawg semi-Activist, degreeless; adjunct professor of not a darn thing; first Indian Savage rider in Whidbey Island, WA; former Chairman Pity Party, Apple County, WA. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 09:37:36 They Divide the spoils? I never knew that,,, |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/19/16 at 12:41:25 405F595E43447545754D5F53182A0 wrote:
Oh yes my friend, they are very generous with each other :-* |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 12:48:07 Yeah,I guess that makes sense. If im in a gang and one of the members makes a score, I should get a cut. If I score, I slice off a piece for everyone. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/19/16 at 12:51:42 My Econ professor would disagree. Die hard, old a$$ dirtbag, conservative republican, racists POS, hates women and ALL minorities. He claims demorat politicians are the devil, and only conservative republicans are correct in all things. Every lecture has a hate filled rant somewhere in it. Personally, I hate all politicians equally! 8-) |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 13:22:15 A TRUE conservative? That's what we need. A genuine Constitutional policy . The only way to get there is eliminate the Fed, and every other unconstitutional entity. Take a long time. I don't think it's possible. Even if someone got made King and went to work, unilaterally, slashing and crashing, restoring the constitution, I don't think the open, gushing arterial wounds can be dealt with before the crash. I don't know. The Progressive agenda is not good for people. The neocon agenda is horrible. Both sides look enough alike that unless someone has said what party they are in, I might not be able to guess. Nobody has argued against the point that nothing gets repealed, even when the legislation was so unpopular that D.C.got flushed, and the power went completely the opposite direction and NOW the party that WAS in the minority and Was crying about how Horrible that legislation would be, Now they Could repeal it, but don't. Nobody wants to talk about THAT. It DEMONSTRATES what I say. You keep believing in your party.. Which gang do you want raping you? Crips or Bloods? |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by Trippah on 03/19/16 at 14:05:50 Was the salsa you had for lunch really That hot?? ;D |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 14:24:33 What? You don't see how it works? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-03-17/feudalism-then-now Try that out. Note the historical record. Compare to what is obvious today. What? You don't remember hearing your grandparents and parents talking about the good times? You remember, listening to the talk, about great it was, back when the banks were Paying Negative Interest Rates. Hello? Can nobody SEE? You gotta PAY the bank to hold your money? Does anyone remember when I said that This time, there would be no economic recovery Back when it crashed, around 08, maybe 09,, |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by Serowbot on 03/19/16 at 15:18:45 3C2325223F3809390931232F64560 wrote:
That was a Conservative... :-? |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/19/16 at 16:24:13 4F6E786E797F596A7F0B0 wrote:
dRAT..... I will give you ONE free warning about using the word hate If you don't learn from this warning, and amend your vocabulary, to use more friendlier words to describe your "unhappiness" in people, I will have no choice to enact appropriate measures....... As to CONSERVATIVE, or LIBERAL, politicians...... Being the ONLY true answer, to governing, well think about this, or ask your teacher to ponder it. If the electorate has only a choice of the two extremes, it will mean one of the two will ALWAYS be MAD, at the outcome, AND therefor, not willing to be a good sport and accept the fact, they lost. No, but to try and minimize and blame, and find cause to disrupt the winner, in their quest to fulfill their campaign promises.... And why can't these KOOL-AID drinkers yield, and allow the elected, to govern, more toward the middle, for are we not called the UNITED states of America, and that would include those citizens that lost in the election too..... |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/19/16 at 16:26:40 politicians have no control of the free market. they can however, manipulate it for their backers ... |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/19/16 at 16:30:20 loathe, detest, despise, dislike, abhor, execrate; be repelled by, be unable to bear/stand, find intolerable, recoil from, shrink from ... BETTER??? ::) |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 16:58:57 Despise, you missed despise. Miserable, disg u sting, low life slime ball scuzz bucket reprobate thieves,,, and I missed quite a few. Hating equally is okay. It's fair, at least. And, I disagree that half would always be unhappy. It was the FEW, vocal, tireless voices and the media, used to drive policy decisions that made the social changes. Ohh, how tirelessly they worked. And,when political power changes, Nothing that was Bad for America when the conservatives were in a minority, got changed. When America is prosperous and the People are employed and saving and adding onto the house, adding a garage, and Still saving, the unhappy few just might be screwed up. Look at what changes have been made. Look at society. Who Really believes that what America needs is more of the same? The Same groups are making policy decisions since they killed JFK. Go back, look, Bush and his thugs were making the real decisions. Reagan was allowed to pretend that he was doing something. Just a figurehead. Gave Bush more time to run things. They didn't want Reagan dead. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/19/16 at 17:56:40 0B2A3C2A3D3B1D2E3B4F0 wrote:
F You wanna try again ;D Look at tobacco and fire arms, and fossil fuel, etc..... Go ponder and return with a more thought out answer :-* |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/19/16 at 18:03:49 637C7A7D60675666566E7C703B090 wrote:
Well if ya can't understand the meaning of "trickle down" then maybe you should sit when you pee :P Ok, big boy panties on now..... If folk can't understand the principles of obvious, then let me help you out. For it ( wealth/money/etc ) to trickle down to the lower classes, it means the gubbermint is sanctioning its policies to give that very wealth to the, uh, get this, the WEALTHY for their policies to work.... How much more IN YOUR FACE do you need the rich to tell you THEY COME FIRST? |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/19/16 at 19:00:18 The name does pretty well say it all, dunnit? What Seriously bugs me is the position of credibility that Paul Roberts seems to have amongst the Look at Reality crowd. That Seriously bugs me. Reagan Presidency, supposedly the Greatest President of our lives. Has anyone actually Looked at what was done in central and south America. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/19/16 at 19:51:22 raydawg, that is EXACTLY why I HATE them. wealthy elitist douchebags supporting their brethren only, at MY expense. $h1t floats |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/19/16 at 19:56:06 41524A57524454330 wrote:
F You wanna try again ;D Look at tobacco and fire arms, and fossil fuel, etc..... Go ponder and return with a more thought out answer :-* [/quote] please read out load what I wrote, and use a lot less ad hominem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by Rodger on 03/20/16 at 07:33:59 "Laugh about it, shout about it When you've got to choose Every way you look at this you lose." --- Simon and Garfunkel |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/20/16 at 07:47:48 062731273036102336420 wrote:
F You wanna try again ;D Look at tobacco and fire arms, and fossil fuel, etc..... Go ponder and return with a more thought out answer :-* [/quote] please read out load what I wrote, and use a lot less ad hominem - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_techniques[/quote] C'mon...... Don't go bleeding heart touchy filly on me son, you're have a miserable life of watching Oprah reruns and eating bon bons, if you do..... Yes, of course they are puppets for their masters, but their backers look for a square peg, to fit into their square hole, instead of trying to force it into a round hole..... |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/20/16 at 07:55:14 'If voting made any difference they wouldn't let us do it.' |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/20/16 at 08:15:00 163721372026003326520 wrote:
Yes, you are right, good one. Can you imagine how hard it would be for them to control a no party affiliation, no primary, popular vote, most votes win, presidency, second most votes, vice president, etc. No delegates, or electorate college, just straight up.... Just like the tax laws, they want to keep it confusing and subjective, and unfair.... so accountability can used according to their whims. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/20/16 at 08:56:16 agreed Raydawg. The control issues would be zombie apocalypse scary for them. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/20/16 at 10:21:41 We choose the nominee, not the voters: Senior GOP official http://www.cnbc.com/2016/03/16/we-choose-the-nominee-not-the-voters-senior-gop-official.html Political parties, not voters, choose their presidential nominees, a Republican convention rules member told CNBC, a day after GOP front-runner Donald Trump rolled up more big primary victories. "The media has created the perception that the voters choose the nomination. That's the conflict here," Curly Haugland, an unbound GOP delegate from North Dakota, told CNBC's "Squawk Box" on Wednesday. He even questioned why primaries and caucuses are held. Haugland is one of 112 Republican delegates who are not required to cast their support for any one candidate because their states and territories don't hold primaries or caucuses. Even with Trump's huge projected delegate haul in four state primaries Tuesday, the odds are increasing the billionaire businessman may not ultimately get the 1,237 delegates needed to claim the GOP nomination before the convention. ‹ Voting slip Confused by this talk about delegates? Read this Republican U.S. presidential candidate Donald Trump stands between his campaign manager Corey Lewandowski (L) and his son Eric (R) as he speaks about the results of the Florida, Ohio, North Carolina, Illinois and Missouri primary elections. Big wins for Trump but opposition clings to hope CNBC’s John Harwood sat down with House Speaker Paul Ryan in a "Speakeasy" interview at the Capitol Building in Washington DC on March 15, 2016. Ryan says he won't accept GOP nod for president Republican candidates Donald Trump and John Kasich and Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton win big in primaries on March 15, 2016. Big night for Trump and Clinton; Kasich takes Ohio President Barack Obama Obama slams 'vulgar and divisive' primaries campaign › This could lead to a brokered convention, in which unbound delegates, like Haugland, could play a significant swing role on the first ballot to choose a nominee. Most delegates bound by their state's primary or caucus results are only committed on the first ballot. If subsequent ballots are needed, virtually all of the delegates can vote any way they want, said Gary Emineth, another unbound delegate from North Dakota. "It could introduce Paul Ryan, Mitt Romney, or it could be the other candidates that have already been in the race and are now out of the race [such as] Mike Huckabee [or] Rick Santorum. All those people could eventually become candidates on the floor," Emineth said. House Speaker Paul Ryan, who decided not to run for the White House this year, said in a CNBC interview Tuesday he won't categorically rule out accepting the GOP nomination if a deadlocked convention were to turn to him. But on Wednesday, a Ryan spokeswoman said the speaker would not accept a Republican nomination for president at a divided convention. Democrats experienced the last true brokered presidential convention to go beyond the first ballot in 1952. Republicans came close at their 1976 convention. "The rules haven't kept up," Haugland said. "The rules are still designed to have a political party choose its nominee at a convention. That's just the way it is. I can't help it. Don't hate me because I love the rules." Haugland said he sent a letter to each campaign alerting them to a rule change he's proposing, which would allow any candidate who earns at least one delegate during the nominating process to submit his or her name to be nominated at this summer's convention. If the GOP race continues at the same pace, Trump would likely have a plurality of delegates. So far, he's more than halfway to the 1,237 magic number. Trump split Tuesday's winner-take-all primaries in Florida and Ohio. The real estate mogul dominated in Florida over Sen. Marco Rubio, who dropped out of the race after losing his home state. But Trump lost Ohio to the state's governor, John Kasich. Trump also won Illinois and North Carolina. He held a slim lead over Texas Sen. Ted Cruz in Missouri early Wednesday. Emineth, also a former chairman of the North Dakota Republican Party, told "Squawk Box" in the same interview that he's concerned about party officials pulling "some shenanigan." "You have groups of people who are going to try to take over the rules committee," he warned. "[That] could totally change everything, and mess things up with the delegates. And people across the country will be very frustrated." "It's important that the Republican National Committee has transparency on what they're doing [on the rules] going into the convention and what happens in the convention," he continued. That's because of "all the votes that have been cast in caucuses and primaries. Don't disenfranchise those voters. Because at the end of the day, our goal is to beat Hillary Clinton or whoever their [Democratic] nominee is in November." Emineth said he's worried that frustration would discourage Americans in the general election from voting Republican. — CNBC's Lori Ann LaRocco contributed to this report. Morning Squawk: CNBC's before the bell news roundup Sign up to get Morning Squawk each weekday Email (Required) SUBMIT To learn more about how we use your information, please read our Privacy Policy. Matthew J. Belvedere Senior Producer Trust me, we are gonna get another Can't Win can'tdidate, and Trump runs third party. Hillary walks across the plate, scoring the winning run for the globalist establishment. The Only way that doesn't happen is if it is a huge landslide victory for the Not Hillary candidate. The machines and the media can be used to get her in,even when the popular vote doesn't. The Only way that Doesn't happen is, barring indictment or hey, maybe a suicide? is for the Not Hillary vote to be So large that Everyone Knows that she Can't have won. At this point,Should the gamesmanship be elevated to the point where they Don't put Cruz or Trump in as the candidate, anyone who continues to Not see what I have been saying is obviously beyond help. Should they Believe that they Can put someone other than Cruz or Trump in the ring, against Hillary, then I don't see how it is possible to continue to believe that the People have any voice in D.C.. I'm not exactly happy with Trump or Cruz,but, I trust Hillary, and what she would support would finish us off. If Cruz would Do what he said, that would be great. I'm pretty sure we would see the Secret Service ordered to stand down, like the minute before JFK was shot. E.T.A. Here is where it gets muddy. What is the end goal? Depends on your concept of reality. I'm looking at a scientific concentration of control. Most of you seem to believe that the government is a bumbling but well meaning association of like minded people, in that they only want what's best for us, and each group believes in a different direction, a different idea, about how best to accommodate our needs. Considering the obvious failures and the well known position of the People, why is it that all these well meaning people just haven't been able to reverse the trade deals that shut down the industries? So, what is Really going on here? I Could make the case that we won't get an election. But, it's Hillary's turn. She stepped aside and handed it to Obama. Though, the coverage of Ferguson, and the Treyvon Martin thing, sure LOOKED like trying to stir up racial tensions. Do they Want people in the streets yet? The global economic picture is pretty grim. I'm pretty sure they don't want it to all come down Prior to some social upheaval that causes the People to cry out to the government for help. Remember Problem Reaction Solution And the solution is We Will provide for you and protect you. Everyone, turn in the guns. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/20/16 at 11:15:17 I'm sorry JOG, I don't understand the difference between Hillary and Trump. They both have mastered the talking of both sides of the mouth.....and make Teflon Ronnie seem sticky. The whole thing reminds me of a guy who gets caught with another women. In his argument he turns the the table of responsibility upon his wife, after saying he was NOT having intercourse with her... with the question posed to her, "Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?" The rich and powerful of the world will always rule, they are the BIGGEST lobbyist, making every one else a minority Edit: Bernie is the only chance, yet the very same media scares people with SOCIALISM |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/20/16 at 11:22:53 5B48504D485E4E290 wrote:
or ... making every one else a serf/slave ... |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/20/16 at 11:48:32 18392F392E280E3D285C0 wrote:
or ... making every one else a serf/slave ...[/quote] Yes, of course you are right, but to acknowledge the truth of that would then put all of the have nots into the same category, which could very well empower and embolden them..... Which could prove a real threat to the elitist. It's much easier to fragment them with assigning class envy, whites vs. black, straight vs. gay, believer vs. atheist, Suzuki vs. Harley [ch128540] etc It keeps us fighting each other for the crumbs [ch128513] Or...... TRICKLE DOWN |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/20/16 at 11:51:24 m sorry JOG, I don't understand the difference between Hillary and Trump. I'm not able to argue about that. He HAS supported her. So, what is different? Has either of them changed? How was he able to stand up for her and agree with HER, supporting her campaign, before, and Now she's the bad guy... And, if He has changed in his ideology, where? I'm not happy with any of the options. IF Cruz is for real, then he would literally change the course of America. Trump, I don't see it working out well. His ideas on how people can or cannot criticize, open the First Amendment,, Bragging about buying politicians. IF he believes that is how it works, then if it's okay to Buy a politician, then As a politician, isn't it okay to be for sale? |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/20/16 at 16:31:24 where's the COMMON MAN candidate? In my lifetime I have yet to see a single commoner/serf/slave make or run for public office. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/20/16 at 18:14:03 517066706761477461150 wrote:
Sanders is about as close as we will get |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/20/16 at 18:30:41 http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2016/02/bernie-sanders-a-bum-who-didnt-earn-his-first-paycheck-until-age-40/ Yeah, proof that crap floats.. Or, maybe this is untrue. But, ohhh how well the story fits my grasp of the person. Couldn't find the strength to type man. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by raydawg on 03/20/16 at 18:37:38 37282E2934330232023A28246F5D0 wrote:
I will yield to those that will testify he has at least been, a consistent poop ;D |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/20/16 at 19:13:32 The consistency has been ideology. His lifestyle has been improved by his learning to be a successful parasite. Nothing really different from most of the D.C. denizens. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by WebsterMark on 03/20/16 at 20:07:57 1B3A2C3A2D2B0D3E2B5F0 wrote:
Sarah Palin? City council of her small town, then Mayor. Appointed to some agency, not sure which, then ran for governor. you might not like her but thats what you're talking about. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/20/16 at 20:23:16 sarah was not "common". she came from government money, already working the system. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by Serowbot on 03/20/16 at 21:40:19 240513051214320114600 wrote:
Bill Clinton... |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/21/16 at 10:13:43 Who was his dad? http://cliffordshack-article-archive-storage.blogspot.com/2012/01/bill-clinton-was-born-on-august-19-1946.html Wouldn't some DNA testing be a hoot? He sure did get away with a lot in Arkansas. I never saw anyone who knew So many people who committed suicide. So many, in fact, they coined a term for it. Arkancide. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=nxaFGsdGxnc And, there are plenty more in the sidebar. If you watch the Waco show, at one point three men are on a lower roof section and two enter a window into the second story. About three seconds after they get in, the third pokes a full auto gun in and sprays away in their direction. Go watch,, but, I've made the point several times, so, any online copy may be edited by now. I used to go to famous quotes and grab a favorite. I'm unable to find it now. I posted it for years,, pretty much once or twice a week. Don't forget about his professor, Carol Quigley, author of the controversial Tragedy and Hope. He was given access to the archives of one of the secret societies, not its Existence is secret,but its goals, for the hair splitting deniers of reality. The title is not about how Tragic it would be should they fail,, ohh no, far frummit,, Quigley was in full agreement with the goals. He disagreed with the secrecy. He thought everyone should understand, that way, more would agree and help. Read about the publishing, purchase and destruction of the plates, then, a New Edition,, Boy, I'd like to see both, side by side. The chief problem of American political life for along time has been how to make the two Congressional parties more national and international…(therefore) argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers… TAKE NOTE Instead the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy (Tragedy and Hope: 1247-1248). GEEE, it's just like reality... |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by WebsterMark on 03/21/16 at 10:29:33 I can't think of another national political figure with less of a resume than her. Not going to find a Joe the plumber running president. Oh sure you'll find it but wey talking about a credible candidate. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by DesertRat on 03/21/16 at 16:20:46 that's the problem MARK. You claim that the only way they're "credible" is through their wealth and connections. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by Serowbot on 03/21/16 at 16:44:57 182A2D3C3B2A3D022E3D244F0 wrote:
I guess being a US senator, and Sec'y of State isn't as good as being a rich guy on a reality TV show... You really should vote for Kim Kardashian... |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by WebsterMark on 03/21/16 at 18:11:29 6B4A5C4A5D5B7D4E5B2F0 wrote:
okay, I'm declaring myself a Presidential candidate. Happy now? |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by justin_o_guy2 on 03/21/16 at 20:40:11 6A7C6B766E7B766D190 wrote:
I guess being a US senator, and Sec'y of State isn't as good as being a rich guy on a reality TV show... You really should vote for Kim Kardashian... [/quote] Yeah, such a winner she has been. Naturally, the political blinders have your eyes protected from reality. |
|
Title: Re: Succinct, elegant Post by Paraquat on 03/22/16 at 11:00:49 704245545342556A46554C270 wrote:
okay, I'm declaring myself a Presidential candidate. Happy now?[/quote] I'd vote for you. --Steve |
|
SuzukiSavage.com » Powered by YaBB 2.2! YaBB © 2000-2007. All Rights Reserved. |