Posts by 


log in
1) Message boards : Politics : Are you left wing or right wing? (Message 1776236)
Posted 4 Apr 2016 by 
It says I'm left wing, so you know it's 100% reliable and accurate.

Maybe I want the same things many of you in here want, I just compare history to modern day, apply some principles and see I want to do what has worked in the past while many of you in here want to repeat history for some reason.

I think I'm done here.
2) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775649)
Posted 1 Apr 2016 by 
Gary, I'm fully aware of all the ridiculous laws *still on the book.* You're just highlighting the fact that our ruling class is too busy trying to usurp power away from the people and one of the ways to do this is to *selectively* enforce the laws on the books since the laws are interpreted in their eyes only.
Ruling class? Sorry. These laws are the laws "reserved to the states OR THE PEOPLE." The ruling class is smarter than to pass this crap. No, only the people a/k/a "the commies" pass laws like these.

Or are you saying the people are the ruling class?

<ed>And isn't Drumpf a populist, a reflection of "the people" a/k/a "the commies."


I didn't ready your freakin list...

Can you get it anymore sdrawkcab?
3) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775580)
Posted 1 Apr 2016 by 
According to liberals, the U.S. constitution is outdated.


The U.S. governing system was designed by our forefathers to allow for amending laws so that as things change, future generations could add or modify as they see fit. Progression of mankind is a must. Ergo, our laws governing ourselves must change too. What was acceptable/unacceptable 200 years ago is largely no longer relevant today.


We aren't following laws anymore--that's the only way to bring on communism.


Who decides that we're not following them?


Observation.


So then it's purely in the eye of the beholder.


...as it is purely in the eyes of the ruling class. And the only beholder that matters today is the ruling class. And the ruling class is now changing them at will.


Do you really think Trump isn't part of this ruling class?


Where did I say that?


Your support for him suggested you thought he possessed the appropriate ideology to move this country back to where you think it belongs.


Well, your selective reading (as many others in here do) suggests you're going to disagree with me no matter what I say.

I have said (at least once) "Trump would be hundreds of times better for this country than hillary (a known felon)" and I have said (more than once) I think the only way to begin to save this country is with a constitutional conservative in the white house--something we haven't had since Reagan--something the young folks now have never experienced--and there's only one of those running against trump right now.

Either one of these would upset the current ruling class--which would be a good thing--which is what we need to begin to heal this country from decades of liberalism.

And I've said many times the only way we're going to save this country is to start following the rules again--the rule of law means it applies to our politicians, too.

I've explained (in several different ways) how this country was formed and what made it great through the distribution of power, the checks and balances, and decisions being made at the appropriate level, but for some reason, liberals think I want to centralize power in the hands of a few when in fact, liberalism is an ideology which is working to centralize all power and control into the hands of a few. History hath shewn time and time again doing this never turns out well.

And the only other way to save this country is to go above the power structure of our current crop of ruling class members, implement (for the first time in our history) an unused portion of article 5 of our constitution and restrict their goose-step to failure by reasserting the original intent of the constitution through a convention of the states which adds some amendments to our constitution without their influence which clears up and clarifies the limits which they've been overstepping for decades.

But apparently you (and many others in here) think I want something else.

Either you're ignoring the lessons of human history for misguided reasons, the lessons of history are being hidden from you, or you really think this nation is too rich and needs to be downsized because of some kind of guilt or something even more sinister.
4) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775551)
Posted 1 Apr 2016 by 
According to liberals, the U.S. constitution is outdated.


The U.S. governing system was designed by our forefathers to allow for amending laws so that as things change, future generations could add or modify as they see fit. Progression of mankind is a must. Ergo, our laws governing ourselves must change too. What was acceptable/unacceptable 200 years ago is largely no longer relevant today.


We aren't following laws anymore--that's the only way to bring on communism.


Who decides that we're not following them?


Observation.


So then it's purely in the eye of the beholder.


...as it is purely in the eyes of the ruling class. And the only beholder that matters today is the ruling class. And the ruling class is now changing them at will.


Do you really think Trump isn't part of this ruling class?


Where did I say that?
5) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775543)
Posted 1 Apr 2016 by 
According to liberals, the U.S. constitution is outdated.


The U.S. governing system was designed by our forefathers to allow for amending laws so that as things change, future generations could add or modify as they see fit. Progression of mankind is a must. Ergo, our laws governing ourselves must change too. What was acceptable/unacceptable 200 years ago is largely no longer relevant today.


We aren't following laws anymore--that's the only way to bring on communism.


Who decides that we're not following them?


Observation.


So then it's purely in the eye of the beholder.


...as it is purely in the eyes of the ruling class. And the only beholder that matters today is the ruling class. And the ruling class is now changing them at will.

Gary, I'm fully aware of all the ridiculous laws *still on the book.* You're just highlighting the fact that our ruling class is too busy trying to usurp power away from the people and one of the ways to do this is to *selectively* enforce the laws on the books since the laws are interpreted in their eyes only.

Trump knows the rules we are following today. Trump knows the laws that have effectively been redefined by the ruling class as he has a team of lawyers whose only job is to do this for him. I believe Trump will at least make this country financially successful again. My concern is after he's gone, the liberals will finally have the financial backing to successfully make it to their end state. When we make it to our communist utopia, some people will say, "I told you so." Some people will realize the mistake they made. Most people will wonder what happened. And all other communist nations on this planet will laugh at us because we were fooled like they were once fooled.

If we truly want to fix this country, we need a constitutional conservative and we need to get back to the rule of law. But I don't think that's going to happen. I believe we've already gone over the cliff.
6) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775469)
Posted 1 Apr 2016 by 
According to liberals, the U.S. constitution is outdated.


The U.S. governing system was designed by our forefathers to allow for amending laws so that as things change, future generations could add or modify as they see fit. Progression of mankind is a must. Ergo, our laws governing ourselves must change too. What was acceptable/unacceptable 200 years ago is largely no longer relevant today.


We aren't following laws anymore--that's the only way to bring on communism.


Who decides that we're not following them?


Observation.

Edit:

bobby, in your attempt to mock me, I must give you credit for being correct in who decides laws are obsolete.
7) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775441)
Posted 31 Mar 2016 by 
Who decides laws are obsolete?
8) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775415)
Posted 31 Mar 2016 by 
According to liberals, the U.S. constitution is outdated.


The U.S. governing system was designed by our forefathers to allow for amending laws so that as things change, future generations could add or modify as they see fit. Progression of mankind is a must. Ergo, our laws governing ourselves must change too. What was acceptable/unacceptable 200 years ago is largely no longer relevant today.


We aren't following laws anymore--that's the only way to bring on communism.
9) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775327)
Posted 31 Mar 2016 by 
*AGAIN* ... looks like the RNC is going to make sure hillary takes the white house next. Looks like they'd rather lose the general election than lose their power structure.

Centralizing all power into the hands of the "ruling class" is priority number one.

Hillary is, beyond any reasonable doubt, a felon. She just hasn't been convicted yet. After all, most democrats are felons.

Marx admits socialism is a necessary transitional state of government on its way to communism. So, yes, there are differences, but one is just a stepping stone to the other.

*AGAIN* The U.S. constitution states the purpose of federal government is to provide for our national defense, preserve individual liberty and to provide order. According to liberals, the U.S. constitution is outdated. Therefore, the "fundamental change" Obama promised 5 days before he took the white house includes removing national defense, individual liberty and order to society.

Bolshevism advocates the violent overthrow of capitalism. Without capitalism, there's no other choice but a centralized power to make all your decisions for you. What the utopists refuse to accept is that it is natural law that the ruling class will always take care of their interests before the interests of the people.

The current state of society in Afghanistan is a good example of where we might be headed given that I don't see a way for the ruling class to remove all guns from society.

If we just close down all federal penitentiaries and release all prisoners, this will accelerate our progress towards a communist utopia.
10) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775300)
Posted 31 Mar 2016 by 
But it was a clear statement- and we can't have that....

Yes, it's at best an unpopular opinion, but at least you don't have to o wonder how The Donald feels sometimes.

We do know how Drumpf feels about that. Perhaps why his PAC is highlighting a story that Hillary has had more than one abortion. If he can't convict her for e-mail he'll convict her for abortion.

Drumpf, my way or I sue/jail you!

I can see that the right wing attempts to stop a woman getting into the Whitehouse are going to be even nastier (if possible) than their attempts to stop a black man getting in.

It looks like any women involved directly or indirectly (Ted Cruz's wife, Chelsea Clinton, Donald Trump's wife and daughter) are going to suffer a whole gamut of chauvinistic attacks.


After all, it *is* better to support someone based on the color of their skin or the gender they've chosen than to support someone based on the content of their character, right?
11) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1775263)
Posted 31 Mar 2016 by 
In this little safe-haven for communists, you call constitutional conservatism an "ideology" and call it obsolete when in reality constitutional conservatism is based on reality, natural law and lessons of history.

You deny reality and think you are above natural law. Natural law just *is*. Denying this is denying reality. And you deny the lessons of history.

In reality, liberalism is based on ideology. And this ideology has been tried again and again throughout history and has failed every time. The full effects of liberalism are in full view in China, Russia, Venezuela, Cuba and Argentina--yet you continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell out "LA LA LA LA..." when confronted with the truth.

The truth of the matter is that you want less freedom. You want more poverty. You want to live under an authoritarian government.

The U.S. constitution states the purpose of federal government is to provide for our national defense, preserve individual liberty and to provide order. You want none of this.

You want some people to have power over others.

...as demonstrated right here in this little safe-haven for communists: You give free speech to those who agree with centralizing all power and control over others and deny free speech to those who disagree. Hiding someone's post because "we discourage commenting on people's RAC" only applies to those you disagree with.

Lenin used the term "democratic socialism" to appease the folks who disagreed with the term communism. In the end, it's the same thing.

And this is where we are heading.

The RNC would rather lose the general election than lose their power structure. We'll see how much more "progress" hillary can make in the next 8 years.
12) Message boards : Politics : "I'll take Bummer for $400: Canadians no longer allowed on Jeopardy." (Message 1773437)
Posted 23 Mar 2016 by 
Another example of why we have such a hard time communicating.

When you guys on the other side of the equator say "liberal," you mean it in the classical sense. The democrats (most of whom are felons) here on this side of the equator changed the meaning of "liberal" in the early part of the 20th century in order to confuse the population and steal power away from the people and begin centralizing it into their "ruling class" hands.

So when you say "Liberal" we (well, most of us) hear the opposite of what you mean.

No wonder we argue so much. Our words mean different things.

--------------------

RAC: 91, haven't reported a WU in over two months, no pending tasks, no longer any attached computers in the database--they'll let anybody post in here, won't they?
13) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1773434)
Posted 23 Mar 2016 by 
Glenn, our political system cannot be compared to the U.S. system in any way, shape or form what so ever to what our system is. Their current system is so far right and corrupt compared to ours that no comparison can be made between the 2.


Ya see, this is why we have such a hard time communicating.

To say that our system is so far right and corrupt compared to yours, well, corrupt yes, but so far right? I guess your definitions of right and left are opposite from most of the people I interact with. Does this have something to do with being on the other side of the equator?
14) Message boards : Politics : "Apple, The FBI And iPhone Encryption: A Look At What's At Stake" (Message 1773328)
Posted 22 Mar 2016 by 
Selectively reading again, eh? Don't feel alone, a lot of that goes on in here.

It's not me on the good stuff.
15) Message boards : Politics : "I'll take Bummer for $400: Canadians no longer allowed on Jeopardy." (Message 1773255)
Posted 22 Mar 2016 by 
Well it's about time Trudeau started acting like he's in charge of Canada.

And he just announced his budget which will do away with all that unnecessary government spending restraints nonsense done by the evil "right-winger" before him.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-03-22/trudeau-will-push-canada-into-the-red-with-unsexy-debut-budget

“We will continue to put more money in the pockets of hard-working families,” Trudeau said in a brief pre-budget statement Monday. “Because we know that when middle-class Canadians have more money to save, invest and grow the economy, all of Canada benefits.”

It's been demonstrated that most democrats are felons down here, has a study been done to demonstrate that up there?

Debt/deficit does not matter to a liberal as long as you can pay the interest. Short-term gain over long-term loss is the only way for a real government to operate. After all, that's what we elect them to do! Right?
16) Message boards : Politics : "Apple, The FBI And iPhone Encryption: A Look At What's At Stake" (Message 1773238)
Posted 22 Mar 2016 by 
I don't know what you obama/clinton/democrat supporters are worried about. A democrat is "in charge" of this nation right now, and it's in the constitution that the federal government is supposed to regulate all business (commerce clause) and it's in the constitution that the federal government is supposed to protect its citizens (equal protection clause). How can the federal government (with its supremacy clause) take care of you if you don't want them to monitor everything you do?

Obama is making friends with our former enemies. Aren't you watching the news? He just came back from Cuba and fixed everything down there. What's wrong with Cuba having the key to unlock iphones also?

Stamp tax for tweets! Excellent idea. It'll work as well as King George's tea tax. And it'll work as well as the marijuana stamp tax.

It was a mistake to break away from King George. That's what progress is, to make it back to a time when everybody was happy... when the government took care of everybody.

You guys are not being consistent.
17) Message boards : Politics : RIP Antonin Scalia (Message 1772841)
Posted 20 Mar 2016 by 
Ah there is the problem. The republicans are not for the constitution.


Ah, THERE'S another one of the problems.

I agree with you. However, there are a couple dozen or so people in the house and senate who call themselves "republican" who've demonstrated they ARE for the constitution. The other 500 or so R's an D's have demonstrated they are against the constitution. Been saying that all along, but there is selective reading that goes on in here.

As for your "commerce clause" remarks--you're missing half of what you want to say. Yes, the federal government has the enumerated power to regulate commerce among the states. Yes, so... (not gonna wait for your argument *against* free, open and fair trade...)
18) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1772839)
Posted 20 Mar 2016 by 
Guy, please stop lying.


I'm not lying.

Well, according to the democrat's (most of whom are felons) definition of lying, I'm not lying.

If the democrats raise their standard for civil discourse, I'll raise mine.
19) Message boards : Politics : RIP Antonin Scalia (Message 1772714)
Posted 20 Mar 2016 by 
Put another way, without further direct comments from you or Gary, when I read him saying "Repugnicants" it equals "Unthinking, extreme right" in the voice I assign you and, similarly "Demoncrats" = "Unthinking, extreme left".

Sarge...

...

As I have always said: A POX ON BOTH.

Now what?


We need to start a LONG PROCESS to repair the damage done by the "Demoncrats" = "Unthinking, extreme left" over the past 100 years.

Nobody know what "Repugnicants ... equals Unthinking, extreme right" means. It doesn't make any sense to call our constitution "unthinking and extreme right" by any stretch of anyone's imagination.
20) Message boards : Politics : Donald Trump for President? (Message 1772711)
Posted 20 Mar 2016 by 
(whomever you are) wrote:

So, you're actually making a good case for the U.S.A.


Not really. To a Democrat, Republicanism is Hell. To a Republican, the Democrat vision is Hell. The truth is that no political party can achieve Heaven or Hell for everybody. It will always be a mix of both, in varying degrees - regardless of who's in charge.

BTW, I don't think that Democrats have a "lock" on criminality. It's universal, too. Our founding fathers weren't perfect, either - which is why it took so long to end slavery.


Well THERE'S your problem. Neither the democrats nor the republicans are in charge if you read the constitution. THE PEOPLE are in charge. The people just select which party they trust more to implement the rules of the constitution which we all agreed to abide by at the time of ratification and vote accordingly.

However, the democrats (and most republicans these days) are no longer following the rules. They started trying to ignore the rules with President Wilson and have been shredding the constitution since.

Our founders admitted they weren't perfect. Our founders knew there was no such thing as a "perfect union." And I've recently explain (once again) about American exceptionalism.

And I've cited the source which proves most democrats are now felons these days which gives me the right to repeat that ad nauseam in accordance with the new rules of politics these days. (bobby)


Next 20

Copyright © 2016 University of California