net neutrality

Serious?! I was talking France/French. Those Canadians don't count (in a good way).

 

the fact that trump was elected president proves that point.

 

The fact that Clinton won the popular vote proves that you are and most voters are stupid

The electoral college being put in place to circumvent stupid voters is showing to be effective.

 

clinton won the popular vote because of three to five million illegal voters in california ~ DJT

the electoral college was put in place to appease slave holding states.

 

You are the new Archy. You live in a context and fact free world.

“We sparred and we laughed together but so does everybody on the court,” Sotomayor told the audience at the University of Minnesota. “We get angry with each other. There are moments when you want to take one of them and shake them.”

“I've told people there are things he said on the bench when if I had a baseball bat, I might have used it,” Sotomayor said, prompting laughter. “But when you work so intimately with people, you get to know the really personal good side of them.”

 

But this was only due to timing, nothing specifically from Trump. Right place, right time. One could argue that pick should have been made by Obama considering it happened under his tenure...regardless of your conservative views, it was only important because of the two liberal appointments by Obama. Had Obama appointed conservative judges, your point would be mute. So like I said, right place, right time. He just happened to follow a liberal president and had a SCOTUS nomination cheery picked from Obama for him.

 

I never said anything about Mexican invaders being intelligent voters.

So you're a history revisionist now? Cool story about slaves.

The electoral college was founded to prevent stupid people from electing people like Clinton.

It is also in place to give less populated states say in the republic.

 

Same thing--expressing wanting to use a baseball bat is violence, no matter how she tries to make it cute and humorous. She is an idiot, void of intellect. She should be disrobed.

 

Of course he is to you, you and Barry have been on the blame Obama for everything kick for awhile now.

His whole first paragraph is just bashing Obama with his opinion, that is subjective. Saying Obama just wanted to steal from me and give it to others is not a salient fact, I hate to tell you. Again, that is your OPINION, not facts.

Like I said, the country you live in wasn't a Plutocracy until the 1880 and the rise of monopolies. The founding fathers may have been wealthy, but they did not design the law to allow them to have all the power. This is inarguable unless you are don't believe our Founding Father didn't believe in the constitution. I have nice things because I, myself, create revenue. I don't really on the super wealthy to provide me with a job and all the pleasures of life. This country is where it is because of small business, that is inarguable. Most people live their "nice life" due to the employment and services of small business, not corporate america.

Again, calling Sotomayor and Kagan disasters is your OPINION. I don't condone what Sotomayor said, but if you're going to be that critical, then I'm sure you think Clarence Thomas should lose his seat also, no? His closet has a few skeletons. Saying Kagan was appointed because she is gay is, again, your opinion. Just because you believe something, doesn't make it fact.

"I agree with Barry" would be something that I could understad DP, but "Barry is right"??? His argument is purely his opinion. I doubt if I came on here and just said "Trump sucks" and 50 people said, "you're right Kyle" you would find that to be a credible argument.

 

One day, you will look back to these days wondering how became indoctrinated into the fallacy of liberalism.

One day the curroption of the liberal party, how they are determined to destroy the middle class and have white Americans live as second rate citizens, will come to light.

 

And Kyle, all you have is *your* opinion as well.

And it sucks just as much as Barry's.

Yet, you (like Barry) continuously defend it as fiercely as if you're defending your wife from a rapist.

Your doing the exact same thing as Barry, but you can't even recognize it.

Biggest differences are you're a died in the wool lib, and Barry doesn't need to continuously throw out the race card when his debating skills become weakened.

 

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/electoral-college-has-been-divisive-day-one-180961171/

http://time.com/4558510/electoral-college-history-slavery/

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/how-slavery-birthed-the-electoral-college/article/2604291

 

Sotomayor was appointed because she is hispanic.
Kagan was appointed because she is gay.
Liberal identity politics, nothing more. Neither belongs on the bench. Same for Thomas.

As for our early founders, their concept of common people differed remarkably from yours--they believed in slavery; Jefferson and Washington owned slaves. They also held strong British ideas of who "gentlemen" were, and who "rabble" were, as opposed to men.. So your "inarguable" beliefs are strongly arguable.

As for your points being "inarguable".....really? So your thoughts are from deity?? Typical liberalism in the extreme.

As for Obama stealing from one to pay another.....please explain Obamacare. It is a disaster from day one. It destroyed a lot of small businesses, raised healthcare cost for 90% of the population, etc. And the premiums have skyrocketed every year--now, NOBODY can afford it- it was cheaper before, except for those subsidized under the Medicaid system.

As for you creating revenue, never forget, your hero Obama said something like--"You did not create it". He said this as justification for his wanting to seize it; it doesn't belong to you- it belongs to the State. Hand it over. He is no different than Lenin, Marx et al. He was wrong there as well- it was allowable under a plutocracy, whether it started in 1776 or 1880 (irrelevant). Congrats on creating revenue,btw.
You have been fooled. Deceived. By The Traitor.

 

Supreme court nominees are typically all about timing...death, sickness, and retirement. I was merely stating the point that Obama's two appointments were equal to Trump's one b/c the balance of power stayed exactly the same. If Obama appointed two conservative judges there would have been calls for his impeachment by Maxine Waters lol. As for Cherry Picking, the people elected a Republican Congress and Trump got to appoint the courts successor...

Anyway, carry on with your debate...I find it mildly interesting. Although, I don't always agree with the Cuda, I think he is winning this debate (on Plutocratic Gov't).

 

Well, now that I have started a good argument or fight on this thread, I will move on to others to do the same.
Cool, huh??
lol

 

Is Pluto a planet, a moon, or a dog?

 

"What Jefferson was trying to say was we left England because it was bogus, and if we don't get some cool rules of our own, then pronto, we will be bogus too."
That about sums it up, doesn't it?

 

o barry, your points are so pointless.

 

Here's a dumb old guy's (me) take on this:
The American revolution was simply some rich white dudes, who were not in favor with the English crown from an economic standpoint, successfully seizing power in the colonies, from another group of rich white dudes who were in economic bed with the Crown (think East India Company)
They used the idea of a popular people's uprising to achieve this. After the Treaty of Paris, we were governed by the Articles of Confederation, which was about as close to a real government of the people that we have ever had. But when certain 'people' saw that not much had really changed, they rebelled. See Shay's rebellion as an example. So what did the new rich white guys in power do? They made another form of government that took away more of the rights of the people and put that power in the hands of State/Federal government. The Bill of Rights was just an appeasement. See the Whiskey rebellion as another example.
Then, the next step in further moving power away from the people was the States rights versus the Federal government which culminated in the Civil War. Local and state government is the closest thing we have to having any real say in what our government does. Since the end of the civil war, those in power at the Federal level have eroded States rights to the point that most State governments are just a shell of what they were originally designed to do. The Constitution states that the all governance shall be in the hands of the states unless otherwise noted in the document itself. Seems like it is the other way around now.
Plutocratic government has always ben here, even before the birth of the country. It's just more magnified and solidified now.

 

Believe it or not I have yet to me a jerk to anyone on this thread.

You guys seen this yet https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43gm3CJePn0