Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!
#21
As this is about Trump or more like bashing him I feel this belongs here. This is "freedom" in America. Guess they are using their freedom to attack people who do not agree with them. I despise vicious attacks either side. Attacks will not make them side with you. I will include this thread as part of that vicious bashing. Do you really think bashing him will make people think you are any better? That it will make those that disagree with you listen to you when you are ripping them down and attacking them? I despise Trump as much as I do clinton, but the intention of this thread is so bloody appalling and juvenile that I can now see (as well as those who are physically attacking those who oppose their world views) that this monster is on both sides of the fence. Left wingers are "supposed" to be all about accepting people for who they are, right? I do not see much of that in this clip, nor do I in posts online from left wingers. I expect more from those who apparently stand for equality. The first thing to do is to LISTEN to them! Not go round screaming racists, bigots etc. Smearing them all with labels. Do people listen to others anymore? Or is it easier to go round throwing eggs and smacking people over while claiming the high ground. Of course I am aware not all will do this. It is rather disconcerting that those who are supposed to be for equality would do this though. As this is the opposite of that message. Equality for those who agree with me more like. Some of those Trump supporters may not have been racists. They may like some of his other policies. Try listening to each other. See why people stand for one candidate or the other. Do away with the bashing. It does nothing but spread further hate till people cannot see a person behind the label anymore. Now that reminds me of when that applied to Jews. This will no doubt get a lot of hate from lefties, but I would say the same for the right wing if they also did this. This just applies to the video i have just seen. However as lefties are supposed to be for equality (equal rights), you must apply that same courtesy to everyone as that is what equal rights is supposed to be about. They have as much right to vote for who they want to vote for. Same as you. Think about the meaning of those two words. Equal rights. That is what you stand for after all. isn't it? You do not divide then conquer. A boomer created this thread too which sickens me as at his age he should know better. Stop with the bashing, stop with the division. Start listening and start seeing each other as human beings who deserve better treatment than these childish antics which do nothing but cause more division and result in violence, verbal as is the intention of this thread and in person. I will repeat, YOU DO NOT DIVIDE THEN CONQUER.

Sincerely, from "the kiwi."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLtTznFB-lo
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#22
My answer to Tara: NO!
The important thing is for the best candidates to win. That includes Hillary Clinton. To "despise" BOTH Hillary and Trump is to not understand the difference. As Hillary says, the choice is clear!

Let's get on with it. Pundits are praising Hillary's latest speech knocking the Donald. Worth posting!


"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#23
(06-05-2016, 02:04 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: My answer to Tara: NO!
The important thing is for the best candidates to win. That includes Hillary Clinton. To "despise" BOTH Hillary and Trump is to not understand the difference. As Hillary says, the choice is clear!

Let's get on with it. Pundits are praising Hillary's latest speech knocking the Donald. Worth posting!


No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#24
(06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.

Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#25
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.

Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

But the job must be done, and government must happen.

Those who rule us, should never be left off the hook of a watchful people, no matter who it is, or how pure in motive or in love with "freedom" they claim to be.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#26
(06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.

Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

But the job must be done, and government must happen.

No it doesn't.  If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#27
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.

Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Well said. Corruption through and through if anyone is capable of influencing the current powers to elect them in. Vote for it, you are feeding that corruption.
1984 Apollonian Civic
ISFP - The Artist.






Reply
#28
(06-05-2016, 03:03 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.

Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

But the job must be done, and government must happen.

No it doesn't.  If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.

You think people are incapable of running a state. How then can you be confident they can run a market? There, I turned your hero on his head fer ya.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#29
(06-05-2016, 03:04 AM)taramarie Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.

Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe
Well said. Corruption through and through if anyone is capable of influencing the current powers to elect them in. Vote for it, you are feeding that corruption.

You are truly one of the few people who gets the idea of voting for the lesser of evils is still voting for evil.  A pity so few do.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#30
(06-05-2016, 03:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 03:03 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:11 AM)taramarie Wrote: No I despise them for different reasons. I know the differences and both are unpleasant to me.

Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

But the job must be done, and government must happen.

No it doesn't.  If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.

You think people are incapable of running a state. How then can you be confident they can run a market? There, I turned your hero on his head fer ya.

A market, indeed a market economy, is the sum of the voluntary interactions of the individuals involved.  It is a self-organizing system that no individual or group of individuals could run.  That is the lesson of Mises.
Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. -- H.L. Mencken

If one rejects laissez faire on account of man's fallibility and moral weakness, one must for the same reason also reject every kind of government action.   -- Ludwig von Mises
Reply
#31
(06-05-2016, 03:10 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 03:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 03:03 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote: Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

But the job must be done, and government must happen.

No it doesn't.  If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.

You think people are incapable of running a state. How then can you be confident they can run a market? There, I turned your hero on his head fer ya.

A market, indeed a market economy, is the sum of the voluntary interactions of the individuals involved.  It is a self-organizing system that no individual or group of individuals could run.  That is the lesson of Mises.

"Free" markets could determine that slave families could be broken up strictly for rational decisions of masters.
The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated Communist  but instead the people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists -- Hannah Arendt.


Reply
#32
(06-05-2016, 03:10 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 03:05 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 03:03 AM)Galen Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:59 AM)Eric the Obtuse Wrote:
(06-05-2016, 02:57 AM)Galen Wrote: Here we have the sanest answer of them all.  That is the thing about voting for a ruler.  You lose no matter which one you choose.

Consider the words of one of the great wits of the twentieth century:

“The major problem—one of the major problems, for there are several—one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.
To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it.
To summarize the summary: anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.”
Douglas Adams, The Restaurant at the End of the Universe

But the job must be done, and government must happen.

No it doesn't.  If people were as incapable as you think then humanity would have disappeared of the face of the earth long ago.

You think people are incapable of running a state. How then can you be confident they can run a market? There, I turned your hero on his head fer ya.

A market, indeed a market economy, is the sum of the voluntary interactions of the individuals involved.  It is a self-organizing system that no individual or group of individuals could run.  That is the lesson of Mises.

Same as the state. And the actions of the market are no more voluntary than those of the state. Tell your boss that your obedience to his orders is "voluntary" and that you might not obey them. There's a famous line from Donald Trump's TV show that applies to what he would say to you. Or, decide that it is "voluntary" whether you pay for what you take, and see what the store and the police say about that. No, there's no difference. If you severely limit or abolish the state, corporations become the defacto state. And you have no vote and little say in what they do at all.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#33
There is nothing truly "voluntary" about having to choose between wage-slavery and being homeless and starving. Economic forces are just as coercive as any demand made by the state.
Reply
#34
Yeah, let's make fun of St. George Trump for slaying the dragon of Social Darwinism.

I think I'll pass - thank you.
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#35
(06-06-2016, 02:54 PM)Anthony Wrote: Yeah, let's make fun of St. George Trump for slaying the dragon of Social Darwinism.

I think I'll pass - thank you.

I have a nice spot under the bridge to sell you.
Reply
#36
After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.

I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.

But overall I am very pleased with the results.
"It was better with them that were slain by the sword, than with them that died with hunger, for these pined away being consumed for want of the fruits of the earth" - Lamentations 4:9
Reply
#37
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dona...n=politics

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articl...ournalists

This is deadly serious.
Reply
#38
(06-06-2016, 03:14 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.

I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.

But overall I am very pleased with the results.

I still have no idea how to feel about this. I'd like to choose one, but now your description of both parties made me more conflicted over which one to choose.
"We have it in our power to begin the world over again."
—Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

"History doesn't repeat itself, but it often rhymes."
—Mark Twain

'98 Millennial
Reply
#39
(06-06-2016, 03:14 PM)Anthony 58 Wrote: After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.
Hillary is not a neo-liberal, just because she's not a "comrade" like Bernie. They are just two shades of liberal.

Calling Trumpie a liberal is laughable. His policies will just boost the rich, and his ego. Fascism of any type or shade is never "liberal." Workers will not benefit from Trumpie's policies, because Mexicans aren't stealing our jobs. Both candidates are against trade deals that hurt workers, so it's a wash on that issue.

Quote:I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.
Neo-liberal is just another word for conservative, which means boost the already powerful and wealthy.

Quote:But overall I am very pleased with the results.

The only results to be "pleased with" is when Trump loses.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply
#40
(06-06-2016, 09:29 PM)MillsT_98 Wrote:
(06-06-2016, 03:14 PM)Anthony Wrote: After Hillary wraps up the Democratic nomination tomorrow night, the 90-degree rotation of the two parties will be complete: The Democrats, a left-liberal party since 1972, will be confirmed as now a neoliberal party with Hillary's win over Comrade Sanders, with the Republicans having already gone from a conservative party to a national liberal/"hardhat" party with Donald Trump's victory.

I do admit that I got the "rotation" wrong, in that, as of the immediate aftermath of 9/11, I expected the Democrats to go from left-liberalism to national liberalism, and the Republicans to go from conservatism to neoliberalism/libertarianism.

But overall I am very pleased with the results.

I still have no idea how to feel about this. I'd like to choose one, but now your description of both parties made me more conflicted over which one to choose.

Well, let's see: you can choose a candidate with lots of successful experience as a stateswoman, with compassionate policies that help raise people economically and socially, or you can choose a lunatic who might start a war because someone says he's not as rich as he says he is, or reveals that the man behind the curtain is no wizard. And whose policies will leave our climate and our economy in ruins.
"I close my eyes, and I can see a better day" -- Justin Bieber

Keep the spirit alive;
Eric M
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Trump: Bring back torture to make America great nebraska 0 279 01-13-2018, 07:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  Bill would make New York first state to ban declawing of cats nebraska 0 297 01-13-2018, 07:13 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  Bill would make it a crime to videotape police in Arizona nebraska 0 333 01-11-2018, 04:01 AM
Last Post: nebraska
  High taxes, regulations make NY dead last in freedom nebraska 4 657 12-27-2017, 07:51 PM
Last Post: nebraska
  This result Bundy of trial should be fun. Galen 0 319 12-24-2017, 12:40 AM
Last Post: Galen
  Lets make fun of Obama while he is still relevant. Galen 214 51,608 01-26-2017, 09:21 PM
Last Post: Warren Dew
  Let's make fun of and bash Gary Johnson too! Eric the Green 23 8,428 10-15-2016, 02:50 PM
Last Post: Eric the Green

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)