Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

How should society be organised, if at all?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

******* *****

Post by uwot » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:48 am

Walker wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:24 am
Q: What makes you think I am trying to persuade you?

A: Bingo. That's why you're a moron.
Lemme get this straight. You think that someone who calls you a fucking idiot is trying to persuade you?

Walker
Posts: 6845
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:53 am

The pertinent question is, what are you going to do about it?

The answer is: I already know.

Walker
Posts: 6845
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: ******* *****

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:54 am

uwot wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:48 am
Walker wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:24 am
Q: What makes you think I am trying to persuade you?

A: Bingo. That's why you're a moron.
Lemme get this straight. You think that someone who calls you a fucking idiot is trying to persuade you?
Your intent makes you a moron, moron.

I got to write it twice!

Am I living up to your intent, for me, in your thread?

Are you living up to the intent of Van Jones, that you perceive?

User avatar
-1-
Posts: 2832
Joined: Thu Sep 07, 2017 1:08 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by -1- » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:17 pm

Greta wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:41 am
-1-, your own arguments are almost as poor as Henry's - showing a complete disregard for conflicts of interest and accountability and rank naivete as regards the operations of and management of organisations.

I can understand why people would give up hope that there might be some probity in public life, but not to act as apologists for blatant removal of safeguards. It appears to be a failure of education systems.
I am sorry, Greta, but your first mistake is to think I presented arguments.

I presented no arguments. I presented how the law stands.

To superimpose morals over law is a brave and noble effort, but it can't be enforced.

That's all I am saying.

=======================================

You want to IMPOSE or ERECT safeguards. Those safeguards currently don't exist, and yet you claim they ought to exist.

PLEASE NOTE: I HAVE SAID NOTHING AGAINST THE NEED OF SAFEGUARDS NOR FOR THE NEED OF SAFEGUARDS.

I merely said they don't exist at the present time, so you can't demand that they be brought forth; bringing them forth would be an arbitrary decision and it can't be done unless done in the proper channels.

I don't mind if you change the law of the land of the United States, or you change their constitution based on moral grounds; but you must do it in a prescribed way. That prescribed way does exist, you only need to follow it, instread of belly-aching why they don't exist.

Aside from that, none of the points you brought up has any bearing on the running of the country, aside from conflict of interest. In this last point, believe me Trump is a much milder threat to the union than Hillary Clinton would have been.

Yet I believe, that you , Greta, would have brought up NONE of the points of safeguards on Hillary Clinton.

This is what they call, and rightfully so, hypocrisy.

Walker
Posts: 6845
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Walker » Fri Jul 13, 2018 12:36 pm

The constitution clearly states the requirements to be a POTUS.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Greta » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:14 pm

You can believe what you like, -1-. Feel free to pronounce me a hypocrite or whatever you like based on your imaginings. You fantasies, however, are not relevant.

If Clinton tried on what Trump had done of course I would have been just as offput. Tyrannical behaviour is ideally not to be tolerated, no matter who the perpetrator. Whatever happens now, the seeds of tyranny have been planted with the effective removal of standards regarding presidential financial transparency and conflicts of interest.

uwot
Posts: 4375
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

******* *****

Post by uwot » Fri Jul 13, 2018 1:49 pm

Walker wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:54 am
Your intent makes you a moron, moron.

I got to write it twice!
Fill yer boots!
Walker wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:54 am
Am I living up to your intent, for me, in your thread?
Wassat? You think I have some intent for you?
Walker wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 10:54 am
Are you living up to the intent of Van Jones, that you perceive?
Well yeah. I think the intent is obvious from the opening frame where it says "Disagreement without the disrespect." Having treated you with respect initially, you have demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that you don't deserve it. If you think like a fucking idiot and write like a fucking idiot, people will conclude that you are a fucking idiot.
Who knows? If you care as little for my opinion of you as I care for your opinion of me, perhaps we can at least respect that in each other.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:32 pm

"Because they're in charge of collecting your taxes and will send you to jail for dodging them?"

Here's the thing: I'm under no obligation to make public my returns. If you, for example, wanna see my returns, take me to court, demonstrate good cause why you should be privy to my finanical guts cuz I ain't showin' you diddly otherwise.

If Greta (or folks like her) believe it's so important to know the ins and outs of Trump's finances, take him to court, show good cause.

As it stands now: no law compels a presidential candidate to splay open his books.

Also: if anyone believes any wealthy person hasn't play fast and loose with their finances, up to and including hidin' wealth and sources of wealth off shore and in shells, well that's naivete, so Trump's returns probably won't reveal shit about shit.

And: no, that's not me bein' an apologist, that's me bein' realistic.

'So, if he's covered his tracks, why doesn't Trump just comply and pony up the returns? and end all the (nonexistent) clamor?'

Cuz he ain't the FUCK YOU Prez for nuthin'.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:40 pm

"Yet I believe, that you , Greta, would have brought up NONE of the points of safeguards on Hillary Clinton."

Hole in one.

#

"If Clinton tried on what Trump had done of course I would have been just as offput."

Then get your dander up, Greta, cuz Clinton, as Sec of State, didn't try, she did.

Large conflicts of interests and significant profiteering.

Go on: rail against her.

I'll wait till you finish.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11964
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Exposing Liberal Hypocrisy and Conservative Close-Mindedness

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:06 pm

Walker[/quote wrote: Of course, you're above the rabble.
You think them a rabble but still link them? Me I just don't do boobtube links as I prefer people to state their point on a philosophy forum.
There's actually a guy trolling his own thread, right now.

I know that much.
You know not much really. Just another Yank political troll on the wrong forum.

Uwot is certainly acting out of character, I guess his MA is getting to him :) or maybe it's because he posted a fairly reasonable link from a democrat aimed at other democrats making the point that the divisiveness and flatout sectarian aspect of current US politics is a big mistake and then got exactly that from you?

Me, I just wish you'd all fuck off to a US poltical forum or try a little philosophy for once.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11964
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 5:14 pm

henry quirk wrote:...
Cuz he ain't the FUCK YOU Prez for nuthin'.
Or more than likely he either doesn't want the banks to find out he's over-leveraged to the hilt or let his voters know that he'll imprison them whilst committing the same offence. Or maybe he and his mates don't want Joe public to know how little they pay compared to them and keep the ripoff going.

Personally the more I listen to you guys opinions of your politicians the more I appreciate mine as apparently they are saints in comparison.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 6:44 pm

"Or more than likely he either doesn't want the banks to find out he's over-leveraged to the hilt or let his voters know that he'll imprison them whilst committing the same offence. Or maybe he and his mates don't want Joe public to know how little they pay compared to them and keep the ripoff going."

Mebbe.

As I (keep) say(ing): as long as he keeps doin' what I hired him to do, I don't give a shit.

#

"Personally the more I listen to you guys opinions of your politicians the more I appreciate mine as apparently they are saints in comparison."

I'm thinkin' Tommy Robinson might disagree.

User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 11964
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re:

Post by Arising_uk » Fri Jul 13, 2018 8:46 pm

henry quirk wrote: Mebbe.

As I (keep) say(ing): as long as he keeps doin' what I hired him to do, I don't give a shit.
Fair enuff. Do us a favour and get the rest of your mob to stop whinging about Obama et al as they were only doing what others hired them to do.
#

I'm thinkin' Tommy Robinson might disagree.
I'm wondering what Stephen Yaxley-Lennon has got to do with it.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re:

Post by Greta » Sat Jul 14, 2018 12:00 am

henry quirk wrote:
Fri Jul 13, 2018 3:32 pm
"Because they're in charge of collecting your taxes and will send you to jail for dodging them?"

Here's the thing: I'm under no obligation to make public my returns. If you, for example, wanna see my returns, take me to court, demonstrate good cause why you should be privy to my finanical guts cuz I ain't showin' you diddly otherwise.

If Greta (or folks like her) believe it's so important to know the ins and outs of Trump's finances, take him to court, show good cause.

As it stands now: no law compels a presidential candidate to splay open his books.

Also: if anyone believes any wealthy person hasn't play fast and loose with their finances, up to and including hidin' wealth and sources of wealth off shore and in shells, well that's naivete, so Trump's returns probably won't reveal shit about shit.

And: no, that's not me bein' an apologist, that's me bein' realistic.

'So, if he's covered his tracks, why doesn't Trump just comply and pony up the returns? and end all the (nonexistent) clamor?'

Cuz he ain't the FUCK YOU Prez for nuthin'.
Who gives a damn about your finances? You are a nobody, and not a very bright one at that. Nobody cares about you except the tax dept. It's probably best that you sit out and leave this debate to grownups. You clearly lack the experience to understand what's going on.

We are talking about checks and balances regarding IMPORTANT people in an ostensible DEMOCRACY who want payment from TAXES and to access to state secrets. If his finances wouldn't have "revealed shit" then he would have had no problems presenting the information. Q.E.D.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4967
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Sat Jul 14, 2018 4:34 am

"Who gives a damn about your finances?"

And bright girl misses the point...again.

#

"We are talking about checks and balances regarding IMPORTANT people in an ostensible DEMOCRACY"

That's what you're talkin' about...me, I'm talkin' about not givin' a fuck what my EMPLOYEES in a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC have on their tax returns.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest