Posted:
#51
JFK wouldn't even be welcome in todays Democratic party... He'd be considered a right-winger...
0
Who here actually thinks Trump can win after his stump speech on Mexico?
Posted:
#52
Quote Originally Posted by Snake30:
I wasn't really comparing
liberals from different centuries, as much as I was defending the word "liberal"
from the constant demonization it receives.
It is an unfair comparison
anyway. What was a radical idea centuries ago, seems commonplace today. What
seem radical today, may seem commonplace 200 years from now--that's how mankind
evolves. Some will be beneficial, and some changes may be
detrimental.
Those that fought for
abolition and women's suffrage were dangerous liberal radicals in their era.
Those that fight for free universal healthcare and college tuition(not even
unusual as many states had free tuition 40-50 years ago) are radicals today.
Opposition is always for the same reasons--greed and
insecurity.
I totally agree that HRC has
had to be forcefully pushed to the Left to appease Bernie supporters, but that
just means she's a politician, not a liberal. The entire scale moved so far to
the Right since the Reagan years, that people are called liberal that are right
of moderate.There are few, if any, Democrats that oppose war or dare to question
our outrageous spending on Defense. There are no Eugene McCarthys, or George
McGoverns running. The culture demands our candidates wrap themselves in the
flag, idolize and promote the military, and praise God,
In our culture, liberal has come to mean giving out
handouts to those that aren’t willing to help themselves. This riles up the
Republican base and appeals to their greed, leading to racism and division. Then
they use the code phrase that they are against “Big Government”, which is a
total myth. They are only against Big Government when it comes to helping poor
people. They love Big Government to prohibit gambling, criminalize certain
drugs, tell a woman what she can do with her own body, tell people who they can
marry, and step in to prevent a family from allowing a loved one in pain to die
gracefully. What is more intrusive to personal freedoms than
those?
Your final statement is also
true. I agree with many things true conservatives and true liberals say, but
disagree with most everything the Republican Party stands for, and do not
consider myself a Democrat for the reasons I stated previously. Ron Paul had
many great stances. I believe Gary Johnson and his running mate are thoughtful,
reasonable men, and I voted for Bernie Sanders. If you took all the candidates
running, Bernie and Gary Johnson were most closely aligned. That just
illustrates how we need more nuance, and more than two political parties. Two
men, supposedly with polar opposite political ideologies, have identical views
on about 75% of the issues.
I appreciate your well
thought out, civil response.
Nice thoughtful thoughts.
I'm always interested to see how words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are defined. Very few politicians could be placed in either category across the board. Reagan is often viewed as a champion of conservatives, yet he heavily increased taxes, signed the bill that created complete socialism in the medical care field (EMTALA) and was actively a military interventionist (which creates a whole other issue...is military activism 'conservative' or 'liberal' in nature,' neither, or both)?
And where does libertarianism fit in? Is hands-off gov't a conservative trait? Altruistic? Is it issue dependent?
0
Posted:
#53
Quote Originally Posted by Killer_B:
JFK wouldn't even be welcome in todays Democratic party... He'd be considered a right-winger...
JFK wouldn't even be welcome in todays Democratic party... He'd be considered a right-winger...
Jesus wouldn't be welcomed in the Republican Party--he'd be vilified as a liberal socialist.
The height of hypocrisy is the fact that within the "Bible Belt", Jesus would get trounced in a Primary Election versus Donald Trump.
0
Posted:
#55
Quote Originally Posted by djbrow:
Nice thoughtful thoughts.
I'm always interested to see how words like 'liberal' and 'conservative' are defined. Very few politicians could be placed in either category across the board. Reagan is often viewed as a champion of conservatives, yet he heavily increased taxes, signed the bill that created complete socialism in the medical care field (EMTALA) and was actively a military interventionist (which creates a whole other issue...is military activism 'conservative' or 'liberal' in nature,' neither, or both)?
And where does libertarianism fit in? Is hands-off gov't a conservative trait? Altruistic? Is it issue dependent?
Great points.
That's why I detest the "teams" the media tries to lump everyone into--Liberals vs Conservatives. They aren't even defined correctly, nor, as you said, clearly definable.
Divide and conquer. Polarize the public into two camps and keep them fighting with one another so that they don't realize the major Parties are beholden to the same people.
Keep insignificant things like kneeling during the Anthem, or happy marriage, in the forefront, while major issues that actually affect the public are hidden.
0
Posted:
#56
I wonder what degrading and untruthful name would trump come up for Jesus that he and his followers would call him like he did like Lyin Ted and little Marco or crooked Hillary. Maybe trump and his followers would go after Jesus' family alsoz
Jesus would probably be seen as a liberal socialist with trump and his followers and would be told that he is not what he says or appears to be.
I am sure that these types of people like trump and his followers that would make up names and tell people Jesus is not what he says are in the bible some where.
0
Posted:
#57
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Folks, Hillary at -300 on 5Dimes has to be the biggest joke of all-time. It is essentially giving you guaranteed loan shark interest of 33% if you wait 2.5 months.
Clinton -175 now at 5dimes. For something that is a "lock" like this, you should be taking out a home equity line of credit and raiding your 401k to unload on this, especially if it was a lock at -300
0
Posted:
#59
Quote Originally Posted by kingpincarbs:
Clinton -175 now at 5dimes. For something that is a "lock" like this, you should be taking out a home equity line of credit and raiding your 401k to unload on this, especially if it was a lock at -300
But the max bet most places is $100 right? why is this even being discussed at length for so long?
0
Posted:
#60
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
But the max bet most places is $100 right? why is this even being discussed at length for so long?
Two reasons ...
#1 $100 is more than 99% of the posters here wager.
#2 Scal started the thread with his usual braggadocios flair of stating his opinions as if they were facts. I believe that Scal is a paid shill, only here to create chaos which brings in eyeballs. Either that or he has unflattering naked pics of Lou and Rizzo (that reference is a shout out to the old timers)
There's no other sane reason that he has not been banned yet
bigreds daddy
0
Posted:
#62
Quote Originally Posted by dl36:
I wonder what degrading and untruthful name would trump come up for Jesus that he and his followers would call him like he did like Lyin Ted and little Marco or crooked Hillary. Maybe trump and his followers would go after Jesus' family alsoz
I wonder what degrading and untruthful name would trump come up for Jesus that he and his followers would call him like he did like Lyin Ted and little Marco or crooked Hillary. Maybe trump and his followers would go after Jesus' family alsoz
Jesus would probably be seen as a liberal socialist with trump and his followers and would be told that he is not what he says or appears to be.
I am sure that these types of people like trump and his followers that would make up names and tell people Jesus is not what he says are in the bible some where.
The left would label him a racist,homophobic and a conspiracy theorist. All because his message rings true with the people and he cannot be bought. Fools laid Huge juice against the republican candidate with the most votes in history. Go back to sleep Sheep!
0
Posted:
#63
Quote Originally Posted by scalabrine:
Blacks/Kaepernick - He's polling at 1%. ONE PERCENT among black voters.
What does he say about Kaepernick? "Maybe he should find another country..."
Agreeing or disagreeing with Kaepernick is not the point. As a candidate who has almost no minority support in the black community. You just took that 1% to statistically 0%.
UH-OH ...
https://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/
bigreds daddy
0
Posted:
#65
Quote Originally Posted by TILTOLOGIC:
The beautiful irony of this thread and the OP, is that it was precisely that trip to Mexico when he started to take off.
The beautiful irony of this thread and the OP, is that it was precisely that trip to Mexico when he started to take off.
Then of course the deplorables comment and the world seeing Hillary STUFFED into a van looking like a corpse made it a trifecta.
Seeya in November when Hillary takes it down and -300, -200, -400, -165 all take it down.
They are ALL winners.
Now covers vermin above, particularly Hugh and his ilk, and yourself of course, are attacking a bet that has almost no chance of losing.
Anyone on Hillary will win and anyone on Trump will lose.
Please take your 'deplorables' garbage elsewhere. You think that will get him a win.
So clueless.
Beautiful irony....God you such a joke.
0
Posted:
#66
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
UH-OH ...
https://nypost.com/2016/09/18/black-voters-are-turning-from-clinton-to-trump-in-new-poll/
Quoting the Obama hating NY post again Hugh.
Please, go buy some integrity.
A TWENTY point crash among blacks. This is poppycock journalism at its finest...
0
Posted:
#67
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Two reasons ...
#1 $100 is more than 99% of the posters here wager.
#2 Scal started the thread with his usual braggadocios flair of stating his opinions as if they were facts. I believe that Scal is a paid shill, only here to create chaos which brings in eyeballs. Either that or he has unflattering naked pics of Lou and Rizzo (that reference is a shout out to the old timers)
There's no other sane reason that he has not been banned yet
Maybe I'm not banned because I cap here in the mains and you don't.
Maybe because I cap at 70% and you wouldn't even sniff that rate.
Maybe because I provide free write-ups to anyone and everyone that hit at 70% and you can't even read them.
Maybe that's why I'm not banned.
Go get a hobby Hugh. Trolling me isn't considered one.
0
Posted:
#68
Wow I just did a search on you Hugh and you don't have a SINGLE thread posted concerning a pick in 2016. Not a single one.
And that doesn't even apply to previous years which I cannot check.
And you want to come on here and insult people trying to make other people money.
Wow.
Please, get a hobby. Something. Anything.
Or at a minimum, put yourself out there and cap a single game.
Just one.
Post a thread with a write-up and let others comment on it.
ONE GAME with some content and let's see how it all works out.
My god. The epitome of a troll...
0
Posted:
#69
If you have yet to find my posted plays, you are not looking hard enough.
One thing I am sure of, I have no insight into men stuffing hot dogs into their mouths.
You seem to have vast knowledge of this, as per your handicapping of it as an event.
Interesting.
You also have knowledge of wrestling.
I am proud to say I have absolutely no knowledge of WWW, WWE, WWF, or whatever it is called.
You cap men wrestling in tights and men stuffing hot dogs in their mouths.
Nope, I have no knowledge of these things
bigreds daddy
0
Hughpocrite
Posted:
#71
Daryl, you accuse every person whom you disagree with as being "low information, uninformed, emotional" and a few other key words.
To be honest, I have NEVER read a post from you that led me to believe that you were well informed, intelligent, or stoic.
Funny how that works.
All of your posts suggest that you are slightly unhinged.
It's a safe bet that you have been in a mental institution within the last few years, and you are currently heavily medicated.
You will lie about this in your response, but we both know that I have you pegged
bigreds daddy
0
Posted:
#72
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
If you have yet to find my posted plays, you are not looking hard enough.
If you have yet to find my posted plays, you are not looking hard enough.
One thing I am sure of, I have no insight into men stuffing hot dogs into their mouths.
You seem to have vast knowledge of this, as per your handicapping of it as an event.
Interesting.
You also have knowledge of wrestling.
I am proud to say I have absolutely no knowledge of WWW, WWE, WWF, or whatever it is called.
You cap men wrestling in tights and men stuffing hot dogs in their mouths.
Nope, I have no knowledge of these things
about caring wether you make money off football, baseball, hot dogs or pro wrestling because the latter two are quote unquote, beneath you.
0
Posted:
#73
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Daryl, you accuse every person whom you disagree with as being "low information, uninformed, emotional" and a few other key words.
Daryl, you accuse every person whom you disagree with as being "low information, uninformed, emotional" and a few other key words.
To be honest, I have NEVER read a post from you that led me to believe that you were well informed, intelligent, or stoic.
Funny how that works.
All of your posts suggest that you are slightly unhinged.
It's a safe bet that you have been in a mental institution within the last few years, and you are currently heavily medicated.
You will lie about this in your response, but we both know that I have you pegged
Who is Darryl?
What does that even mean?
Are you okay? Like seriously... Are you okay?
What are you even talking about?
Can you even answer my questions?
Who is Darryl? And what does that even mean?
0
Posted:
#74
Quote Originally Posted by Hugh_Jorgan:
Daryl, you accuse every person whom you disagree with as being "low information, uninformed, emotional" and a few other key words.
Daryl, you accuse every person whom you disagree with as being "low information, uninformed, emotional" and a few other key words.
To be honest, I have NEVER read a post from you that led me to believe that you were well informed, intelligent, or stoic.
Funny how that works.
All of your posts suggest that you are slightly unhinged.
It's a safe bet that you have been in a mental institution within the last few years, and you are currently heavily medicated.
You will lie about this in your response, but we both know that I have you pegged
Tell me Daryl, what mental institution were you in?
Was it mandatory, or did you go on your own accord?
bigreds daddy
0
Hot Forum Topics
