Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

(01-16-2020, 12:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Shouldn't that be "chinks in the armor"?

You can't say that any more. You know PC and all.

(01-16-2020, 04:37 PM)Jagwired Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2020, 12:10 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Shouldn't that be "chinks in the armor"?

You can't say that any more. You know PC and all.

I heard PCs were on the way out, what with Windows 7 being sunsetted and all.

(01-16-2020, 12:01 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-15-2020, 08:47 PM)copycat Wrote: [ -> ]Absolutely correct.  I stated it several times right here when Obama was using executive orders to bypass congress, just wait until the shoe is on the other foot.  That is the problem with everyone of the short sighted partisan people on both sides of the isle, It's always ok if it is my guy, regardless of how far away we get from checks and balances.

I strongly opposed many of Obama's actions in the war theater, in particular the Libyan offensive. Libya did not attack the US and Gaddafi was not a threat to the US (or NATO). I also opposed his paying ransoms to terrorists.

OTOH I had no problem with Obama taking out terrorists in drone attacks. Targeting the terrorist leaders while preventing civilian deaths as much as possible is exactly the way the US should respond to terrorism. Comparing a pinpoint response using a drone or missile with sending American children to die in Vietnam (or Iraq) is disingenuous.

In this case, Iran has attacked the US, which is an act of war. Trump did not declare war on Iran and congress doesn't need to since the war has already been started by the enemy. There is a lot of discussion that the Constitutional requirement of congress to declare war was only meant to apply to a war the US starts. If a foreign country invades the US and starts bombing US cities we don't get to just claim we're not at war. Historically congress has responded anyway with a counter declaration of war in such cases. We're in a whole new realm when the ruling party in the House will put their hatred of the President above defending the US.

+1

(01-10-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

No [BLEEP] way, his racist obsession with Obama's birth status alone would have prevented Trump from sniffing a Democratic nomination.

Also, the right is just as guilty of accusing any Democrat of being Socialist.

(01-16-2020, 10:12 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

No [BLEEP] way, his racist obsession with Obama's birth status alone would have prevented Trump from sniffing a Democratic nomination.

Also, the right is just as guilty of accusing any Democrat of being Socialist.

1. Like Hillary Clinton was prevented from sniffing the Democratic nomination?

2. Please name some Democrat politicians (let's say 5) who haven't proposed increased government control of industry (socialism) or redistribution of wealth (Marxism).

(01-17-2020, 12:20 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-16-2020, 10:12 PM)rollerjag Wrote: [ -> ]No [BLEEP] way, his racist obsession with Obama's birth status alone would have prevented Trump from sniffing a Democratic nomination.

Also, the right is just as guilty of accusing any Democrat of being Socialist.

1. Like Hillary Clinton was prevented from sniffing the Democratic nomination?

2. Please name some Democrat politicians (let's say 5) who haven't proposed increased government control of industry (socialism) or redistribution of wealth (Marxism).

2. Barack Obama - sold off GM, Chrysler, and the banks, and never proposed a wealth tax. Did not create a public option for health insurance.  You could argue that the tight regulations he put forward amount to control of industry, but I don't buy that.

LOL at the new book, A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America
It gives the real skinny about when the Joint Chiefs tried to educate President Trump on the nuances of American foreign policy.

First Trump was bored, then he was angry.  He called them losers, dopes and babies.
He called Afghanistan a "loser war" run by loser Generals.
Trump said he did not want to go to war with these losers because if he goes to war he intends to win.

The media thinks this is some big expose' that will damage Trump, but like everything else, it backfired.
Trump was right.  They are all losers and liars.  The recent document dump proved Trump right.
The past 2 administrations and their military leadership have been lying to the American people for decades about these wars.

Trump waltzed in and exposed 70 years of war crimes, and the leakers think it's a huge "gotcha" on Trump LOL.

(01-17-2020, 01:30 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]LOL at the new book, A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America
It gives the real skinny about when the Joint Chiefs tried to educate President Trump on the nuances of American foreign policy.

First Trump was bored, then he was angry.  He called them losers, dopes and babies.
He called Afghanistan a "loser war" run by loser Generals.
Trump said he did not want to go to war with these losers because if he goes to war he intends to win.

The media thinks this is some big expose' that will damage Trump, but like everything else, it backfired.
Trump was right.  They are all losers and liars.  The recent document dump proved Trump right.
The past 2 administrations and their military leadership have been lying to the American people for decades about these wars.

Trump waltzed in and exposed 70 years of war crimes, and the leakers think it's a huge "gotcha" on Trump LOL.

It's the hubris of expertise. Mikesez acts the same way on here.

(01-10-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

This is not just a liberal issue.  Conservatives see the slight left as radicalized just as often.

(01-17-2020, 05:34 PM)JaguarKick Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-10-2020, 05:42 PM)jagibelieve Wrote: [ -> ]Contrary to popular belief, Donald Trump is not "far right" or really even "on the right" on the political spectrum.  He is actually closer to the center than most believe.  The problem with liberals is that somebody near the center of the political spectrum is viewed as being "far right".  I would almost wager that had Trump ran as a democrat he would have won anyway in 2016.

This is not just a liberal issue.  Conservatives see the slight left as radicalized just as often.

The Republican Party isn't radicalized, they are complicit.

(01-17-2020, 04:08 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 01:30 PM)Byron LeftTown Wrote: [ -> ]LOL at the new book, A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America
It gives the real skinny about when the Joint Chiefs tried to educate President Trump on the nuances of American foreign policy.

First Trump was bored, then he was angry.  He called them losers, dopes and babies.
He called Afghanistan a "loser war" run by loser Generals.
Trump said he did not want to go to war with these losers because if he goes to war he intends to win.

The media thinks this is some big expose' that will damage Trump, but like everything else, it backfired.
Trump was right.  They are all losers and liars.  The recent document dump proved Trump right.
The past 2 administrations and their military leadership have been lying to the American people for decades about these wars.

Trump waltzed in and exposed 70 years of war crimes, and the leakers think it's a huge "gotcha" on Trump LOL.

It's the hubris of expertise. Mikesez acts the same way on here.

I can imagine Trump rolling his eyes as the experts explained why we need to occupy Germany 75 years after the war ended.

(01-17-2020, 10:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 12:20 AM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]
1. Like Hillary Clinton was prevented from sniffing the Democratic nomination?

2. Please name some Democrat politicians (let's say 5) who haven't proposed increased government control of industry (socialism) or redistribution of wealth (Marxism).

2. Barack Obama - sold off GM, Chrysler, and the banks, and never proposed a wealth tax.  Did not create a public option for health insurance.  You could argue that the tight regulations he put forward amount to control of industry, but I don't buy that.

Obama? Really? He's the one you put forth?

Increasing availability for Medicaid = redistribution of wealth
Increasing availability for SNAP = redistribution of wealth
Giving GM to the union = redistribution of wealth AND government control of industry
Proposing a minimum wage increase also fits both categories

And yes, the use of regulations to favor one industry over another is 100% control of industry.

Wow, he never proposed a tax he knew had no chance of passing? Proof right there!

But even if you continue to deny reality, going back to a Democrat in the past isn't meaningful. I'm surprised you didn't just dig up JFK.

(01-17-2020, 09:29 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 10:10 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]2. Barack Obama - sold off GM, Chrysler, and the banks, and never proposed a wealth tax.  Did not create a public option for health insurance.  You could argue that the tight regulations he put forward amount to control of industry, but I don't buy that.

Obama? Really? He's the one you put forth?

Increasing availability for Medicaid = redistribution of wealth
Increasing availability for SNAP = redistribution of wealth
Giving GM to the union = redistribution of wealth AND government control of industry
Proposing a minimum wage increase also fits both categories

And yes, the use of regulations to favor one industry over another is 100% control of industry.

Wow, he never proposed a tax he knew had no chance of passing? Proof right there!

But even if you continue to deny reality, going back to a Democrat in the past isn't meaningful. I'm surprised you didn't just dig up JFK.

1) Medicaid and SNAP are funded with income taxes. Income is not wealth.

2) GM and Chrysler were about to go bankrupt. More likely than not, a bankruptcy judge would have determined that the employee benefits trust should get paid first. The result would have been the same, it just would have taken a lot longer and factories would have been idle, with no parts getting delivered, in the meantime.

3) minimum wage is a question of income. A change to a minimum wage law tweaks the income distribution, not the wealth distribution.

4) which regulations are you talking about, that you think favor one industry over another? If I own the power company, I get to decide what energy source it should use. If the government makes regulations on coal so burdensome, I will use something else. I would still have 5 or 10 other choices. But if the government actually takes over the power company, they will choose what energy source is used.  Obama did not take control of private enterprises. He took some choices away from them, and maybe that wasn't always a good idea, but private industry still had many more choices left.

(01-17-2020, 09:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 09:29 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Obama? Really? He's the one you put forth?

Increasing availability for Medicaid = redistribution of wealth
Increasing availability for SNAP = redistribution of wealth
Giving GM to the union = redistribution of wealth AND government control of industry
Proposing a minimum wage increase also fits both categories

And yes, the use of regulations to favor one industry over another is 100% control of industry.

Wow, he never proposed a tax he knew had no chance of passing? Proof right there!

But even if you continue to deny reality, going back to a Democrat in the past isn't meaningful. I'm surprised you didn't just dig up JFK.

1) Medicaid and SNAP are funded with income taxes. Income is not wealth.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

(01-17-2020, 10:17 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 09:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) Medicaid and SNAP are funded with income taxes. Income is not wealth.

Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Yeah. How idiotic can someone get? Nevermind, it's Mikey.

Taking one's income from person A and giving it to person B is no different than doing so a year later when it's a part of one's accumulated wealth, except that it's worse because person A also loses the interest on that wealth.

(01-17-2020, 11:43 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 10:17 PM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]Oh boy oh boy oh boy.

Yeah. How idiotic can someone get? Nevermind, it's Mikey.

Taking one's income from person A and giving it to person B is no different than doing so a year later when it's a part of one's accumulated wealth, except that it's worse because person A also loses the interest on that wealth.

First you say it's "no different" then you point out a difference.
I grant you that it's hard to define socialism.
But, my dude, you proposed the definition!
You used the word wealth.
Now you're saying by "wealth", you meant "any money at all".  
Trump and Congress basically re-wrote our tax code.  As they did this, they left in place most of the tax credits low income people get.  That redistributes income down to them.  Or "wealth", if you will.  They're socialists too, I guess.

(01-18-2020, 09:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 11:43 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah. How idiotic can someone get? Nevermind, it's Mikey.

Taking one's income from person A and giving it to person B is no different than doing so a year later when it's a part of one's accumulated wealth, except that it's worse because person A also loses the interest on that wealth.

 They're socialists too, I guess.

I've been telling you that for years.

(01-17-2020, 09:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 09:29 PM)MalabarJag Wrote: [ -> ]Obama? Really? He's the one you put forth?

Increasing availability for Medicaid = redistribution of wealth
Increasing availability for SNAP = redistribution of wealth
Giving GM to the union = redistribution of wealth AND government control of industry
Proposing a minimum wage increase also fits both categories

And yes, the use of regulations to favor one industry over another is 100% control of industry.

Wow, he never proposed a tax he knew had no chance of passing? Proof right there!

But even if you continue to deny reality, going back to a Democrat in the past isn't meaningful. I'm surprised you didn't just dig up JFK.

1) Medicaid and SNAP are funded with income taxes. Income is not wealth.

2) GM and Chrysler were about to go bankrupt. More likely than not, a bankruptcy judge would have determined that the employee benefits trust should get paid first. The result would have been the same, it just would have taken a lot longer and factories would have been idle, with no parts getting delivered, in the meantime.

3) minimum wage is a question of income. A change to a minimum wage law tweaks the income distribution, not the wealth distribution.

4) which regulations are you talking about, that you think favor one industry over another? If I own the power company, I get to decide what energy source it should use. If the government makes regulations on coal so burdensome, I will use something else. I would still have 5 or 10 other choices. But if the government actually takes over the power company, they will choose what energy source is used.  Obama did not take control of private enterprises. He took some choices away from them, and maybe that wasn't always a good idea, but private industry still had many more choices left.

This passes for reason in some circles.  

This is how national socialism survived.  It convinced people like this that it was something else.

Sure, if Obama outlaws my coal-fired power plant, I just start feeding it solar panels or nukes or windmills. They all burn, right?

(01-18-2020, 09:27 AM)flsprtsgod Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-18-2020, 09:22 AM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ] They're socialists too, I guess.

I've been telling you that for years.

But this was all in response to malabar's question.
Malabar, do you think most Republicans are socialists?

---

(01-18-2020, 04:37 PM)jj82284 Wrote: [ -> ]

(01-17-2020, 09:57 PM)mikesez Wrote: [ -> ]1) Medicaid and SNAP are funded with income taxes. Income is not wealth.

2) GM and Chrysler were about to go bankrupt. More likely than not, a bankruptcy judge would have determined that the employee benefits trust should get paid first. The result would have been the same, it just would have taken a lot longer and factories would have been idle, with no parts getting delivered, in the meantime.

3) minimum wage is a question of income. A change to a minimum wage law tweaks the income distribution, not the wealth distribution.

4) which regulations are you talking about, that you think favor one industry over another? If I own the power company, I get to decide what energy source it should use. If the government makes regulations on coal so burdensome, I will use something else. I would still have 5 or 10 other choices. But if the government actually takes over the power company, they will choose what energy source is used.  Obama did not take control of private enterprises. He took some choices away from them, and maybe that wasn't always a good idea, but private industry still had many more choices left.

This passes for reason in some circles.  

This is how national socialism survived.  It convinced people like this that it was something else.

National socialism survived by mercilessly destroying anyone who spoke against it.