Purdue has the president America needs

[UNI88]

Obama is an idiot. Plain and simple. Let's not let facts get lost in round 87 of this pissing contest.

I'm still trying to figure out what was the better troll...

"You didn't build that"

or

"Clinging to their guns religion"

The problem with "You didn't build that" is the absolutism in how he says it. If he simply added "all by yourself" to the end I could agree with it. And he continues to double down with similar statements - “Yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky. That’s a pet peeve of mine: people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did.” The last 5 words make that statement an insult to everyone who has worked hard to succeed. In almost every case, it was something that they did. Yes there is luck and societal support/opportunities in almost every success story. But it doesn't happen without effort, hard work helps put people in a position to take advantage of that luck.

[Ivytalk]

blah blah blah racism blah blah

go be emotional somewhere else, nancy

this country is more divided than it was in 1865 and it doesnt get that way just because one side are meanies

it takes two- and when you want people to work with you its probably not a good idea to taunt them at every opportunity

This.

Yes the right cloaks many of its arguments in patriotism just like the left cloaks many of its arguments in victimism (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

And Obama's attempts to work with Congress were insulting. On the ACA, he, Nancy and Harry pretty much said here what it's going to be for the majority of it but we can work together on these minor points. How would you feel if Alex said lets work together to pick out a new car and then proceeded to pick the make, model and color and told you that you could have some input on the sound system? It was an insult and started that relationship off on the wrong foot.

Both parties are mirror images of each other, one is no better than the other. Stop supporting the chameleon and jump on the Jill Stein bandwagon so that we can really change this country for the better.

You had me until you said Jill Stein. I thought you were reasonable.

[UNI88]

This.

Yes the right cloaks many of its arguments in patriotism just like the left cloaks many of its arguments in victimism (racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.).

And Obama's attempts to work with Congress were insulting. On the ACA, he, Nancy and Harry pretty much said here what it's going to be for the majority of it but we can work together on these minor points. How would you feel if Alex said lets work together to pick out a new car and then proceeded to pick the make, model and color and told you that you could have some input on the sound system? It was an insult and started that relationship off on the wrong foot.

Both parties are mirror images of each other, one is no better than the other. Stop supporting the chameleon and jump on the Jill Stein bandwagon so that we can really change this country for the better.

You had me until you said Jill Stein. I thought you were reasonable.

Jon's not voting Libertarian (no matter how much he likes Johnsons ) so Green is the better option for him to break from the cult of Hilary and stop being an establishment lemming.

[Ivytalk]

You had me until you said Jill Stein. I thought you were reasonable.

Jon's not voting Libertarian (no matter how much he likes Johnsons ) so Green is the better option for him to break from the cult of Hilary and stop being an establishment lemming.

Ah, I see what you did there.

[kalm]

I'm still trying to figure out what was the better troll...

"You didn't build that"

or

"Clinging to their guns religion"

The problem with "You didn't build that" is the absolutism in how he says it. If he simply added "all by yourself" to the end I could agree with it. And he continues to double down with similar statements - “Yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky. That’s a pet peeve of mine: people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did.” The last 5 words make that statement an insult to everyone who has worked hard to succeed. In almost every case, it was something that they did. Yes there is luck and societal support/opportunities in almost every success story. But it doesn't happen without effort, hard work helps put people in a position to take advantage of that luck.

Part of successful trolling is having an element of truth behind it.

I love politics and I'm trying to view it as a spectator sport these days...similar to the NFL. I have some teams I like but I'm not going to take things too seriously. Like cry and then kick my dog when the Hawks lose or make some Nancy boy claim that so and so was the most divisive president ever!!! (Did I get that one right, CID??? )

(Except of course Reagan...that fucker )

My gut tells me Obama is an aloof prick. I honestly think GWB genuinely believed in what he was doing was right. And I pretty much agree with your last few posts on this thread.

Friends?

[YoUDeeMan]

Jon just wants Hillary to help kill more gay foreigners.

American Gays First! Fvck those Muslin gays getting killed by Hillary's gun sales to oppressive regimes!

Jon is more xenophobic and bigoted than Trump.

[UNI88]

The problem with "You didn't build that" is the absolutism in how he says it. If he simply added "all by yourself" to the end I could agree with it. And he continues to double down with similar statements - “Yes, you’ve worked hard, but you’ve also been lucky. That’s a pet peeve of mine: people who have been successful and don’t realize they’ve been lucky. That God may have blessed them; it wasn’t nothing you did.” The last 5 words make that statement an insult to everyone who has worked hard to succeed. In almost every case, it was something that they did. Yes there is luck and societal support/opportunities in almost every success story. But it doesn't happen without effort, hard work helps put people in a position to take advantage of that luck.

Part of successful trolling is having an element of truth behind it.

I love politics and I'm trying to view it as a spectator sport these days...similar to the NFL. I have some teams I like but I'm not going to take things too seriously. Like cry and then kick my dog when the Hawks lose or make some Nancy boy claim that so and so was the most divisive president ever!!! (Did I get that one right, CID??? )

(Except of course Reagan...that **** )

My gut tells me Obama is an aloof prick. I honestly think GWB genuinely believed in what he was doing was right. And I pretty much agree with your last few posts on this thread.

Friends?

Is Obama a divisive president? Absolutely. Is he the most divisive ever? That's an opinion that's pretty tough to prove because we've had a few (John Adams, James Buchanan, etc.).

We'll have to disagree on Reagan. When I was in college I used to think that he was a horrible president but I'm more practical and big-picture oriented and have changed my opinion since then. IMO, his policies helped to hasten the end of the USSR and to foster the culture of innovation that has really advanced this country and the world in the last 20 years. We also disagree on Kennedy. His legacy benefits from his premature death and he and "Camelot" are unwittingly idolized for the potential of what he might have accomplished.

Yes we're friends. The back and forth with you is some fun sh!t.

[YoUDeeMan]

Part of successful trolling is having an element of truth behind it.

I love politics and I'm trying to view it as a spectator sport these days...similar to the NFL. I have some teams I like but I'm not going to take things too seriously. Like cry and then kick my dog when the Hawks lose or make some Nancy boy claim that so and so was the most divisive president ever!!! (Did I get that one right, CID??? )

(Except of course Reagan...that **** )

My gut tells me Obama is an aloof prick. I honestly think GWB genuinely believed in what he was doing was right. And I pretty much agree with your last few posts on this thread.

Friends?

Is Obama a divisive president? Absolutely. Is he the most divisive ever? That's an opinion that's pretty tough to prove because we've had a few (John Adams, James Buchanan, etc.).

We'll have to disagree on Reagan. When I was in college I used to think that he was a horrible president but I'm more practical and big-picture oriented and have changed my opinion since then. IMO, his policies helped to hasten the end of the USSR and to foster the culture of innovation that has really advanced this country and the world in the last 20 years. We also disagree on Kennedy. His legacy benefits from his premature death and he and "Camelot" are unwittingly idolized for the potential of what he might have accomplished.

Yes we're friends. The back and forth with you is some fun sh!t.

That's because you get a lot more forth and a lot less back.

[kalm]

Is Obama a divisive president? Absolutely. Is he the most divisive ever? That's an opinion that's pretty tough to prove because we've had a few (John Adams, James Buchanan, etc.).

We'll have to disagree on Reagan. When I was in college I used to think that he was a horrible president but I'm more practical and big-picture oriented and have changed my opinion since then. IMO, his policies helped to hasten the end of the USSR and to foster the culture of innovation that has really advanced this country and the world in the last 20 years. We also disagree on Kennedy. His legacy benefits from his premature death and he and "Camelot" are unwittingly idolized for the potential of what he might have accomplished.

Yes we're friends. The back and forth with you is some fun sh!t.

That's because you get a lot more forth and a lot less back.

[kalm]

And Buckley v Valeo or Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific RR...

I think we've covered this before and there are great legal minds that totally agree with me too. Not to mention what the founders wrote or didn't write on the topic.

Apply your common sense to the statements that money is speech and corporations are people.

Your points are simply political beliefs wrapped in legal obfuscations...





Still love ya though!

I did, and if you can't distinguish between juridical persons and people (a/k/a natural persons), you'll never pass Con Law 101. The Framers were quick to grasp that political speech was precious, regardless of the identity of the speaker. You'll remember the context in which the Framers operated: Revolutionary statements of opinion against an overseas sovereign that was viewed as tyrannical. Business entity law has come a long way since 1787, but that's irrelevant to the Constitutional point that political contributions are protected First Amendment expressions -- which is now settled law. But this is turning into Groundhog Day. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so let's move on. I don't want to turn into another JSO, lobbing "political speech" drones into every thread.

However, I reserve my First Amendment right to troll you at random.

Right, granted!

BTW, the framers also understood the threat from entrenched power and monopoly. Ever heard of the East India Tea Company?

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

- TJ

I'm not arguing that political speech isn't precious. I'm arguing the (as you put it) "identity of the speaker". I think you're going to have a tough time making a case that the founders would have sacrificed democratic freedoms for the sake of protecting the rights of non-persons.

[YoUDeeMan]

I did, and if you can't distinguish between juridical persons and people (a/k/a natural persons), you'll never pass Con Law 101. The Framers were quick to grasp that political speech was precious, regardless of the identity of the speaker. You'll remember the context in which the Framers operated: Revolutionary statements of opinion against an overseas sovereign that was viewed as tyrannical. Business entity law has come a long way since 1787, but that's irrelevant to the Constitutional point that political contributions are protected First Amendment expressions -- which is now settled law. But this is turning into Groundhog Day. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so let's move on. I don't want to turn into another JSO, lobbing "political speech" drones into every thread.

However, I reserve my First Amendment right to troll you at random.

Right, granted!

BTW, the framers also understood the threat from entrenched power and monopoly. Ever heard of the East India Tea Company?

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

I'm not arguing that political speech isn't precious. I'm arguing the (as you put it) "identity of the speaker". I think you're going to have a tough time making a case that the founders would have sacrificed democratic freedoms for the sake of protecting the rights of non-persons.

C'mon, everyone knows that the East India Tea Company has been vanquished as an entrenched power because the Flying Dutchman went over to the side of the pirates (who make their living by stealing and killing, so the world is a better place), right?

[kalm]

Right, granted!

BTW, the framers also understood the threat from entrenched power and monopoly. Ever heard of the East India Tea Company?

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

I'm not arguing that political speech isn't precious. I'm arguing the (as you put it) "identity of the speaker". I think you're going to have a tough time making a case that the founders would have sacrificed democratic freedoms for the sake of protecting the rights of non-persons.

C'mon, everyone knows that the East India Tea Company has been vanquished as an entrenched power because the Flying Dutchman went over to the side of the pirates (who make their living by stealing and killing, so the world is a better place), right?

More a fan of the Flying Wasp.

[Ivytalk]

I did, and if you can't distinguish between juridical persons and people (a/k/a natural persons), you'll never pass Con Law 101. The Framers were quick to grasp that political speech was precious, regardless of the identity of the speaker. You'll remember the context in which the Framers operated: Revolutionary statements of opinion against an overseas sovereign that was viewed as tyrannical. Business entity law has come a long way since 1787, but that's irrelevant to the Constitutional point that political contributions are protected First Amendment expressions -- which is now settled law. But this is turning into Groundhog Day. Neither of us will ever convince the other, so let's move on. I don't want to turn into another JSO, lobbing "political speech" drones into every thread.

However, I reserve my First Amendment right to troll you at random.

Right, granted!

BTW, the framers also understood the threat from entrenched power and monopoly. Ever heard of the East India Tea Company?

“I hope that we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.”

- TJ

I'm not arguing that political speech isn't precious. I'm arguing the (as you put it) "identity of the speaker". I think you're going to have a tough time making a case that the founders would have sacrificed democratic freedoms for the sake of protecting the rights of non-persons.

Oh, stop it. Back in the Framers' time, there were about 6.93 corporations. Government-sanctioned monopolies, for the most part. Most businesses were sole proprietorships or partnerships. Newspapers played a lot bigger role in politics in the early days. Really vitriolic stuff. Adams and Jefferson hated each other. Free expression at its best! What you don't get is that recognizing free speech rights for corporations and unions only increases the total mix of information. People can believe it or nor, as they see fit.

By the way, among libertarian free speech thinkers, there is a vigorous debate between those who advocate full disclosure of the identity of donors (like me) and those who believe that privacy rights for donors actually enhances the quality of political speech.