You would - lol
Actually, I was thinking of Sicilianthing's avatar when I wrote that... You're avatar, well - I assume that's an actual picture of you, reminds me of this really pretentious guy I used to work with. It probably gives me a unfair preconception of you.

Don't blame your moment of weakness on a lack of options archie. You could have ignored it.... "the only avenue left"... lol

uh-huh.


Obviously, you DO give a flying fk about his opinions or you wouldn't be bitching about him.

Huh.
OK.

Keep in mind.. I didn't say Archie was abrasive... I said sometimes, he can be abrasive. Then I followed that up with "it's not just you".

Archie and I don't find ourselves on the same topic all that often. And when I do run into him he seems more like the Archie Bunker that Carol Conner played... kicking back with a beer and making wise cracks about people. Maybe like a rounder version of myself, but conservative.

But Carol, who was in real life a total liberal, was portraying the difficulty of a conservative view in a changing world and Meathead... remember him? That tension they played out was a portrayal of the tension between people like our archie and AF1, played by WTF was his name? I dunno, Meathead.

Remember how they got so pissed off at each other? Remember how dumbstruck Meathead got when Archie would get so angry he would say something shitty?

I've seen our archie do this... Here's a quote from our archie back in April of 2018 addressed to Kevyn

"I'm demanding that Admin. remove you from this site, and that all conservative posters here stand with me!!
You also deserve to lose your livlihood, your home, and anything else you might own for such a barbaric attack on someone you disagree with!!

The "brutal attack" BTW was the simple suggestion that Christians aren't persecuted by law. Here's the link, it's worth a read. (I love it when my technology works, I have instantaneous access to a ton of stuff y'all say.)
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/tpr?p=2392826&t=128999

So... That's abrasive. This lovable guy Archie Bunker, for a moment throws out a spray of mean-spirited words. Does it reflect the real person inside? I don't know. I'd like to think not, but... I don't know our archie as a real person. And that's my point... all we know about each other is the words we type.

AFI is real guy too and he can get carried away sometimes, sure. So do I. I know how it happens. We read the frickin' news. And sometimes you just need to to say out loud... WTF? Well, that can be abrasive too. If you read that thread I linked to, you would know how reactive archie can be...

So, you can decide who deserves what by your political views, or you can recognize the fact that the two of them took very different actions. One chose to be honest but confidential and the other chose to violate the sanctity of PM and rampage.

What kinda chicken-sht is that? A bunch of anonymous Internet users hiding behind macho avatars beating up on someone with... messages? Really? You really think you're going to "smack him down" with messages and insults? AF1 gets insulted every time he posts anything because people like you have such a hard dealing with what he says. If anything all you're going to do is prove your pettiness and reinforce his opinions about you. I know that's how it works for me.

Archie, sometimes your opinions can be very offensive and I know it's not just you. We are all passionate about what we believe and that can lead to situations where it gets personal... In such cases, I think it's better sometimes to "take it outside". The way I see this AF1 was being a better man by addressing you in private. The fact that you turned around to share that private message with everyone is pretty damned low... and really childish.

If you're going to have strong and abrasive opinions like you do... you need to understand that other people are going to have strong opinions about you. So be a man and deal with it. That means not crying to mommy or your friends whenever someone calls you a racist.

This is a point I keep trying to bring up. Not just the East India Company but the Virginia Company, the Plymouth Company and many more were in fact London-based corporations and the colonies were their private property. Adam Smith, the British economist often referred to as the Father of Capitalism, published his landmark Wealth of Nations in 1776.

The point of bringing this up is to challenge the institutionalized narrative that the fight for a republic was a fight against monarchy because it takes away from the realization that it was really a fight against corporate tyranny and the republic was thought to be a way to give the people a better chance at self-determination.



Today that sentiment translates to "socialist conspiracy".

Interesting... It's good to know when your language fails to make the connection.

I was in fact being as literal as possible. If you don't mind me getting technical, it's a matter of constraint, where you can take absolute words like "never" and constrain their application to specific cases. For instance, when someone tells you "never cross the street without looking" they don't actually mean that you should never cross the street... they just mean that you should never cross the street - without looking.

And when I said "200+ years later" I was effectively (or so I thought), excluding those Americans who fought for independence by virtue of the fact that they all died before that 200 year mark.

Of course I could be even more annoying and point out that George Washington, who was at one time a Redcoat always, considered himself an Englishman. ;)

No offense taken bro... I like that you challenge even those who you tend to agree with.

"kids NEVER listen anymore" How do you read that Cuda? Kids don't listen but they used to - or kids never ever listened?

Well, at least you have the Constitution sort of right... Actually, it's main purpose is to serve as a blue print for the government and as part of that, limits were included, but when it comes to money, even the limits themselves are limited. As far as I know, the constitutional safeguards against the power of money is pretty limited the emoluments clause which isn't exactly fool-proof as your Trumpy hero has already proven.

Should I repeat the lesson?

1. republic - ANY form of government where the head of state is an elected president rather than a monarchy.
2. democracy - ANY form of government where the people are given a vote.
3. These are concepts not proper nouns to you don't have to capitalize them.
4. republic and monarchy = opposites
5. democracy and tyranny = opposites
6. monarchy + tyranny = Saudi Arabia
7. monarchy + democracy = UK
6. republic + tyranny = North Korea
7. republic + democracy = US

Again?

1. republic - ANY form of government where the head of state is an elected president rather than a monarchy.
2. democracy - ANY form of government where the people are given a vote.
3. These are concepts not proper nouns to you don't have to capitalize them.
4. republic and monarchy = opposites
5. democracy and tyranny = opposites
6. monarchy + tyranny = Saudi Arabia
7. monarchy + democracy = UK
6. republic + tyranny = North Korea
7. republic + democracy = US

...are you getting this yet?

- the problem with precise language is that it requires more words. ;)

Pointing out the BS? Yeah... it's really not that difficult. ;)

LOL - all he did was break out each statement and deny it. He hasn't disproved anything. Take this for example... I said "Trump has put millions of Americans at risk of death and poverty for the benefit of the oligarchy and himself." And he responded with... "prove it"

Risk, is an assessment about the future not a fact about the past... He can challenge the logic behind my assessment, but there isn't anything to "prove". His response tells me that he really doesn't understand what I am saying... your high-fives tell me that it doesn't really matter to any of you anyway.

Look, I have work to do and I already know how this is going to go anyway. It's more important for children like yourself to deny whatever truth makes your daddy look bad and fire back with whatever lies will somehow make you feel like you scored a point.

On the off-chance anyone who is capable of fair assessment reads my post, they will understand it's generalized nature and can probably figure out what I am referring to...

I am referring to his record on wiping out the environmental regulations that reduce the level of pollution in our environment, pollution that people die from.

I am also referring to his attacks on healthcare... He has been sabotaging the ACA ever since he failed repeatedly to defeat the will of the people represented in Congress without offering any replacement. As a result, many Americans have lost their coverage, which again, increases their risk of dying from untreated conditions.

I am also referring to his cutbacks in social programs such as food stamps, leaving more people without the ability to sustain a healthy diet, which can lead to health problems and if they can't afford health insurance those problems can lead to more dire conditions and possibly death. Now, the typical response from deplorables is that many of those people are lazy and don't deserve "free handouts". But all your judgements aside, they are Americans nevertheless and so my statement stands.

I am also referring to his record on workers rights, where he has been supporting the efforts in Congress to rollback 70 years of protections such as the right to file class action suits against employers and allowing companies to force workers to sign arbitration agreements that deny them access to the court systems. This systematic suppression of workers rights can lead to economic depression for families in the lower third of the middle class and without health coverage or any other assistance, possible death.

BTW, Trump's shiny badge on jobs is 100% based on the unemployment rate, which only counts the recipients of unemployment benefits. The truth hidden behind that shiny badge is that more jobs have been lost since Trump took office than were created. You can see that in the "jobless" rate, which was at 37% before the pandemic hit.

Speaking of which, I am also referring to his budget cuts to the CDC and his dismantling of the entire bio-defence department in the NSA, which has put far more citizens in this country at risk and we are seeing this now as the US a country 350 million is clocking in at 216,000 cases, more than twice as many as in China, a nation of 1.4 billion.

The list goes on and like I said, I need to get to work and you won't consider any of these issues anyway. I'm just putting this out there so you know there's a little more to my "BS" than just empty claims, which is more than I can say for ANY argument I've seen from your side.