Posts for: straightUp
Nov 21, 2019 11:58:20 #
(Main)
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
I believe it was Beto who suggested that churches that don't accept gay marriage lose their tax exemption status...
OK, so a suggestion from a candidate on a campaign trail... And how is maximus calling this a law? Or did he just not expect anyone to actually call him out on his claim?
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Do you believe all churches are corrupt?
Do you believe all churches are corrupt?
Of course not.
Nov 21, 2019 11:50:39 #
(Main)
eagleye13 wrote:
Doug61 wrote: br "I say vote out all the Repu... (show quote)
Oh, so now the republic is great eh? Then what's with the MAGA hats you Trump turds are always wearing that suggests the republic needs work to be great again? Do you just change your mind depending on your conversation or do you just spew words without really knowing what they mean?
I tell ya what - all banter aside, why don't you tell me what YOU think made our republic so great, I'd LOVE to hear this.
Nov 21, 2019 11:44:04 #
(Main)
debeda wrote:
And that is the problem with your dem programming 
That doesn't explain the difference between being polite and being PC deb. That's OK, I'll just wait for the Canadian to respond, I get a feeling he will have a little more to offer than stupid insults.
Nov 21, 2019 11:35:57 #
(Main)
eagleye13 wrote:
Yep! He is a Limey twit.
He can't get used to a Constitution being the law of the land.
He can't get used to a Constitution being the law of the land.
How ya doin eagle? 'looks like you haven't graduated from insults to actual thinking yet. What happened? Too much beer and gay porn?
BTW, not that I have any reason to be an expert seeing that I grew up American, but the UK is a CONSTITUTIONAL monarchy. Ooooh - snap!
Have another beer big boy.
Nov 21, 2019 11:30:12 #
(Main)
debeda wrote: you sound like a twit
you sound like a twitSo you can't respond to my serious posts but you can respond to my one line jokes. I guess I got your level now.
Nov 21, 2019 11:27:52 #
(Main)
maximus wrote:
We have to have a tax exempt status with the IRS b... (show quote)
So how is the church with its lack of profit and all that upkeep any different from any other American household in the same situation? The percentage of American households that live from check to check is increasing rapidly and yet we still expect THEM to pay taxes.
Sorry man, it's not working on me. I don't have anything against churches, I'm just saying that I don't see any reason to give a church special treatment. There are millions of people and small businesses that struggle with taxes, no one likes to pay them but someone has to pay for the services provided.
BTW, did you find that law yet? I'm still waiting.
Nov 21, 2019 11:18:37 #
(Main)
JW wrote:
The truth is NEVER fair and balanced. In any situation where views are polar opposites, the truth always falls squarely on one side or the other.
Fair and balanced doesn't mean both sides win JW. That's like saying football isn't fair if one team wins and the other loses. If the truth falls squarely on one side or another it means the other side didn't do such a good job of reporting the truth. Is that fair? Yes, it is.
Nov 21, 2019 11:12:43 #
(Main)
PeterS wrote:
Conservatism is an ideology built around affirmation instead of confirmation so Conservatives will only listen to new's that tells them what they want to hear instead of what is actually true.
I prefer to think of conservatism in its most fundamental form; a tendency to reject social change and a preference for tradition, which today is found in both the major parties. I think what you are describing is more specific to a number of populist movements that also exist on both sides of the divide but certainly the most predominate being those that rally under the Republican party which has been the more conservative party for the last 50 years.
PeterS wrote:
And commentary can be true but in the case of Fox New's if what they broadcast were true they would be off the air before the week was out.
And commentary can be true but in the case of Fox New's if what they broadcast were true they would be off the air before the week was out.
No doubt. Fox News owes it's incredible success as a business to it's catering. If they suddenly decided to broadcast the boring facts like NPR they would most certainly loose the audience and sponsors they've built up on the right-wing's addiction to drama and outrage.
PeterS wrote:
As for PBS and NPR, I only point them out because they are the only ones who go beyond the call to be fair and balanced with their news and opinion. If conservatives are unable to see that then it's because of their bias and nothing else.
As for PBS and NPR, I only point them out because they are the only ones who go beyond the call to be fair and balanced with their news and opinion. If conservatives are unable to see that then it's because of their bias and nothing else.
In general, public media does enjoy more journalistic freedom than commercial media does because they are not beholden to the dictates of corporate sponsorship. Even after a history of Republicans slashing budgets for public media has forced NPR and PBS to seek *some* corporate sponsorship to make ends meet, this rule is still holding because so far, the corporations willing to sponsor public media are supporting the existing programs.
There are always reasons for things. ;)
Nov 21, 2019 10:35:42 #
(Main)
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Not just the perpetrators of violence.. But those whose speech provoked them to it...
There is a world of difference between civility and PC...
There is a world of difference between civility and PC...
Care to explain that? Because I don't think there is.
Nov 21, 2019 10:33:14 #
(Main)
Doug61 wrote:
That is why I am for voting out all the democrats ... (show quote)
Aw, you're upset. Wanna tissue?
Maybe if you stop filling your little head with stupid conspiracy theories, you can go to bed at night without crying yourself to sleep.
Nov 21, 2019 02:03:16 #
(Main)
maximus wrote:
If these preachers don't accept the LGBTQ garbage, then their church loses it's tax free status.
Hmm... yeah, I'm not sure I believe that. Can you point to the actual law that states what you are claiming?
maximus wrote:
br In mY church, w have on average 25 to 30 on Su... (show quote)
Well, I'll say this... I think a church should have the right to refuse same-sex marriage services and I also think same-sex partners should have the right to find other (less uptight) providers of marriage services. So there is no valid reason in my mind for the predicament your describe... not saying it doesn't happen.
But I don't think tax-exemption is a right. Churches get all kinds of services from the government so why should they be exempt from paying for any of it? Just because they have in the past? I'm sorry but what I'm hearing from you is a sob story about losing an unfair advantage that I don't think they should have had in the first place.
Nov 21, 2019 01:30:01 #
(Main)
PeterS wrote:
If that's true then why doesn't Donald control them? Don't knock something you've probably never listened to. They could boast about being fair and balanced before Fox was even around.
Pretty much every mainstream news agency in America was fair and balanced before Fox invented fake news because journalism (which Fox was the first to dispense with) puts such a premium on the truth and the truth is naturally fair and balanced.
Fox News was build on commentary, a cheaper alternative to journalism for providing content and although they didn't invent commentary, they were the first to actually call a show based 100% on commentary a "news" channel.
They even won a court case in which it was decided that news doesn't have to be true. I think this alone speaks volumes about the Fox News audience.
Nov 21, 2019 01:08:41 #
(Main)
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Exactly... br br If speech invokes violence, then... (show quote)
I can understand the reasons for suggesting limits on free speech. This doesn't mean I agree. I'm probably the strongest advocate of free speech on this forum because unlike almost every conservative here, I also oppose the ban on four-letter words. So I can claim to be a true advocate of free speech, while all those self-proclaimed champions of free-speech that run to the moderator whenever I say "fuck" are really just hypocrites.
I understand their reasons too, they want conversations to be polite, but that doesn't change the fact that all that is is another form of PC. As for those who want to ban hate speech the reasons are just as clear... They know hate speech CAN encourage physical violence. We've seen it happen. I would say that's a far stronger case for PC than wanting polite conversations.
But at the end of the day, I agree with your statement... "If speech invokes violence, then punish the offenders..." assuming that by "offenders" you mean the perpetrators of violence. But because I do understand their reasoning, I don't treat the advocates of limiting or banning hate speech as unreasonable or ridiculous people. Just people with valid concerns that conflict with my extreme position on free speech.
Nov 21, 2019 00:26:36 #
(Main)
Ranger7374 wrote:
We are going back to the Russian Hoax again! Rober... (show quote)
I bet it did take a lot of "research"... Any effort to defend Trump at this point is going to take an incredible amount of effort. So let's have a look at what you got.
First off, it seems you are relying on the assumption that any Democrat or "RINO" involved with the State Department in 2016 is automatically tied to the Steele Dossier. Any reasonable person will disagree with that assumption. You need more evidence than "oh, well they worked with the State Department", which BTW employs about 70,000 people.
Secondly, the Steele Dossier isn't the lynchpin that you seem to be implying. It's a document within which many of its assumptions could not be verified so it wasn't sufficient to justify the investigation. The Mueller Report barely mentions it and then only in passing. The dossier was basically set aside while the investigation into Russian influence was initiated on other evidence. The only reason why it keeps popping up is because of the links from Democrats via Fusion GPS and so the right-wing conspiracy nuts keep trying to come up with a way to make the document relevant enough to implicate the Democrats in a scam. So far it hasn't worked.
Finally, and this is the biggest one. Even if we DID find a connection between election interference in 2016 and the Democrats it wouldn't have any impact on the impeachment trial which is centered on the charge that Trump tried to bargain for a publicly announced investigation into the Bidens using the foreign aid and a face-to-face meeting at the White House as a leverage.
The Republicans have had three years to launch the kind of investigations that you're insisting Trump is asking for and in fact there are three separate investigations for that very purpose already in motion. If any of these investigations actually found ANY of the evidence they keep praying for, Trump would have had a reason to ask for cooperation from the Ukraine and he could have done so through normal channels instead of trying to bargain for it by withholding the foreign aid that was already cleared.
Bottom line is... Trump tried to use public funding that was already cleared for the Ukraine to bargain for a public announcement that the Ukraine is investigating his political opponent and he did that without probable cause. Nothing that did or didn't happen in 2016 has any bearing on this charge.
I don't know if you folks just don't get it or if you just refuse to accept it. But I will say it's funny as hell to watch the antics performed by those trying to defend their dumbass president.
https://www.ncazaleafestival.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Parade-Clown-Car.jpg
Nov 20, 2019 22:28:53 #
(Main)
maximus wrote:
The wall is not Trump's wall, it IS the wall he promised to build to his voters, so it's OUR wall.
If the Democrats placed better components, why are we having a border crisis?
If the Democrats placed better components, why are we having a border crisis?
Because Trump came to office and introduced new policies that turned a managed problem into a crisis.
maximus wrote:
One componet Dems built were the cages for kids (Obama's your of duty).
One componet Dems built were the cages for kids (Obama's your of duty).
Actually, the cages for kids was something Trump introduced. Yes, kids were detained under Obama but there was no indication they were abused, they used humane facilities (I remember conservatives complaining that these kids were getting club med treatment) and they complied with the Flores Amendment which states that no child should be detained for longer than 72 hours. Under Trump, the Flores Amendment was tossed out, cages were built and kids were detained in these cages for undetermined periods of time in miserable conditions.
And don't bother showing me pictures of kids held in cages with captions that say the pictures were taken during the Obama administration, because it's old trick and I know better.
maximus wrote:
And why do all the agents on the border say that wherever there is a wall, illegal immigration drops WAY off?
And why do all the agents on the border say that wherever there is a wall, illegal immigration drops WAY off?
Because they are only talking about where there is a wall, they aren't talking about any of the other measures taken that result in even bigger drops in immigration. Jesus dude, figure it out. You can travel faster on horse than you can on foot too, does that mean we should trade all our cars in for horses?
maximus wrote:
Trump is not giving aid for favors.
Trump is not giving aid for favors.
He was caught trying.
maximus wrote:
As POTUS, he has a right and a duty to investigate corruption at home and in countries seeking aid.
As POTUS, he has a right and a duty to investigate corruption at home and in countries seeking aid.
Not without probable cause. Also, keep in mind that what Trump was actually requesting was a public announcement by the Ukraine that they are going to investigate Biden. THAT is something I don't recall any previous president doing, probably because a public announcement has never been necessary for a real investigation to happen. Another difference is that when our state department initiates investigations in other countries they do it under existing agreements, they don't try to bargain for it.
So, you have to understand how obvious this is to anyone who isn't blinded by partisan loyalty. Trump tried to bargain (unprecedented) for a public announcement (unprecedented) by the Ukraine that they are going to investigate his political opponent (unprecedented) in the total absence of probable cause (unprecedented).
This is so obviously an attempt to sow seeds of doubt in the American public regarding Biden. The impeachment hearings so far have not found a single argument for defending Trump that isn't a mere distraction or complete lie.
maximus wrote:
Biden is the guilt one... it's on video from his own mouth.
Biden is the guilt one... it's on video from his own mouth.
And yet you fail to say what he's actually guilty of and you can't even link to the supposed video. You might as well be reciting poetry.
maximus wrote:
In 3500 pages of testomony, bribery I'd mentioned only once......and the one is in connection with Biden.
In 3500 pages of testomony, bribery I'd mentioned only once......and the one is in connection with Biden.
Single words don't mean much by themselves. If you were actually reading the testimony instead of just parroting second-hand statements you might be able to provide the context by posting the actual statement containing the word.
maximus wrote:
The ones falling over somebody is you guys on the left and you're putting your hopes in a bunch of crooks and liars.
The ones falling over somebody is you guys on the left and you're putting your hopes in a bunch of crooks and liars.
Nah, I don't think so. If anything the folks on the left are gloating because this is clearly an open-shut case. It's definitely the right-wing that I see getting all mad and flustered, grasping for distractions and redefinitions and whatever else they can pull out of their hats. As for where WE are putting our hopes; that would be in the American people in the 2020 election. We don't need any "hope" to impeach Trump anymore, that's as good as done. All we need now is for the American people to vote the POS out of office.