The future of the democratic party, Mattress girl and Pajama boy

[Frederick Foresight]

Your opinions are aligned with what facts? I ask you what ideas she has that are outstanding, you give me links about her credentials...

No. They also list the things she is trying to achieve. Did you actually look at the links apart from the titles, if that? Perhaps unlike you I think a candidate should be more than a one-trick pony. So listing a single thing is beside the point, at best. The value of a candidate and his or her ideas is a composite of what they have done and have strived to do. Her priorities are clear. You have that information in hand. (You're welcome.) You can assume more of the same going forward. (There's that trend following thing again.) And that is the premise on which my conclusion is based. Again, thanks for asking. Repeatedly.

 

[Tsing Tao]

No. They also list the things she is trying to achieve. Did you actually look at the links apart from the titles, if that? Perhaps unlike you I think a candidate should be more than a one-trick pony. So listing a single thing is beside the point, at best. The value of a candidate and his or her ideas is a composite of what they have done and have strived to do. You have that information in hand. (You're welcome.) You can assume more of the same going forward. And that is the premise on which my conclusion is based. Again, thanks for asking. Repeatedly.

I read all three. Did you? None of those talk about any vision or ideas she has for the future. All of them discuss what she has done in the past, and what her credentials are.

Let's see if we can make this even easier for you. What are the top 3 visions Hillary has for the country that you are so keen on? Or, if you'd like, go into one of the three articles you posted and highlight a few sentences from the parts I apparently missed - the parts that detail her visions for the country. Her ideas, as you said.

Thanks for refusing to answer. Repeatedly.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

I read all three. Did you? None of those talk about any vision or ideas she has for the future. All of them discuss what she has done in the past, and what her credentials are.

Let's see if we can make this even easier for you. What are the top 3 visions Hillary has for the country that you are so keen on? Or, if you'd like, go into one of the three articles you posted and highlight a few sentences from the parts I apparently missed - the parts that detail her visions for the country. Her ideas, as you said.

Thanks for refusing to answer. Repeatedly.

You read them? All three? And you still don't get a sense of what her priorities are? What she stands for? I think you're just joshing me, TT.

Meanwhile, your affinity to Rand Paul is confined to his temporarily stalling Patriot Act surveillance powers and, to paraphrase how you previously described it elsewhere, endeavoring to fulfill the scope of his job requirements. Yes, that's so much more meaningful right there.

 

[Tsing Tao]

You read them? All three? And you still don't get a sense of what her priorities are? What she stands for? I think you're just joshing me, TT.

I read them. All three. I could probably formulate an answer as to what I believe Hillary "stands for", but that's not what I'm asking. I'm asking what you like that she stands for. Specifically. You just don't want to answer (probably because you can't). Regardless, I'll stop badgering you on it as it is plainly obvious now where you "stand" on the issue and how flimsy that "platform" is. I can't guarantee i won't bring this (or the other hilarious thread) up in future discussions you have concerning Hillary, but for now we can let it rest. Just remember that if you make a statement like "Hillary has better ideas" or "the GOP candidates are empty suits", and you get asked to explain those statements (or why you think Hillary is better, in regards to the latter claim), you should probably have an explanation cooked up that isn't as empty as those suits you so claim.

Meanwhile, your affinity to Rand Paul is confined to his temporarily stalling Patriot Act surveillance powers and, to paraphrase how you previously described it elsewhere, endeavoring to fulfill the scope of his job requirements. Yes, that's so much more meaningful right there.

I would be happy to clarify my affinity to Paul. What is it you would like me to expand upon? Would you just like me to give a general overview once again or would you like more specifics?

 

[Frederick Foresight]

...I would be happy to clarify my affinity to Paul. What is it you would like me to expand upon? Would you just like me to give a general overview once again or would you like more specifics?

But you don't really have to. I know generally where he stands and I know that you stand fairly close nearby. While I think he has some useful things to say and is not a complete loon like some of his brethren, he is just a bit too libertarian for my taste. That he would allow a restaurant not to serve a customer because of that customer's color is just plain offensive to me, his own distaste with the idea notwithstanding. There are several other things, but that one alone is so immediate and basic that it stops me right in my tracks.

As for Clinton, I like where she stands on health care, I think she was a better secretary of state and diplomat than any of the Republican presidential hopefuls can even hope to be, and she has a better sense of where the country should be in relation to the rest of the world. I like that she stands a little left of center. (Must I go into detail here?) Her priorities align with my own for the most part. Her considerable tenure and different roles in government suggest that she would hit the ground running, and in the right direction. She is by no means an empty pant suit.

And now, for the love of all that is holy to you, please stop pestering me about her.

 

[Max E.]

You're not reading mainstream Americans, here. You are reading the cries of desperate, older men who are terrified of the end of their own lives, and blame everyone else. This isn't the only website around that tolerates so much hate, and if the mods think combatants are getting a bit too real, they ban 'em.

Im half your age you senile old donkey.

 

[gwb-trading]

You don't seem to understand, when some of you go out of your way to denigrate people based on their ethnicity, politics, skin colour, sexual orientation, or well being, it's open season to highlight what degenerates you are being. This is how we can help fight ignorance and xenophobia in our societies. I don't care if you don't like the attention.

If you don't want the negative attention, don't post pictures of "Mattress girl" and "pajama boy", two fairly random people that you've judged harshly based on appearance alone. Don't continually demonize whole groups of people based on their background. Change your behavior to respect others differences, act in a more humane and reasonable fashion.

Some posters act in an immoral fashion on here many, many times. I have no idea why or what the motives are. Extreme ignorance is one potential culprit. Another is you grew up or were immersed in a highly charged negative environment that fostered these thinking patterns. Could be out of fear, selfishness, or flat out immorality ( sociopaths exist, with little or no empathy for others; sometimes, groups of people or entire nations follow the lead of a charismatic sociopath or psychopath ).

So you think I have "radical views" ??? I doubt it, my views are fairly mainstream in Canada.
To some degree, it is obvious that many southern US states have been slower then most to modernize and lose some of their more negative legacies from the past. Is this little vocal group on here in any way representative of what modern day US really is ??? I doubt it,
but perhaps there are smaller communities ( perhaps designed that way ) that foster social ills and they just manifest themselves easier under the aliases.

I really can't remember to what degree you personally exhibit these behaviors, there are much more obvious posters like TGregg among others that are KKK level intolerant. However, when you openly support the group like you are doing here, you are part of the problem. I'd like to think you have family and/or work colleagues who might tell you it's not alright to think in this way, to open your mind up to your mistakes. There are some posters who claim this is not the case, that their lives are filled with like minded people. I don't believe this, but if it's the case the US is in big trouble.

Nine_Ender,

I agree with some things you stated in the past, and disagreed with others. However I must disagree with your assertions here.

First, you make out Canada to be a liberal tolerant paradise. The reality is that Canada suffers 2x the hate crimes per 100,000 people as the United States. Go look it up (3.9 per 100,000 in Canada). The United States endured only 5,796 hate crime incidents in the same period (1.9 per 100,000). Both countries use the same definition for a hate crime. The statistics aren't even close. Can you explain why Canada has such a large intolerance problem?

Can you explain the conservative Harper government in Ottawa? How can you claim that the "U.S. is in trouble"?

You regularly denigrate posters who do not hold the same perspectives as yourself - labeling them as racist, ignorant and xenophobic while implying they are sociopaths and degenerates. This does not build a foundation for a civil discourse. Implying posters - who state that individuals should have personal responsibility and not live off the taxes of others - are immoral, selfish, and ignorant is not going to enhance the conversation. You view even posting pictures as disrespectful and inhumane - while ignoring that both pictures come from liberal think tanks pushing Democratic policies.

To a vast majority of America, "Pajama Boy" is example of exactly what is wrong in the U.S. - he represents a 27 year old with no responsiblity, no drive, who does not work, no achievements, no goals, lives with his parents and wants free healthcare while pathetically wearing a onesie. Even over 50% of Democrats would not want "Pajama Boy" to be their son according to one survey.

Ethan Krupp, who portrays "Pajama Boy", is a liberal operator for Organizing for America. He 'works' merely part time and has no significant achievements while his parents pay his bills. Pajama Boy takes pride in characterizing himself as "I am a liberal f*** " - as demonstrated in multiple interviews. He is an exact example of what he portrays.

I work in a diverse community in Toronto, Canada every week - and yes, Pajama Boy is mocked up here also.

Let's take this further, the first step in addressing a problem is admitting there is a problem. When anyone outlines a problem with poverty, violence, irresponsibility, educational failure, and welfare dependency in regards to a particular demographic - you immediately attack the poster as racist rather than accepting the facts. At a broader political level this occurs regularly in the liberal faction; not accepting the facts blocks any further discussion on how to solve the problems and address the root causes. Throwing more money at the issue with no associated goals has not proven to be a viable solution. This basic inability to even admit a problem exists (beyond "racism") within a community leads to generations of particular groups mired in poverty and crime with an embedded culture exhibiting warped values.

The bottom line is that the recent focus of this thread has been on censorship and free speech. In order to maintain freedom in a democratic society it is important that free speech (even distasteful speech) be allowed. No group should have the ability to censor the speech of others, all opinions must be heard to have a successful society which thrives on open discourse - and drives reasonable public policy over time.

Respectfully,

GWB

 

[Tsing Tao]

But you don't really have to. I know generally where he stands and I know that you stand fairly close nearby. While I think he has some useful things to say and is not a complete loon like some of his brethren, he is just a bit too libertarian for my taste. That he would allow a restaurant not to serve a customer because of that customer's color is just plain offensive to me, his own distaste with the idea notwithstanding. There are several other things, but that one alone is so immediate and basic that it stops me right in my tracks.

As for Clinton, I like where she stands on health care, I think she was a better secretary of state and diplomat than any of the Republican presidential hopefuls can even hope to be, and she has a better sense of where the country should be in relation to the rest of the world. I like that she stands a little left of center. (Must I go into detail here?) Her priorities align with my own for the most part. Her considerable tenure and different roles in government suggest that she would hit the ground running, and in the right direction.

And now, for the love of all that is holy to you, please stop pestering me about her.

Ok, with the exception of the brief specific mention of health care (I appreciate you throwing me a bone), everything else was an affirmation that you like Clinton because she's a liberal and a democrat. Fair enough, I suppose.

 

[Frederick Foresight]

...everything else was an affirmation that you like Clinton because she's a liberal and a democrat...

Please don't be dismissive. It is the things that she did and endeavored to do that are consistent with the views of a liberal and democrat. It is her actions and her efforts that cause me to like her. Not mere labels. I would suggest that some of your brethren (not you) are so stuck on labels that they would vote for a turd if one were to be nominated by the Republican party.

 

[CaptainObvious]

That woman to whom you refer has better ideas. The back and forth is among your crowd. The moving forward occurs when your crowd steps aside.

Better ideas? No, same ideas, different methods. Lets list a few.
1.Leftist establishment wants world peace through appeasement of radical Islam. Right establishment wants world peace through starting wars with no intention of ever winning the war. Both have worked so well, lets have another go. Jesus wept
2. Leftist establishment wants a stronger economy through providing a 15 dollar an hour job for the unwashed masses and a free Bachelors degree. Right establishment wants a better economy through some already failed trickle down theory that promises a few crumbs from the tables of out great Pharaohs. Jesus wept some more.
3. Leftist establishment wants to address the ever re-occurring climate change through taxes on corporations and the working poor. Right establishment says, climate change, what climate change? Jesus weeps hysterically.
4. Leftist establishment wants equality for all through wide open borders and bowing at the alter of multiculturalism. Right establishment wants... well they really don't want equality for all, but they do like the slave wage idea, so let'em in. Jesus says fuck'em, they're on their own.