Total posts: 339
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
As I asked before......
"Find these facts......
#1 during what time periods were the covid "payments made?
#2 What was poverty rate prior to "Covid payments:
#3 What was poverty rate after "covid paymants"
#4 How was poverty defined in 2019
#5 How was poverty defined in 2020
#6 How was poverty defined in 2021
#7 How was poverty defined in 2022
#8 What was inflation rate in 2019? 2020,2021,2022
#9 What was labor participation rate in 2019? 2020,2021,2022
#10 What party controlled the House when the payments ended?
#11 What party controlled the Senate when payments ended.
When a sycophant uses ad hominem , he merely supports his sycophancy."
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
BTW, even the title of the Reuters article holds the data ....to wit...
"US inflation eroded 2022 wages, as child poverty jumped, Census says" (1)
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Find these facts......
#1 during what time periods were the covid "payments made?
#2 What was poverty rate prior to "Covid payments:
#3 What was poverty rate after "covid paymants"
#4 How was poverty defined in 2019
#5 How was poverty defined in 2020
#6 How was poverty defined in 2021
#7 How was poverty defined in 2022
#8 What was inflation rate in 2019? 2020,2021,2022
#9 What was labor participation rate in 2019? 2020,2021,2022
#10 What party controlled the House when the payments ended?
#11 What party controlled the Senate when payments ended.
When a sycophant uses ad hominem , he merely supports his sycophancy.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
Oh yes I understand.
Generally sycophants attribute the incorrect cause to a problem, and therefore are blind to the solution.
Was it "demands" made by republicans.?
Show me the mechanics of that process.
------OR -------SEE ------
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The fact that you would post :
Republican demands to end aid for the poor causes poverty to increase sharply in 2022
is an indication that you are incapable of understanding the true cause.
You seem to think that Republicans have some magical power such that even their "demands" caused poverty to increase.
Yeah right....that's what did it????????????????????????????????????
Created:
-->
@Double_R
Again, this isn’t a criminal trial. Presidential candidates are being vetted for the most powerful position on earth, that is a level of trust that must be earned, not presumed.
Actually, a man serving time in jail for a criminal act could be elected.
Look it up.
Created:
-->
@Double_R
We all have the right to our freedom, no one has a right to hold public office. Criminal trial standards to do not apply to the 14th amendment.
The 14th amendment does not negate the foundation of the presumption of innocence found in other amendments and case law.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
The 2 acts under 2 different Presidents resulted in no indictments, and allowed all but 0.05% from holding office.
Here is a statement from NPS...."On February 15, 1869, Jefferson Davis was scheduled to begin his trial in the United States District court in Richmond, Virginia. He was charged with treason against the United States for his part in leading the states in rebellion during the American Civil War, 1861-1865. But instead proceeding with the trial, federal prosecutors entered a “nolle prosequi,” or statement of decision not to prosecute.
Thirty-seven other treason indictments were dropped at this time as well, including the pending litigation against Robert E. Lee. All former Confederates not under those indictments had been mass pardoned by President Andrew Johnson the previous Christmas Day, and the February nolle proesqui order drew to a quiet conclusion any threat of legal action against anyone for their participation in the war against the United States."
see John Reeves, The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee: The Forgotten Case Against an American Icon (Rowman & Littlefield, 2018), 63-64.
see Cynthia Nicoletti, Secession on Trial: The Treason Prosecution of Jefferson Davis (Cambridge University Press, 2017) for the definitive account of the Davis trial.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
You might remember that Nixon was pardoned PRIOR to being charged.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No confederate leader was ever found guilty of insurrection in court yet many were banned from running for office,
Further the Amnesty act of 1872 allowed most of them to seek and hold office.
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
No confederate leader was ever found guilty of insurrection in court yet many were banned from running for office,
Your point is moot. President Johnson pardoned them on May 29, 1865. They were never tried nor convicted.
Created:
To disqualify Trump at this point in time, one must make a presumption of guilt. This country is founded on the presumption of Innocence. Until it is adjudicated otherwise, he is innocent, and therefore qualified.
Of course, he could perhaps be found guilty, but that needs to be seen.
Created:
Posted in:
For the humor impaired ...Arthur Treachers fish n chips... a meal you cannot make at home
Created:
-->
@TWS1405_2
As is oft the case at this site. Lots of claims and no proof.
Makes you wonder about the title Debate? Art?.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
OK you're done
I have hardly started....
Note to the unwise
You can end this discourse by simply ending this discourse.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
We have been down this road before.
It seems that I arrive at the destination while you are hopelessly off course.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Please post the insult
My post was in response to a insult about liberals
I cannot respond to an enigmatic statement .
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Make sense of this ...
First you say
Let's talk about you and me
I said "Proceed"
Then you said ...
Oh please.......my god you are hilarious
And you claim to "love intellectual debate"?
I do not see it.
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
Let's talk about you and me
Proceed.....
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
First you say....
I love intellectual debate
Then you say
Oh look.....you got nothing. Lol
Yet again.....WOW!
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
So you prefer a site flooded with insults and personal attacks everywhere?
No. But I prefer freedom of expression.
One person on this site said that I insulted them, so I asked them to show me the insult.
They did not. It was accusation with out proof.
We already had that, it was pretty boring and harmed actual debates.
I only joined in 2022, so I have a "fresh perspective".
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I love intellectual debate
Then
Shhhhh now. Nothing you say matters
WOW!
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
It is not an insult if it be true.
Just look at your previous comment ....
Conservatives are poopyheads. I love intellectual debate
Created:
-->
@Vegasgiants
I love intellectual debate
You love it because you cannot have it.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
Personal attacks and insults can get you banned and thats probably good. Those are the rules implemented after this site was flooded with insults.
You insulted me a while back, but I let it slide, and so should you.
Created:
-->
@Savant
Yes . I found this out after posting this forum topic.
I do not know the whole story, but members here need to develop a thicker skin.
Insults have been thrown at me, but I am an adult. I can handle it.
Someone blocked me because I made them "unhappy", when I was asking them to define their terms.
Good grief says Charlie Brown.
Created:
Sir.Lancelot should be reinstated immediately.
This platform should be for adults.
We should not allow hurt feeling to dictate the content of the discourse.
Perhaps I am missing something, but if hurt feelings are a cause for being banned, this site might end up a a discussion between a few members, and no one else.
Created:
Why are liberals less Islamophobic than conservatives?
The fact is that liberals are no less Islamophobic than are conservatives.
The fact is that liberals are much more likely to be "politically correct".
They are more likely to be in "lockstep".
They are more likely to not want to be seen as Islamophobic.
Conservative are mush more likely to act on the facts rather than feelings.
They are more likely to act in ways that fit the situation, rather than what fits theory.
They are less likely to care about how they are perceived by the liberals.
Created:
Posted in:
There is an error
It should be...
Emily Litella asks "Why does Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips advertise this way? " Amelia cannot make it home""?
Created:
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
Thank you for your supportive words.
I came to this site after Debate.org died.
One issue I have with both sites was and is the lack or intellectual honesty among some members.
I have tried to elevate those I deal with, but sometimes it is of no use.
But like the proctologist says, "some days it is just one after another.".
Created:
I have just been blocked by someone in this tread,.
It seems that my comments were making him "unhappy" since I was asking him to explain the meaning of his comments.
This then proves my assertion that "DebateArt should have an independent psychological group rate members on their behavior"
Created:
The following refers to statements made by Rational Madman
ignoring what I say and asserting things without definitions, derailing the thread.
I came to that conclusion about you several weeks ago.
You have ignored things I say
You have asserted things without definitions
You have derailed this thread
You might want to read this comment about Rational Madman from someone else.....
"Forgive him.He's clearly not smart enough to do even basic research."
I have been blocked by RationalMadman.
"Another one bites the dust" ...Queen.
Created:
Posted in:
Emily Litella asks "Why does Arthur Treacher's Fish and Chips advertise this way? " Amelia may not make it home""?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Marxism is Socialism...
Marxism is not Socialism.
A simple search will demonstrate the difference. I had asked you to look those terms up previously, but obviously you did not.
Why not do it now?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I don't like that title. Give me another.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Please make a separate thread, I will reply there, post the thesis-overview/outlook at the start.
EXACTLY what is the thread to be titled?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Communism is extreme Socialism, at least theoretically.
NOPE. Not even theoretically. There are fundamental differences between socialism and communism. Extreme socialism is closer to Marxism than to communism.
National Socialism is not even Socialism in theory let alone practise, it was a tactical propaganda wording to appeal to the working class.
Did you not read the citation from my post #124?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
My post #124 above has answered all of your points.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
The Nazis did believe in private property. They did not have socialism at all. Their most severe enemy ended up being Soviet Russia.
WOW. Where to start.......Get on the bus, I'm taking you to school.
The Nazis did believe in private property.
Yes. They believed that some people could own property, but many were not allowed to have property. Many who were not members of the "master race" had their property seized without compensation.
"The rhetoric of the Nazi regime stated that German private companies would be protected and privileged as long as they supported the economic goals of the government—mainly by participating in government contracts for military production—but that they could face severe penalties if they went against the national interest."..... "The Role of Private Property in the Nazi Economy: The Case of Industry" . The Journal of Economic History. Cambridge University Press. June 2016, p. 401. .
They did not have socialism at all
"Yes, They Were Socialists".....https://mises.org/wire/yes-they-were-socialists-how-nazis-waged-war-private-property
Their most severe enemy ended up being Soviet Russia.
Russia was NOT socialist. They were communists ( q.v,). However the war was not over political ideology. It was over "Lebensraum" ( q.v.)
So there you have it.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Are you aware what propaganda is?
Yes. I have read it in many of your posts.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
What the Nazis were extreme in was Conservatism
NOPE! They believed in BIG government, absolute power of the state, and disdain for private property. These ideas do not coincide with "conservatism" to which you would agree if you did a little research.
They actually were attempting to define a German version of socialism.
" Nazism is the common name in English for National Socialism " ( WIKI )
the term far-right is inaccurate.
Here we do agree. While the dichotomy of "right" and "left" may fit a linear mindset, the reality is that the spectrum is not a line, bit rather a circle.
The Nazis were so far to the "right" that they became "left" in many respects.
The term NAZI = North German Socialist Workers Party.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Islam is neither tight not left. Islam is a theocracy.
You seem confused about terms.
If fact you probably think the Nazis were "right wing".
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I know it.
To what are you referencing?
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
It is not true that they believe in socialism.
I am not sure why you introduced "socialism" into this discussion.
I did not bring it up.
It leads me to believe that you are confused about certain definitions.
Look up "conservative", "socialism", "theocracy" and whatever else you need.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Which values of Islam are not conservative?
"Compared with the general public, fewer Muslim Americans say they are politically conservative, and a greater number say they prefer a bigger government that provides more services." Source...Pew Research cited above.
"Even with respect to how we see governance, conservatives have a view of a smaller government, lesser regulations. On the other hand, liberals have a view of bigger government, more regulations, more social services, for instance."
"Hence, the labels that apply to somebody as conservative or as liberal do not apply to a Muslim" (ibid).
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Much less than 21 percent are doing the killing, essentially every sigle one of them is in that 21% if it really is only 21 percent.
Yes, now you almost understand.
Much less than 21 percent are doing the killing
Yes. But 100% of them are Muslim in this case. Ergo, being Muslim is the main cause, being conservative may not be the cause at all.
If any ideology is to blame, look into "theocracy"
Perhaps you do not know how to define "conservative". Perhaps you could look that up.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
I could actually say Islamic conservative, it's because the word 'conservative' works as both adjective and noun that you're perhaps confused or think you've made a point.In the context, you discussed Muslims as the noun.
Actually and factually, Pew Research finds only 21% of Muslims are "conservative". Thus by extension we may assume that the attacking Muslims are more likely "liberal", but I am not making that claim.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
Again you seem to be arguing something off topic.
This began when you said that it was most likely that if a group of Muslims were attacked, they would most likely be attacked by conservatives. I stated that based on reality they would most likely be attacked by other Muslims, True fact!
There is no data that I can find that separates Muslims attacking based on being "conservative".
Actually and factually, Pew Research finds only 21% of Muslims are "conservative". Thus by extension we may assume that the attacking Muslims are more likely "liberal", but I am not making that claim.
Created:
-->
@RationalMadman
You still don't understand, yet your own language proves my point.
To wit,,,,you have said....
Only a severely conservative Muslim would feel there is a need to slaughter other humans over Jihadist reasons.
Do you see it ?
You said "conservative Muslim" not " Muslim conservative"
"conservative Muslim" linguistically means ( the noun ) "Muslim , modified by ( the adjective ) "conservative" thus the noun is primary and the adjective is incidental.
And here is another, if I may adapt your language..... You said
The fact that over 91% of Muslims do not do these killings should be proof enough that Islam is not the cause.
Let us make a similar statement that proves my point.
"The fact that over 99% of non Muslim conservatives do not do these killings should be proof enough that conservatism is not the cause."
Created: