03-09-16 11:18 PM
567 ... 1213141516 ...
tools
  1. leglace1's Avatar
    Wait a minute, wait a minute, wait a minute. So, you have stated VERY clearly in your previous posts that you lament the fact that the states don't have as much power as they should, but now you're upset that President Obama has left the particular issue of marijuana up to the states? As you might say, "The people have spoken." They spoke very clearly in Colorado, for example, that marijuana should be legalized. Furthermore, why are you upset that the President is using prosecutorial discretion (which, yes, other presidents have used in the past - Obama is, again, not the first despite your huffing and puffing) to not enforce laws that do nothing but spend hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars on feeding the prison industrial complex by locking up young men (mostly men of color) for years and years and create a generation or more of angry, disaffected men who, if they get out of prison, will have great difficulty finding jobs because of their "criminal" record, forcing them to either go on unemployment insurance while they look for a job or further into a life of crime because the system has locked them out?

    I have to say, I don't think you even know what your own political position is. You're not a pure ideologue, because your ideological stance regarding a particular issue - states' rights, for example - shifts depending on whether it's President Obama or anyone else turning more power over to the states. In the case of the former, it's bad and unconstitutional; in the case of the latter, it's good and constitutional. You're clearly not a historian, because you find President Obama's actions as president unprecedented when that is simply not true. Since you don't know your own political position, I'm just going to assume you are an anti-Obama-ite suffering from a clear case of Obama Derangement Syndrome.

    Posted via CB10
    You are making up arguments now. I was pretty clear that I said that Obama is far from a constitutionalist based on how he chooses not to enforce all federal laws. My argument about states rights is about states having the ability to make the best decisions to help it's population. One has nothing to do with the other.
    You went into this debate making an assumption that you believe I have motives for complaining about Obama. I only stated a point that Obama does not believe in enforcing the laws as he swore an oath to do. And as I said, no president in modern history has openly disregarded law and directed others to turn their back on federal law. He swore to protect the citizens of the United states and it's border. He is openly allowing the border to be infiltrated on a daily basis. Just a fact.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    02-16-16 09:52 PM
  2. Soapm's Avatar
    I only stated a point that Obama does not believe in enforcing the laws as he swore an oath to do. And as I said, no president in modern history has openly disregarded law and directed others to turn their back on federal law. He swore to protect the citizens of the United states and it's border. He is openly allowing the border to be infiltrated on a daily basis. Just a fact.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    What's the difference between stating your intentions and just not doing it? Example, Bush de-funded the SEC and the EPA to the point that we had a financial collapse with no agency to enforce the few rules that were left and the nation turned to an all but non-existent department during the oil spill in the gulf. He also de-funded the INS which basically created open borders to the point they sold the American people an invisible fence as a fix...

    Again, you seem to perpetuate a double standard simply by hiding behind a technicality like "openly stated" as opposed to "just didn't do it..." or "de-funeded" the department. And for the record, Obama has deported more illegals during his watch than any of his predecessors. I guess had he of just de-funded the INS in the name of reducing the deficit then you'd be alright with him, right???

    And directed others to turn their backs on federal law, forget that Reagan was equally not enforcing immigration laws, you must forget about Nixon??? Clinton??? Bush??? I'm trying to recall a president that didn't somehow pick and choose???
    Captain_Hilts and bungaboy like this.
    02-16-16 10:46 PM
  3. leglace1's Avatar
    The INS was replaced by Homeland security in 2003.

    SEC was not defunded. It was the deregulated in a couple key areas.

    EPA has nothing to do with the collapse. That is an agency that has been used as a political tool to. It needs to be gutted and started over.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Last edited by leglace1; 02-17-16 at 06:17 AM.
    medic22003 likes this.
    02-17-16 04:43 AM
  4. jbfair728's Avatar
    The INS was replaced by Homeland security in 2003.

    SEC was not defunded. It was the deregulated in a couple key areas.

    EPA has nothing to do with the collapse. That is an agency that has been used as a political tool to. It needs to be gutted and started over.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Stop confusing us with facts, please.

    Posted via CB app on my BlackBerry Classic
    leglace1 likes this.
    02-17-16 06:42 AM
  5. DaDaDogg's Avatar
    Goldman Sachs is not a donor for Cruz. They are going for Rubio and Hillary. He took out a loan from Goldman Sachs which he had to pay back back in 2012 to self fund his senate race. Cruz got help from the Mercer family who is his main contributer. Cruz has more grass roots money than any of the candidates now not named Bernie Sanders.
    I believe him because he is the ONLY candidate that has battled the Federal Reserve chair (Rand Paul was another), called out the Senate majority of his own party for being a liar, personally called out the attorney general for ignoring constitutional laws that have been ignored (immigration), he has proposed zero subsidies to all businesses including oil to level the playing field, battled amnesty etc... if nothing else, he has shown that he has the moxy and the temperament to do what he says he will do.
    Unlike Hillary, he will take hard hitting questions from the public, listen to them and then give his position on why his position is what it is. He enjoys emposing views and respects it. I know of no candidate that is so respectful to the 1st ammendment. There are just too many lies being made about him that people are believing it. The establishment despises him. I trust that he is not going to follow the establishment as president.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Well your wrong about Cruz he also directly received Donations as well as huge loans.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...wMem=N&recs=20

    Bush and Hillary have received the most is because they have been the favorites before campaigning began.
    so it looks like you've voting for the only true grass roots candidate... Bernie Sanders.
    bungaboy likes this.
    02-17-16 09:13 AM
  6. Soapm's Avatar
    The INS was replaced by Homeland security in 2003.

    SEC was not defunded. It was the deregulated in a couple key areas.

    EPA has nothing to do with the collapse. That is an agency that has been used as a political tool to. It needs to be gutted and started over.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Again, you pick and choose what offends you... "That is an agency that has been used as a political tool to. It needs to be gutted and started over." So you're fine with a president and congress that de-funds the EPA but because immigration are laws we MUST enforce??? Shame on this president...

    Don't you see that immigration is equally being used as a political tool? We allow them to come pick our crops and even used them to bust up the unions be providing a pool of cheap labor that can't come forward and demand fair wages and benefits, but what offends you is this president won't deport the very people your party not only invited, but allowed to become part of the American fabric by passing laws such as "Right to Work".

    You can't have it both ways, if your party extends the invitation, you can't be mad at the other party for not aggressively harassing those who accepted the invitation. Either you want them here (cheap, illegal, can't complain labor) or you don't. Immigration is just as much a political football as the EPA but again, you selectively choose what offends you...
    02-17-16 11:10 AM
  7. leglace1's Avatar
    Well your wrong about Cruz he also directly received Donations as well as huge loans.

    https://www.opensecrets.org/politici...wMem=N&recs=20

    Bush and Hillary have received the most is because they have been the favorites before campaigning began.
    so it looks like you've voting for the only true grass roots candidate... Bernie Sanders.
    Cruz received $5,000 from Goldman Sachs PAC in 2011 for his senate race and $61,000 from individuals. If it weren't for his wife, he would probably have zero Wall Street donations. He has raised over $1m from both grassroots and conservative groups. So you can bet that Goldman Sachs does not own Cruz. If $60,000 is all Cruz got from Wall Street, only Bernie has less.

    Btw, last I checked, a loan is paid back. So whatever loan he got from Goldman Sachs, it's no different than going to another bank.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    02-17-16 03:32 PM
  8. leglace1's Avatar
    Again, you pick and choose what offends you... "That is an agency that has been used as a political tool to. It needs to be gutted and started over." So you're fine with a president and congress that de-funds the EPA but because immigration are laws we MUST enforce??? Shame on this president...

    Don't you see that immigration is equally being used as a political tool? We allow them to come pick our crops and even used them to bust up the unions be providing a pool of cheap labor that can't come forward and demand fair wages and benefits, but what offends you is this president won't deport the very people your party not only invited, but allowed to become part of the American fabric by passing laws such as "Right to Work".

    You can't have it both ways, if your party extends the invitation, you can't be mad at the other party for not aggressively harassing those who accepted the invitation. Either you want them here (cheap, illegal, can't complain labor) or you don't. Immigration is just as much a political football as the EPA but again, you selectively choose what offends you...
    That word defund does not mean what you think it means. Show me an example of when the EPA was defunded. I'll wait.

    By the way. You keep saying, my party. I don't like Republicans or democrats. They are both crooks.


    Posted via Manly Passport
    02-17-16 03:33 PM
  9. DaDaDogg's Avatar
    Cruz received $5,000 from Goldman Sachs PAC in 2011 for his senate race and $61,000 from individuals. If it weren't for his wife, he would probably have zero Wall Street donations. He has raised over $1m from both grassroots and conservative groups. So you can bet that Goldman Sachs does not own Cruz. If $60,000 is all Cruz got from Wall Street, only Bernie has less.

    Btw, last I checked, a loan is paid back. So whatever loan he got from Goldman Sachs, it's no different than going to another bank.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Goldman Sachs is an Investment Bank they don't lend money to People they Invest and at the time they Invested in a Texas Senator. If they actually thought that he had a chance at the Presidency there would have been a lot more investment.
    bungaboy likes this.
    02-17-16 04:19 PM
  10. leglace1's Avatar
    Goldman Sachs is an Investment Bank they don't lend money to People they Invest and at the time they Invested in a Texas Senator. If they actually thought that he had a chance at the Presidency there would have been a lot more investment.

    Seems like they lend money here.
    http://www.goldmansachs.com/what-we-...ing/index.html

    Posted via Manly Passport
    02-17-16 05:13 PM
  11. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    That word defund does not mean what you think it means. Show me an example of when the EPA was defunded. I'll wait.

    By the way. You keep saying, my party. I don't like Republicans or democrats. They are both crooks.


    Posted via Manly Passport
    I think I've finally figured you out. You're a neoliberal, pure and simple.

    Posted via CB10
    02-17-16 05:36 PM
  12. leglace1's Avatar
    I think I've finally figured you out. You're a neoliberal, pure and simple.

    Posted via CB10
    I am a mix between libertarian and conservative and a dash of liberal.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    02-17-16 05:57 PM
  13. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    I am a mix between libertarian and conservative and a dash of liberal.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Okay, "neoliberal" doesn't mean what you think if means. People see the "liberal" part and assume it refers to the generic political spectrum of "liberal" on one side and "conservative" on the other. Part of the dumbing down of the electorate by career politicians who would like to stay in power and news media looking for a good story, I guess.

    A neoliberal is someone who sees the federal government as a purely regulatory body whose regulations should allow the private sector to basically do what it wants because Adam Smith wrote something about the invisible hand of the market being the ultimate power in the universe.

    See, THIS is why the American voting public scares me. It's full of people who don't know what they believe in or why they believe in it.

    Look, I respect people like you who have a different political philosophy, but I would respect you a lot more if you educated yourself politically beyond talking points. That would make it easier to have a discussion.

    Posted via CB10
    bungaboy and DaDaDogg like this.
    02-17-16 06:09 PM
  14. CivilDissident's Avatar
    Why is it, regardless of stances, debating politics always morphs into debating the people doing the debating? Always the same roundabout.

    Person 1 shares their views. Person 2 disagrees and counter argues with their POV. 2 mins later the debate exits politics completely and progresses into a series of personalized attacks meant to discredit the opponent as opposed to sticking with original subject matter at hand. Intelligently articulated beliefs and relevant facts tossed to the wind in lieu of belittlements and petty labeling...

    Distractions. THIS is why the American voting system as a whole 'scares ME'... Distractions and deflections are what it's all centered around in the long run.... Case and point: this very thread...

    Posted via CB10
    Last edited by CivilDissident; 02-17-16 at 06:36 PM.
    medic22003 and bungaboy like this.
    02-17-16 06:26 PM
  15. tmf06's Avatar
    Why is it, regardless of stances, debating politics always morphs into debating the people doing the debating?
    Posted via CB10
    ...years of negative propaganda and demonizing of the other side by politicians and talk radio hosts, magnified by the 140 character/sound bite attention span of most people (IMO).
    CivilDissident and bungaboy like this.
    02-17-16 06:51 PM
  16. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    ...years of negative propaganda and demonizing of the other side by politicians and talk radio hosts, magnified by the 140 character/sound bite attention span of most people (IMO).
    I.E., the dumbing down of the American electorate by career politicians who would like to stay in power and news media looking for a good story. This isn't one side or the other; it's the fault of people across the spectrum, though some people are certainly more proficient at (or at least more pig-headed about) inciting their listeners/constituents than others using fear, demonization, and hatred.

    Posted via CB10
    bungaboy likes this.
    02-17-16 06:57 PM
  17. leglace1's Avatar
    Okay, "neoliberal" doesn't mean what you think if means. People see the "liberal" part and assume it refers to the generic political spectrum of "liberal" on one side and "conservative" on the other. Part of the dumbing down of the electorate by career politicians who would like to stay in power and news media looking for a good story, I guess.

    A neoliberal is someone who sees the federal government as a purely regulatory body whose regulations should allow the private sector to basically do what it wants because Adam Smith wrote something about the invisible hand of the market being the ultimate power in the universe.

    See, THIS is why the American voting public scares me. It's full of people who don't know what they believe in or why they believe in it.

    Look, I respect people like you who have a different political philosophy, but I would respect you a lot more if you educated yourself politically beyond talking points. That would make it easier to have a discussion.

    Posted via CB10
    I would respect you a lot more if you didn't speculate on what people believe in based on profiles that you read in a book somewhere. I called out our president for his faults. Nothing unusual. I called out W Bush for his. If you want to know something, you could ask.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Last edited by leglace1; 02-17-16 at 07:34 PM.
    02-17-16 07:00 PM
  18. jbfair728's Avatar
    Cruz leads Trump in new national WSJ/NBC poll. Just an outliner? Time will tell.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

    Posted via CB app on my BlackBerry Classic
    02-17-16 09:53 PM
  19. Captain_Hilts's Avatar
    I would respect you a lot more if you didn't speculate on what people believe in based on profiles that you read in a book somewhere. I called out our president for his faults. Nothing unusual. I called out W Bush for his. If you want to know something, you could ask.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Contemporary neoliberalism is not some profile I read in a book. It is the guiding principle of global capitalism today, which makes it more than a little important. Because it is very well defined in both academic and popular literature (for the past 35-40 years now), it's pretty easy to define people as neoliberals. It doesn't mean Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Anyone can be a neoliberal if they have a particular view of the relationship between the economy and the state.

    Now, you have pointed out what you perceive are Obama's faults (which, as I and others argue, is really cherry-picking because you seem to ignore historical examples of past presidents doing the same things), but I would be curious as to what you perceive to be W's faults.

    Posted via CB10
    02-17-16 10:20 PM
  20. jhirizarry's Avatar
    Wallstreet, anyway they own the country. 65 trillion in debt, how much the politicians really govern.

    Unlocked PRIV on T-Mobile -> Passport -> Z10 -> 9900 -> 9810 -> 9800 -> Bold 2 -> Pearl -> Curve
    02-18-16 06:56 AM
  21. leglace1's Avatar
    Cruz leads Trump in new national WSJ/NBC poll. Just an outliner? Time will tell.

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...tion-3823.html

    Posted via CB app on my BlackBerry Classic
    I saw this yesterday. I admit that it came out of nowhere given that other polls show Trump well ahead and Rubio and Cruz neck and neck. I hope this is true though after that frivolous suit bs Trump tried to pull.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    02-18-16 07:25 AM
  22. leglace1's Avatar
    Contemporary neoliberalism is not some profile I read in a book. It is the guiding principle of global capitalism today, which makes it more than a little important. Because it is very well defined in both academic and popular literature (for the past 35-40 years now), it's pretty easy to define people as neoliberals. It doesn't mean Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Anyone can be a neoliberal if they have a particular view of the relationship between the economy and the state.

    Now, you have pointed out what you perceive are Obama's faults (which, as I and others argue, is really cherry-picking because you seem to ignore historical examples of past presidents doing the same things), but I would be curious as to what you perceive to be W's faults.

    Posted via CB10
    I can cherry pick a lot more of obama's faults. I am definitely not a fan. I liked Obama during the 2004 DNC. He does not seem to be the same person.


    As for W, I was young and voted for Gore. So I didn't like him. When he became a war president I liked how he rallied our people and the military. He showed conviction. I trusted our government with the Gulf War and that the Patriot Act was temporary. The economy was great for his entire tenure, minus a year or 2. However I never liked his weakness on the border during a time of war. I never liked the formation of Homeland Security. I didn't like his favortism of Wall Street during the housing boom.
    Now I like him less because of the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War in retrospect and have suspicions about his motives.

    As for Neoliberalism, as much as I feel we do have too much regulation, I would never want a private sector untethered. We need a balance.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Last edited by leglace1; 02-18-16 at 08:54 AM.
    02-18-16 07:48 AM
  23. LoneStarRed's Avatar
    Reagan "lawfully" passed an amnesty bill in concert with congress in a deal that they build a wall. Obama is just using his authority to "look the other way". He is picking what laws he wants the federal government to not enforce.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    Quite correct!

    "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
    02-18-16 02:38 PM
  24. grover5's Avatar
    Quite correct!

    "I don't think that word means what you think it means."
    What do you want him to do?
    02-18-16 05:33 PM
  25. grover5's Avatar
    I can cherry pick a lot more of obama's faults. I am definitely not a fan. I liked Obama during the 2004 DNC. He does not seem to be the same person.


    As for W, I was young and voted for Gore. So I didn't like him. When he became a war president I liked how he rallied our people and the military. He showed conviction. I trusted our government with the Gulf War and that the Patriot Act was temporary. The economy was great for his entire tenure, minus a year or 2. However I never liked his weakness on the border during a time of war. I never liked the formation of Homeland Security. I didn't like his favortism of Wall Street during the housing boom.
    Now I like him less because of the Patriot Act, and the Iraq War in retrospect and have suspicions about his motives.

    As for Neoliberalism, as much as I feel we do have too much regulation, I would never want a private sector untethered. We need a balance.

    Posted via Manly Passport
    How in the hell could you have trusted the invasion of iraq? You'd have to be brain dead or a politician to not see how stupid and unrelated a move that was to 9/11.
    02-18-16 05:34 PM
567 ... 1213141516 ...

Similar Threads

  1. Is it worth getting a q10,rather than a classic in 2016?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 02-01-16, 11:29 AM
  2. Why has my phone restarted several times?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum General BlackBerry Discussion
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-29-16, 02:32 PM
  3. What is a BBM cross platform ? How do I download one ?
    By CrackBerry Question in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-29-16, 01:36 AM
  4. Is BlackBerry priv available in India?
    By thevoyager in forum Ask a Question
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 01-28-16, 11:31 PM
  5. Is there a Free tethering option for my Bold 9900?
    By Amine Mohamed in forum BlackBerry 7
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 01-28-16, 10:11 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD