|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318961 - 04/19/11 06:21 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
He advocates trading with anyone who wants to do business, exactly the opposite of F.D.R. and the Great Depression.
You aren't making any sense zap.
(Free market economist = trade isolationist you have lost your damn mind man.)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Mr.Al]
#14318973 - 04/19/11 06:23 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Mr.Al said: He advocates trading with anyone who wants to do business, exactly the opposite of F.D.R. and the Great Depression.
You aren't making any sense zap.
(Free market economist = trade isolationist you have lost your damn mind man.)
He only wants to trade with people who will meet his terms. Which is nobody. Thanks for playing, Al.
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: zappaisgod]
#14318987 - 04/19/11 06:25 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said:
Quote:
Mr.Al said: He advocates trading with anyone who wants to do business, exactly the opposite of F.D.R. and the Great Depression.
You aren't making any sense zap.
(Free market economist = trade isolationist you have lost your damn mind man.)
He only wants to trade with people who will meet his terms. Which is nobody. Thanks for playing, Al.
Other nations would follow America's lead. Again, a free market economist is by definition not a trade isolationist you sir are a liar.
Edited by Mr.Al (04/19/11 06:27 PM)
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Mr.Al]
#14319006 - 04/19/11 06:29 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Other nations will not follow America's lead, Al. They never have. Go find a Martian to live in your fantasy world with you and L. Ron.
--------------------
|
Mr.Al
Alphabet soup


Registered: 05/27/07
Posts: 5,388
Loc: N.S.A. D.C.
Last seen: 4 months, 18 days
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: zappaisgod]
#14319024 - 04/19/11 06:31 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Other nations will not follow America's lead, Al. They never have. Go find a Martian to live in your fantasy world with you and L. Ron.
They certainly did during the Industrial revolution when the U.S. economy was operating with sound money. That led to the dollar being the world reserve currency and the U.S. being the manufacturing superpower.
Your personalisms are weak and do not hid the fact that you have no argument.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Mr.Al]
#14322297 - 04/20/11 10:14 AM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Bullshit, Al. The money has nothing to do with it.
--------------------
|
Grav


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: JT]
#14323035 - 04/20/11 01:23 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
ah the great charade of staged elections, gotta love it.
Quote:
Computer Programmer testifies that Tom Feeney (Speaker of the Houe of Florida at the time, tried to pay him to rig election vote counts.
your vote counts!
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Grav]
#14325533 - 04/20/11 10:55 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
And just what evidence do you have that elections in the US are "staged" as you say? I recall you making claims along these lines previously as well. What has so convinced you that elections are staged? What elections do you know to be staged, particularly, and how do you know?
|
Grav


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: johnm214]
#14327495 - 04/21/11 12:19 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
i just showed you a video of a programmer testifying he was hired to rig major elections. so i'm using that for an argument that it is within the realm of plausibility that any major elections could be rigged. and if they can be, they probably are.
what evidence do you have that presidential elections are legitimate?
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Grav] 2
#14327518 - 04/21/11 12:26 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Go away. They are scrutinized and scrutinized. They are checked out and over so many fucking times by both sides it is ridiculous. The only legitimate concern regarding elections in this country is with community organizers registering the illegal, the dead and the cartoon. And Black Panther thugs scaring little old white ladies from voting.
--------------------
|
Grav


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: zappaisgod]
#14327620 - 04/21/11 12:54 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
oh, zappa thinks they are scrutinized. i feel better now. nevermind, carry on.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Grav]
#14327815 - 04/21/11 01:46 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Oh, Grav thinks they aren't. Sound the alarm!
--------------------
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Grav]
#14328943 - 04/21/11 05:33 PM (13 years, 1 month ago) |
|
|
Yes, I'm aware you posted a youtube video, but restating this fact does not explain your claims nor answer my questions.
You refer to testimony that a political opponent of the accused was asked and declined to create fraudulent voting software- a person who didn't have access to the software used in the election.
If we believe this gentleman's claim, arguendo, despite the evidence casting doubt on it, such as the fact he failed to mention it in his book that was filled with other critical commentary on the accused political opponent, this does not seem to establish your claim- and of course you don't even provide an argument as to how it does.
Thus: the sole evidence you've presented is a case where someone claims to have refused an offer to write fraudulent software. How does this establish your claims that "its a show" and the elections are faked?
Why have you not answered my questions as to what elections you refer to and what evidence you have of this and what argument you claim to be convincing of these claims?
Quote:
what evidence do you have that presidential elections are legitimate?
Its hard to take you seriously when you commit such elementary fallacies as to ignore your burden of proof and to instead demand others defend a straw man position you created.
Is there any justification for this? It seems just a dishonest attempt to change the subject from yoru claims and the basis for them. Plainly: how is whether I can prove this straw man claim of any relevance whatsoever?
|
Grav


Registered: 02/06/02
Posts: 4,454
Loc:
Last seen: 11 years, 4 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: johnm214]
#14332167 - 04/22/11 08:17 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
i see, so something has to be proven a fraud which was never proven to be legitimate in the first place, though we are told by many sources that it is legitimate and heavily scrutinized.
it's an act of faith either way, john. believe what you want. i simply don't trust people running these things to be honest. (not that i think whose president even matters anyways)
|
Rebirtha
I really like bread




Registered: 09/22/03
Posts: 5,680
Loc: over there
Last seen: 2 days, 3 hours
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: zappaisgod]
#14332429 - 04/22/11 09:24 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
How is trading with Cuba, Iran, and everybody in the world isolationist... that is called "free trade" Zappa, You are starting to sound like McCain in 08 debates on isolationism.
|
demon6fire
Hello


Registered: 05/02/08
Posts: 364
Loc: IL
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Rebirtha]
#14332922 - 04/22/11 11:32 AM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
When someone like Palin is being seriously considered as a presidential candidate, it's indicative that there is a major problem.
|
Seuss
Error: divide byzero



Registered: 04/27/01
Posts: 23,480
Loc: Caribbean
Last seen: 3 months, 8 days
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Grav]
#14333617 - 04/22/11 02:06 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
> i simply don't trust people running these things to be honest.
That is your prerogative, but there is a huge difference in you not trusting something and you claiming that something is not to be trusted.
-------------------- Just another spore in the wind.
|
zappaisgod
horrid asshole


Registered: 02/11/04
Posts: 81,741
Loc: Fractallife's gym
Last seen: 7 years, 11 months
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Rebirtha]
#14333917 - 04/22/11 03:24 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
According to Ron Paul's rules he would only trade with nations that do not manage their own trade. Which is none.
--------------------
|
imachavel
I loved and lost but I loved-ftw



Registered: 06/06/07
Posts: 31,564
Loc: You get banned for saying that
Last seen: 21 minutes, 5 seconds
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: zappaisgod]
#14334025 - 04/22/11 03:49 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
zappaisgod said: Bullshit, Al. The money has nothing to do with it.
well what does man? not that i'm disagreeing with you, but if not money, then what does?
--------------------
I did not say to edit my signature soulidarity! Now forever I will never remember what I said about understanding the secrets of the universe by paying attention to subtleties!
I'm never giving you the password again. Jerk
|
johnm214


Registered: 05/31/07
Posts: 17,582
Loc: Americas
|
Re: the republican candidates are looking good for 2012 [Re: Seuss]
#14334168 - 04/22/11 04:31 PM (13 years, 30 days ago) |
|
|
Quote:
Grav said: i see, so something has to be proven a fraud which was never proven to be legitimate in the first place, though we are told by many sources that it is legitimate and heavily scrutinized.
Yes, something has to be proven a fraud for it to be rightly considered a fraud. How is this remarkable?
I simply asked what elections are "all an act" and how you know them to be fraudulent, and you've refused to answer the first question and regarding the second have simply posted a youtube video documenting a time when an election wasn't a fraud (even if the testimony is to believed) and provided no arguments as to how this testimony showing a fraudulent act was not commited amounts to evidence that fraudulent acts are committed and that elections are "all a show".
Quote:
it's an act of faith either way, john. believe what you want.
How is it "an act of faith either way"? You declare this, but don't justify it- kinda like th other claims you've made in this thread.
My belief that US elections have not been showed to be fraudulent and just for show, and my belief that you've not justified your claims, nor even responded to my questions, is not an "act of faith". I can only presume you continue to commit the same fallacy I identified in your previous post: presuming others believe a position contrary to your own which you seem to make up out of thin air, i.e. I disagree with you so somehow that means I've taken a position on the merits of the matter and have concluded that elections are not a fraud and are not for show. What's more, you then shift the burden of proof to me and demand I defend this straw man you've created.
Can we stop with the elementary fallacies here? Please address the issue: What elections do you know to be fraudulent and for show and what justification for this belief and your claims do you have?
Quote:
i simply don't trust people running these things to be honest. (not that i think whose president even matters anyways)
What is your point? This seems irrelevant unless you are suggesting that I do trust these people (another straw man argument) or that your distrust justifies your claims- despite no argument demonstrating such. Plainly: not trusting someone does not justify a belief that they have concocted a particular scheme of your chosing.
Quote:
Seuss said: > i simply don't trust people running these things to be honest.
That is your prerogative, but there is a huge difference in you not trusting something and you claiming that something is not to be trusted.
Its an even bigger jump to the conclusion that these not-to-be-trusted people are rigging elections throughout the united states despite the lack of common authority or infrastructure through which such a scheme could be enacted.
I note that Grav has failed even to identify what elections he is talking about: all he's said is that "they" are fraudulent and all for show. The fact that he can't even name a single election amongst those he refers to seems pretty fitting with the conclusion that his claims are a bunch of nonsense cooked up for psychological comfort: "It's not my fault I can't achieve x,y, and z... THEY won't let me, THEY are obstructing me! I'm better than this, if only I'd be given a shot!"
|
|