Pretty much why I stopped for the most part posting here. Folks like to label as either Republican or Democrat and can't seen anything else....Quote:
Originally Posted by CD_Sasha
Printable View
Pretty much why I stopped for the most part posting here. Folks like to label as either Republican or Democrat and can't seen anything else....Quote:
Originally Posted by CD_Sasha
Here we go again. That's already been gone over in this thread MrFanti. http://www.hungangels.com/vboard/sho...websites/page7Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
You seem to have missed it, but I don't think anyone here has been arguing against Kavanaugh solely on account of the rape allegation.
People might find your claims to be independent more credible if they could find any posts where you've actually criticised Trump or the Republicans. Can you direct us to any?
I don't believe I have labelled you or anyone else. I suspect that you lack the confidence to express your political views and find it frustrating to deal with those of us who are confident.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
But I also think that critics of the 'left' or 'liberals' of whatever you think we are, can applaud the President for breaking all the rules, and enjoy watching the architects of our problems squirm in their seats as a 'new order' sweeps into the place with the claim that change is coming. Except that this President is not just a liar, but also a fraud, and the consequences of his tenure, rather like the consequences of Brexit here, are not going to be positive at all, but just create a different menu of problems.
This is a man who has been hostile to China, not because of globalization, which he doesn't understand, but for the simple reason that until he went there as President and received the right to license his LLCs there, the Chinese refused to give him a license to operate anything at all. He watched his fellow Americans reaping billions of dollars in profit from their investments in China and seethed with anger that he was denied a slice of the pie. His policy on China like his attitude to Obama is pure spite, revenge and resentment that he was denied what others had.
This is not politics, this is psychology, of the psycho kind.
I have yet to be given a coherent defence of the President and his Republican chumps, and I don't expect to read it here any time soon. But who knows, maybe someone will have a go.
Yes I did miss it because I'm not over here every day.Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
If you read carefully, I state "one" - i.e., not directed at anyone specifically......
YOU choose to believe what you believe....And it's sad to have to criticize for credibility.....You must love confrontation...to demand criticism for credibility....And you obviously don't understand Libertarians nor Constitutionalists....
I take you with a huge grain of salt....
To the best of my recollection, you haven't!Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Quote:
Originally Posted by filghy2
I'll take that as a no. I note that (as before) you avoided any comment on those who have effectively accused Christine Ford of lying in support of a political conspiracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Whether you are Libertarian is beside the point if you support most of what Trump does and consistently excuse his behaviour.
Knowing that the Democrats rely heavily on ostraciziing White Males, and assuming he's going to lean towards conservative, Trump would have been better off nominating a conservative Asian woman to avoid all the Kavanaugh baggage.
Nominating a conservative Black wouldn't work because conservative Blacks are labeled by Democrats as "Uncle Tom's" if male or "sell outs" if female....
You've hit the nail on the head here and many Democrats today still don't understand this and Republicans have realized that they just have to accept this.....Quote:
Originally Posted by CD_Sasha
I wonder, Mr Fanti if people who claim to be Libertarian can justify their beliefs by explaining how the US would function if the models normally associated with it were to replace the system you have now. I suspect some so-called Libertarians claim it just to oppose the two party politics and the tax-based politics of State and Federal governmet because they can't think of any alternative. In reality, a Libertarian US is not going to happen because it is not in the interests of Wall St or Washington DC or your State to dismantle the system from which they benefit -Libertarian just beomes a slogan rather than a movement, and crucially, the man you claim is not part of the political establishment has done nothing to undermine it, but is in fact using it to line his own pocket and polish his ego. If you think he was a revolutionary, you have been had, by a one trick pony whose time may be running out. You can only pull a rabbit out of a hat once for the trick to work.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
The problem I'm having in Politics is that these problems are not problems with my TV set or Computer Screen, these problems are real and dangerous. Complicated. If you think you understand it you are a fool, you can only manage it. Not fix it. Eight years of Bush and Cheney used up all the Ignorance we're allowed.
It would be tough in respect because of the current state of how money is inter-twined with establishment politicians. What the Democrats and Republicans totally missed was that the rise of Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump (both being non-establishment, although Trump is more non-establishment than Sanders) is that a huge sector of the populace was tired of establishment politicians. So the key in terms of Libertarian is as they say to "drain the swamps". And right now, the current establishment is doing a better job at draining the swamps than previous Presidential establishments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
I meant to add this yesterday: And if you can't see/support the above, then you are just an angry person at Trump and/or Kavanaugh and are not in support of women, but rather your own personal agenda.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Their agenda was BELIEVE ALL WOMEN, no proof needed... Unless it's against a Democrat. But oh well, that part of the battle is over and I'm glad common sense prevailed where if there's no evidence to prove an allegation case, then there shouldn't be any conviction - simple logic there. Every person should be viewed innocent until proven guilty.
Bill Clinton's women were never raped, or sexually harassed. They all were consenting adults. They all had their own agenda. Bill Clinton was a PIG. But every bit of legislation was Pro-Woman.
Attachment 1098948
You should read up on Juanita Broaddrick...Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
But what exactly is the point that you are making in relation to the appointment of Brett Kavanaugh? Are you saying that it's a bad thing that Republicans have impugned Christine Ford's motives for political reasons? Or you saying that it doesn't matter whether she was telling the truth because of what happened with Bill Clinton more than 20 years ago? If you won't say the first then it looks very much like you are insinuating the second.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
I liked the part where she failed a lie detector test.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Excellent point - I'll give you that oneQuote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
However..
Keep on defending Clinton and not being a true supporter of aggressive male acts against women (unless they are against Republicans)...shows your true agenda (which has nothing to do against supporting women)...
And when you look at the big picture, the 'Clinton women' were treated like shit by the Democrats...
But hey...that's cool, just don't try and combine the two unless you eliminate party politics and defend women....
Clinton's sluts demeaned by Democrats? Oh No!!!! Look at the picture, Fanti. Where are the Women?Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Attachment 1099053
You remind me of Fonzie in Happy Days when he could not bring himself to say the word 'sorry'. You couldn't even bring yourself to put the word "also'' in the last sentence I quoted.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
My biggest issue with you is not what you say, but what you don't say. You make vague statements, but avoid spelling out what you mean or providing concrete examples. Your claim about Trump 'draining the swamp' is another example of this. It looks like you try to avoid being pinned down, perhaps (as Stavros suggested) because you don't feel confident that you can explain and defend your position.
By the way, in the first sentence I quoted you have actually said the opposite to what I assume you intended.
I should add that if you criticise only Clinton and the Democrats, but never offer a word of criticism on Kavanaugh and the Republicans, then you are simply a mirror image of those you are pointing the finger at. Even setting aside the question of whether the two cases are equivalent, you are posing as a high-minded exposer of hypocrisy when you are guilty of precisely the same hypocrisy.
I would expect a Libertarian to promote the idea that Government at the Federal and State level is too big, and that the only department of government you actually need is State merely because the USA has international relations. You don't need the Federal Reserve because anyone should be free to create a bank and print their own money derived from the value of their assets. You don't need a Department of Defence because the Constitution allows for the formation of armed militias, and to pay for your military you have to impose taxes on citizens whereas Libertarians don't believe in taxation, and there is not a single reason for any of your armed services to be outside the USA.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
The US currently spends $25 billion a year subsidizing the agricultural industry, it should not spend a cent -if farmers can't farm at a profit they should leave the market, or be dumped out of it. Libertarians also do not believe in social controls, which must mean an end to all forms of censorship in the media, the repeal of all laws that concern relationships, sexual preference, and reproductive rights, and because Libertarian believe Freedom is absolute and non-negotiable, all limits on immigration must be removed.
Your President has done nothing to 'drain the swamp' (the quote as he has acknowledged is from Mussolini), he has deepeed its swell by appointing billionaires to run Departments of State where they have racked up staggering bills for transport (Mnuchin can't travel first class by train from DC to New York, he needs military aircraft -why pay $200 for a trip that can cost $20,000?). Ben Carson thinks its ok to spend thousands of dollars on cutlery, and so on and so on. What does 'draining the swamp' mean anyway?
And what about the fact that when the President plays, you pay? Is it coincidental that you have spent millions of dollars on his golfing trips which end up in the tills in the golfing clubs he just happens to own? If this was Africa you would expect the 'Big Man' to help himself to the national wealth, since when did the USA beome just another 'African' Kleptocracy? Swamp has a new meaning, a new identity, a five letter word that starts with a 'T' and ends with a 'P'.
You forgot to mention Trump's refusal to release tax returns as previous presidents have done. Surely transparency about finances is an absolute first condition for draining the swamp? Also, his refusal to follow previous conventions about putting his affairs into a blind trust to avoid conflicts of interest.
Most Libertarians that I know only think that the federal government is too big - and has infringed too much on states right to govern. But they also do not think the federal government is useless. E.G., a federal government is needed in foreign relations.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Actually,Quote:
Originally Posted by buttslinger
Since you've now sunk down to derogatory words (sluts), and can't hold an intelligent debate, I choose not to look at your image.
I tend to disagree with you here, but your point is noted. Personally, I think it's going to take draconian measures to drain the swamp from all, regardless of political party.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Generally speaking, it means to make a purge of all establishment politicians, federal employees, and businesses that have become so intertwined with each other, they serve their own personal interests first.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
Mr Fanti the Artful Dodger. For a man with no agenda you seem to have a curious level of selective blindness.
Mr Fanti's art of political debate in 10 easy steps:
1. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
2. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
3. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
4. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
5. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
6. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
7. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
8. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
9. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
10. Repeat the same point over and over and ignore what others say in response.
Your posts suggest you adopt a libertarian position because it is against something rather than an alternative form of politics, one in which ideally there is no state, and thus one which might begin with the minor changes you refer to, but must work toward an end to all forms of taxation and government.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
I would agree that there has been a purge, but not of 'establishment politicians' but the bureaucrats in the various departments of state, some of whom come and go with each administration anyway. But if you look at the jobs shredded in the EPA you find experts on climate change have gone because the Administration does not believe in it; the layers of bureacracy shredded by Rex Tillerson may have saved money at State but it has led to one some would call a catastrophic loss of people with years of experience in the Middle East and Korea, to take two examples with the result you now have a shortage of people who can speak the languages of those regions, and as yet the US has still not appointed an Ambassador to South Korea. In these cases it is not in fact the 'establishment politicians' who are being purged but the very experts you need to draw up briefing papers, international documents and so on.
The 'establishment politicians' were on show in the Senate Judciciary Committee, not just Diane Feinstein but Lindsay Graham and Charles Grassley, just as elsewhere you have Orrin Hatch and Mitch McConnell, about as establishment as you can get, and as plugged into the 'People's Bank' that is Congress as their younger colleagues.
If you think you can drain a 'swamp' that determines the jobs of approx, 4 million Americans, at least tell us what happens to those jobs when $790 billion worth of contracts are cancelled because they are the 'intertwined' corporations, Senators and Congressional Reps funnelling your taxes to their own state for jobs making bombs and bullets -and all of it applauded by the President himself, which again begs the question is he serious about his own claims?
As for the President himself, if he is so opposed to the corrupt practices of the swamp, why is he so corrupt himself? His entire policy on China has nothing to do with an objective appraisal of the balance of trade, but is revenge, pure and simple. For decades he sat in his New York office seething with rage and resentment as he watched other Americans make plenty dollar in China while the Chinese refused to give him a license to operate in their country. The first thing he did when he visited China as President was to persuade them to give him the access he craved by allowing him to register 38 trademarks, giving him an opening into the Chinese economy, and a clear example of the President using his Office to make money for himself and his family.
So where is this swamp? And who is stirring the slush?
The last thing I want to do is appear derogatory toward women.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Attachment 1099168
Time to put this thread out of its misery I think. How can you have a discussion or debate with people who refuse to explain, clarify, elaborate or respond on anything of substance?
Just about every federal agency to start with....Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
But, really no point in me going any further if you're still asking this question.
I do appreciate the civil debate though!
I can understand why a Libertarian would criticize Federal agencies, but in one particuar case, the Enviromental Protection Agency (EPA) it begs the questio: Can commercial enterprises be relied upon to protect the enviroment without the imposition of Federal law? To which the answer is: No.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Moreover, the EPA has one of the most successful records in US government in achieving its aims. The standard complaint is that the 'reams of regulations' that companies must adhere to in order to operate weakens their performance and profit margins, when this is usually not the case. They just don't like regulations.
For example, when oil was disovered in Alaska the companies decided to build an 800km pipeline from the North Slope to Valdez, but spent four years in litigation as the Sierra Club and the Wilderness Society used the new EPA to force the companies to provide environmental stipulations in this most pristine and beautiful part of the USA. Imagine, five years without making any money! And yet, when the oil was discovered it was worth less than $2 a barrel, by 1979 it was over $10 and by the 1980s one of the firms on the North Slope was making $600 million a month net profit.
Fast forward to 2018 and not only are environmental scientists being dismissed from the EPA, as many of the regulations passed during the Obama era as can be are being repealed simply because they were passed when Obama was President. The astonishing fact is that for the first time in over 40 years commercial firms are being allowed to pollute the environment, because they have no interest in being responsible citizens, but is that not part of the 'cult of the individual' that you would support in a Libertarian America?
So I would ask you to think again about this Ageny of the Federal governent. You can read about its accomplishments in these two links:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...irst-40-years/
https://www.ehso.com/ehshome/epa-accomplishments.htm
The Illuminati runs the show and they're pissed when they lose control. They lost it with him so the media went wild with their shit.
Case in point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
The previous administration weaponized the IRS (Federal Agency) to target conservatives (see story below)
https://www.washingtonpost.com/busin...=.99b7601d948a
Now, the IRS must be purged of all factors that were used to weaponize it against conservatives. As long as those constituents remain in Federal power, it doesn't matter if one is Green Party, Libertarian, or what not, if you get too strong, a federal agency will be weaponized against you.
Case not proven. First of all I offered you the example of a Federal Agency, the EPA as an agency that has had a positive impact on American life, yet you offer in return the IRS which is rather like telling me what you had for lunch when I asked you what you had for breakfast.Quote:
Originally Posted by MrFanti
Second, as your link makes clear:
Although the IRS is part of the Treasury Department, it “is an independent enforcement agency,” White House press secretary Jay Carney said
And as your link also makes clear the IRS was suspicious of the number of organizations seeking tax exemption status-
The number of organizations applying for tax-exempt status under that provision more than doubled after 2010, Lerner said. It was a scramble that began after the Supreme Court lifted the ban on corporate and union spending in political campaigns, a move that was seen as a green light for outside groups to become more involved, as well.
Both Democratic- and Republican-allied interests have formed such organizations, but the conservative groups have raised vastly more money.
I am surprised that you are surprised that Conservative groups should all believe they must be able to agitate for their cause with buckets of money and not say where it came from or pay taxes on it.
And, again, as your link makes clear, the IRS chasing people for taxes is not new and not exclusive to one President.
Speaking of Presidents, what does the current President's tax profile look like?
These allegations were investigated by the IRS Inspector-General, the FBI and the DoJ. They found no evidence of illegal activity or systematic partisan bias in targeting organisations. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy It may be news to Mr Fanti, but I'm pretty sure political advocacy organisations are not entitled to tax-exempt status.
The biggest problem with the IRS is that it has been so starved of funds that it's capacity to pursue tax-avoiders like Trump has been severely impaired.
I see that Mr Fanti has dropped the veil and is progressively revealing himself to be a right-wing zealot. Purging all public officials who are not ideologically-correct is something that Communists or Nazis would do.
Please....Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/lois-le...irs-targeting/
If that doesn't convince you well....then I guess you truly can't see the swamp.....
EPA positive impact? I offer you EPA swamp here...Quote:
Originally Posted by Stavros
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/con...on-epa-n865461
Did you actually read that article? It's about corrupt behaviour by Scott Pruitt, not the agency.