Email Alertscheckbox YTcheckbox Manage Email Alerts

Ardian Syaf's racial messages2546

Pages:

COLLECTOR 5.46K	5.46K JLS_Comics private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Quote: Originally Posted by Jesse_O I think Steven Finkel from The Comic Mint came up with a great solution for those retailers that don't know what to do with their copies. He just listed his 10 copies together as one lot with 100% going to the anti defamation league. eBay auction link Kudos to him and I agree this is a very good response. Lets turn this negative to a positive ... and this is a good start
	8 years ago	Post 76 • IP flag post

Collector

16.89K

DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids
Doc, it is clear that you and I have fundamental disagreements about our country.

We agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
I am not being unfair or unkind to you when I say that I don't want to go tit for tat with you, on a discussion regarding politics.

What does "tit for tat" mean to you? Does it mean an open discussion of disagreements? Why use the phrase "tit for tat", which has a generally negative connotation? I think what I have to say is worth consideration, and far more than a "tit for tat" characterization. Don't you think what you say has value...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Your statements about Sanders reinforce that even more.It would be unoroductive and a large waste of your time, and mine as well, to go tit for tat on all of these issues.

How you choose to spend your time is none of my concern...conversely, how I spend mine is none of yours. It's not a waste of MY time at all...in fact, it's critical to discuss these things, so people are aware of the real differences in ideology, and can choose for themselves where they stand.

Nevertheless, you need not believe me...look at the proof around you. Everywhere, and every time, socialism is employed, it destroys people.

The USSR. China. Cuba. Venezuela. Brazil. The UK. France. Sweden. The list goes on and on and on.

And the excuse is always "oh, THAT socialism wasn't the RIGHT socialism. They just didn't do it correctly. We need THIS kind of socialism, and THEN it will work."

And yet, it never has. Ever. And the answer is never "well, ok, that failed the 437 times it's been tried...let's try something different." No, it's always "THOSE people didn't do it RIGHT."

At some point, you'd think they'd learn, but they have a vested interest in not knowing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
I will say that Sanders refers to himself as a democratic socialist and a progressive.

Not an "avowed socialist".

There is no difference between a "democratic socialist" and a socialist. Yes, I'm aware that Bernie thinks there is...there isn't. "Avowed" simply means he's openly committed to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Sanders has held the same positions for the 40+ years he has ran for/held public office.

Yes, and it amazes me that someone can get to his age and still believe these things. The reality is, Sanders has made a career on public money. He's never run a business, never had to make payroll, never worried about how he's going to pay his vendors, etc. He has no clue how business works, but he thinks his "theory" will solve these problems.

It is breathtaking how someone his age can still be such an ideologue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Out current POTUS is the real threat to our country, he ran as a friend of the working class, said he'd favor workers' rights over Wall Street et al.. and said ge was going to "drain the swamp".

Trump filled his cabinet with Wall Street billionaires, he did the very opposite of draining the swamp.He took advantage of a country whetein most people are woefully ignorant of what our elected tepresentatives actually represent.

As more and more Trump voters realize Trump does not care about the poor (drastic cuts to meals on wheels and his proposed heathcare bill for starters, even Trump voters are starting to realize they have been bamboozled.

In three paragraphs, you've failed to note what the "threat" that Trump represents actually is.

The man hasn't been president for three months yet. Three months. And yet you listen to folks like Cenk Uygur, radical leftists, tell you how terrible he is?

Let's clear up some confusion on your part:

1. The president does not propose legislation. That is what Congress does, and only Congress can do it. Obamacare would have been more appropriately called PelosiReidcare, but the fact is, it wasn't Trump's "proposed healthcare bill."

2. "Drastic cuts to meals on wheels." Since when has it been the Federal Gov't's responsibility to provide social services to its citizens? The answer is never, and we are living in a post-Constitutional era. The Feds have taken control of massive sectors of the nation, all quite illegally (we call it "unconstitutionally" ), and not at all what the Founders intended.

3. "Trump filled his cabinet with Wall Street billionaires."

So? Does being a "Wall Street billionaire" (whatever THAT means) make someone evil? Does it make them unqualified to serve? Do YOU know what a "Wall Street billionaire" really IS? Besides "they made billions on Wall Street!"...and? What does that mean, with reference to their fitness to serves in the Cabinet? Do you know...?

4. "He said he would drain the swamp." And you think, because he's put "rich people" in his Cabinet, that he's actually FILLING the swamp...? What about the fact that the gov't is now in the hands of political outsiders, rather than the establishment (which consists of both parties)...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Calling Sanders a danger to our country is simply not factually correct.

Venezeula. Cuba. USSR. France. China. These are the people with whom Sanders has the most political agreement, to a lesser or greater extent.

Tell me...who wants to emigrate to those countries from other first world nations...?

People are literally starving in the streets of Venezuela because of the same policies that Bernie Sanders advocates.

You think that's not a danger...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Neither is asserting that his positions, if you look at poll after poll, are shared by the overwhelming majority of people who live in the US.

I've asked you before: which ones? Can you cite one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
He has been on the right side of history for 40+ years.

Only if you're a radical leftist, who thinks authoritarian "redistribution" is the answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Fighting for workers' rights

How's that working in Venezuela...?

What workers' rights have any value when there's nowhere to work?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
...the notion thst universal healthcare is a right for all Americans

Show me that in the Constitution. Where does it say "universal healthcare is a right for all Americans"...?

Do you know whose constitution it DOES show up in...?

"Article 42: Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection.

This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life."

(Constitution of the USSR, 1936.)

https://nintil.com/2016/03/29/the-soviet-union-healthcare/

How about these gems:

"Medical treatment must be made available to all classes; hopeless incurables must be remorselessly sterilized."

"...Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are entrusted with the responsibility of extending the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, so that patients who, after a most critical diagnosis, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death "

(Action T-4)

https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
...getting money out of politics...

That's a slogan that has no real meaning. The only way to "get money out of politics" is for no one to ever run for office ever again. Running for office costs money. Ads cost money. Travel costs money. Paperwork costs money. There's no getting around it: so long as people are elected, it will cost money. There's no way to "get money out of politics."

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
civil rights for blacks in the 60's

That was 50 years ago. Great strides were made. But Sanders wants to go backwards, in the "name" of "progress" because he believes, as many leftists do, that the race situation in America is as bad as, or worse than, it was then.

Demonstrably, it's not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
....and civil rights for gays in the 80's and 90's, well before Obama and Clinton....

What civil rights were gay people being "denied" on the basis of their sexuality...? Civil rights, now, not personal freedoms CALLED "civil rights" by people with an agenda.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
and Sanders has changed none of his positions.

That's not a good thing. People are supposed to grow, learn, and get wiser throughout their lives. Saying "I think the same things that I did 40 years ago!" isn't a badge of honor.

The truth is, CAK, I've listened to Sanders and Cenk and Maddow and others, enough to have an honest and informed response to the things they say. I listen to those I disagree with, and understand where they're coming from, whether I agree or not.

Can you say the same...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Honestly, I do not see the point of discussing this any more, on a forum intended for funny books.Out of respect for our host, as well, I am now bowing out...for the final time ☺

You've said that...several times before. Do you mean it this time...?

You can't have it both ways. Either do what you said you were going to do and actually bow out...or continue the discussion. But don't signal your virtue by saying "I'm not going to get into a tit for tat", and then do exactly that.

There's respect in either position. Straddling the fence, not so much.

8 years ago

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids One last thing, I do take you seriously. And I respect your opinions, as well. The same applies to DarthLego. I take you seriously, in that I don't dismiss what you're saying offhand because it's said by you. I don't respect your opinions, because no one's opinions are respect-worthy merely for being opinions. Only the truth is worthy of respect, regardless of where it comes from. Where your opinions line up with truth, I respect that, and where they don't, I don't. And I expect no less in return.
	8 years ago	Post 78 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by Jesse_O I think Steven Finkel from The Comic Mint came up with a great solution for those retailers that don't know what to do with their copies. He just listed his 10 copies together as one lot with 100% going to the anti defamation league. eBay auction link Very interesting. It will be interesting to see how this all falls out.
	8 years ago	Post 79 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 2.01K	2.01K BigRig private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 6
	Im not one to argue over politics or any of that. I will say this and leave it at that... Only from my own personal experiences. All Muslims are not bad people. My neighbors were Muslims in fact. And they were some of the best people Iv meet and I have traveled all over our great country. They were always kind and said hello and asked how our day was every time we saw each other outside. They keep to them self and were the hardest working people I know. They had two jobs, he and his wife both. They just moved to WI this week and I hated to see them go. But when they left they knew our washing machine had just hit the bricks. We left for the weekend on vacation and didnt get to tell them good bye. Instead of taking their washer with them it was on our pourch. With a note saying they wanted to give it to us to use until we got a new one. I thought that was very nice of them. We cant group everyone in a certian class of people. Every religion race whatever has some bad eggs. What the artist did was wrong and honestly if not posted here or in the news now I wouldn't have never have known about it. And no Im not a snowflake.
	8 years ago	Post 80 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 1.96K	1.96K Wolverine private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Marvel has terminated his contract. Lashes and another artist will do issues 4-10 while they look for a permanent replacement
	8 years ago	Post 81 • IP flag post

-Our Odin- Rest in Peace 39.35K	39.35K Jesse_O private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	Quote: Originally Posted by Jesse_O I think Steven Finkel from The Comic Mint came up with a great solution for those retailers that don't know what to do with their copies. He just listed his 10 copies together as one lot with 100% going to the anti defamation league. eBay auction link Already sold!!! $109 donated directly to the Anti-Defamation League!!
	8 years ago	Post 82 • IP flag post

Collector 3.72K	3.72K CopperAgeKids private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids Doc, it is clear that you and I have fundamental disagreements about our country. We agree. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK I am not being unfair or unkind to you when I say that I don't want to go tit for tat with you, on a discussion regarding politics. What does "tit for tat" mean to you? Does it mean an open discussion of disagreements? Why use the phrase "tit for tat", which has a generally negative connotation? I think what I have to say is worth consideration, and far more than a "tit for tat" characterization. Don't you think what you say has value...? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Your statements about Sanders reinforce that even more.It would be unoroductive and a large waste of your time, and mine as well, to go tit for tat on all of these issues. How you choose to spend your time is none of my concern...conversely, how I spend mine is none of yours. It's not a waste of MY time at all...in fact, it's critical to discuss these things, so people are aware of the real differences in ideology, and can choose for themselves where they stand. Nevertheless, you need not believe me...look at the proof around you. Everywhere, and every time, socialism is employed, it destroys people. The USSR. China. Cuba. Venezuela. Brazil. The UK. France. Sweden. The list goes on and on and on. And the excuse is always "oh, THAT socialism wasn't the RIGHT socialism. They just didn't do it correctly. We need THIS kind of socialism, and THEN it will work." And yet, it never has. Ever. And the answer is never "well, ok, that failed the 437 times it's been tried...let's try something different." No, it's always "THOSE people didn't do it RIGHT." At some point, you'd think they'd learn, but they have a vested interest in not knowing. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK I will say that Sanders refers to himself as a democratic socialist and a progressive. Not an "avowed socialist". There is no difference between a "democratic socialist" and a socialist. Yes, I'm aware that Bernie thinks there is...there isn't. "Avowed" simply means he's openly committed to it. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Sanders has held the same positions for the 40+ years he has ran for/held public office. Yes, and it amazes me that someone can get to his age and still believe these things. The reality is, Sanders has made a career on public money. He's never run a business, never had to make payroll, never worried about how he's going to pay his vendors, etc. He has no clue how business works, but he thinks his "theory" will solve these problems. It is breathtaking how someone his age can still be such an ideologue. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Out current POTUS is the real threat to our country, he ran as a friend of the working class, said he'd favor workers' rights over Wall Street et al.. and said ge was going to "drain the swamp". Trump filled his cabinet with Wall Street billionaires, he did the very opposite of draining the swamp.He took advantage of a country whetein most people are woefully ignorant of what our elected tepresentatives actually represent. As more and more Trump voters realize Trump does not care about the poor (drastic cuts to meals on wheels and his proposed heathcare bill for starters, even Trump voters are starting to realize they have been bamboozled. In three paragraphs, you've failed to note what the "threat" that Trump represents actually is. The man hasn't been president for three months yet. Three months. And yet you listen to folks like Cenk Uygur, radical leftists, tell you how terrible he is? Let's clear up some confusion on your part: 1. The president does not propose legislation. That is what Congress does, and only Congress can do it. Obamacare would have been more appropriately called PelosiReidcare, but the fact is, it wasn't Trump's "proposed healthcare bill." 2. "Drastic cuts to meals on wheels." Since when has it been the Federal Gov't's responsibility to provide social services to its citizens? The answer is never, and we are living in a post-Constitutional era. The Feds have taken control of massive sectors of the nation, all quite illegally (we call it "unconstitutionally" ), and not at all what the Founders intended. 3. "Trump filled his cabinet with Wall Street billionaires." So? Does being a "Wall Street billionaire" (whatever THAT means) make someone evil? Does it make them unqualified to serve? Do YOU know what a "Wall Street billionaire" really IS? Besides "they made billions on Wall Street!"...and? What does that mean, with reference to their fitness to serves in the Cabinet? Do you know...? 4. "He said he would drain the swamp." And you think, because he's put "rich people" in his Cabinet, that he's actually FILLING the swamp...? What about the fact that the gov't is now in the hands of political outsiders, rather than the establishment (which consists of both parties)...? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Calling Sanders a danger to our country is simply not factually correct. Venezeula. Cuba. USSR. France. China. These are the people with whom Sanders has the most political agreement, to a lesser or greater extent. Tell me...who wants to emigrate to those countries from other first world nations...? People are literally starving in the streets of Venezuela because of the same policies that Bernie Sanders advocates. You think that's not a danger...? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Neither is asserting that his positions, if you look at poll after poll, are shared by the overwhelming majority of people who live in the US. I've asked you before: which ones? Can you cite one? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK He has been on the right side of history for 40+ years. Only if you're a radical leftist, who thinks authoritarian "redistribution" is the answer. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Fighting for workers' rights How's that working in Venezuela...? What workers' rights have any value when there's nowhere to work? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK ...the notion thst universal healthcare is a right for all Americans Show me that in the Constitution. Where does it say "universal healthcare is a right for all Americans"...? Do you know whose constitution it DOES show up in...? "Article 42: Citizens of the USSR have the right to health protection. This right is ensured by free, qualified medical care provided by state health institutions; by extension of the network of therapeutic and health-building institutions; by the development and improvement of safety and hygiene in industry; by carrying out broad prophylactic measures; by measures to improve the environment; by special care for the health of the rising generation, including prohibition of child labour, excluding the work done by children as part of the school curriculum; and by developing research to prevent and reduce the incidence of disease and ensure citizens a long and active life." (Constitution of the USSR, 1936.) https://nintil.com/2016/03/29/the-soviet-union-healthcare/ How about these gems: "Medical treatment must be made available to all classes; hopeless incurables must be remorselessly sterilized." "...Bouhler and Dr. Brandt are entrusted with the responsibility of extending the authority of physicians, to be designated by name, so that patients who, after a most critical diagnosis, on the basis of human judgment, are considered incurable, can be granted mercy death " (Action T-4) https://www.britannica.com/event/T4-Program Quote: Originally Posted by CAK ...getting money out of politics... That's a slogan that has no real meaning. The only way to "get money out of politics" is for no one to ever run for office ever again. Running for office costs money. Ads cost money. Travel costs money. Paperwork costs money. There's no getting around it: so long as people are elected, it will cost money. There's no way to "get money out of politics." Quote: Originally Posted by CAK civil rights for blacks in the 60's That was 50 years ago. Great strides were made. But Sanders wants to go backwards, in the "name" of "progress" because he believes, as many leftists do, that the race situation in America is as bad as, or worse than, it was then. Demonstrably, it's not. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK ....and civil rights for gays in the 80's and 90's, well before Obama and Clinton.... What civil rights were gay people being "denied" on the basis of their sexuality...? Civil rights, now, not personal freedoms CALLED "civil rights" by people with an agenda. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK and Sanders has changed none of his positions. That's not a good thing. People are supposed to grow, learn, and get wiser throughout their lives. Saying "I think the same things that I did 40 years ago!" isn't a badge of honor. The truth is, CAK, I've listened to Sanders and Cenk and Maddow and others, enough to have an honest and informed response to the things they say. I listen to those I disagree with, and understand where they're coming from, whether I agree or not. Can you say the same...? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Honestly, I do not see the point of discussing this any more, on a forum intended for funny books.Out of respect for our host, as well, I am now bowing out...for the final time ☺ You've said that...several times before. Do you mean it this time...? You can't have it both ways. Either do what you said you were going to do and actually bow out...or continue the discussion. But don't signal your virtue by saying "I'm not going to get into a tit for tat", and then do exactly that. There's respect in either position. Straddling the fence, not so much. My " straddling the fence" is chiefly because you cannot let sleeping dogs lie. I have a pretty solid grasp on how our political system works so really....with all due respect... your 3 point breakdown is just ....well, too damn much. I'll just pass on addressing your point by counter point arguement....someone who thinks Trump "has only had 3 months in office"....his first week was plenty.He is as corrupt as he is dangerous. ....and then someone goes on to suggest that his cabinet picks are not riddled with conflicts of interest while insulting my understanding of US economics in the very same sentence? How can I be expected to debate you, after these comments you have made...and why would it not be a waste of time? Again, this is a comic book forum. Again, these are rhetorical questions. But to answr/address 2 of your questions/requests. Polling references WRT the majority of Americans being aligned with Sanders' platform can be found , linked, in the article below. http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/americans-overwhelmingly-support-bernie-sanders-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/ Sanders' positions are not radical. to call him a "radical leftist", neither are Cenk's. WRT , getting money out of politics....it should be clear that I am referring to super pac's i.e. dark money. Sanders campaign was run solely on the contributitions of individuals. He had no Super PAC's, unlike Clinton and Trump. The formation of Citizens United was bad enough, the legislation for its' genesis occured in 1978 with a Supreme Court decision, which I am sure you are aware of. Justicedemocrats.com.....no super PAC donation allowed. That, and moreso the fact that the Sanders campaign got to the point that it reached is proof positive that dark money can be taken out of politics. Cheers.
	8 years ago	Post 83 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	You can't say you're done, CAK, if you keep responding. Pick one.
	8 years ago	Post 84 • IP flag post

Collector 3.72K	3.72K CopperAgeKids private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	I am done. Have a good night.
	8 years ago	Post 85 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	@DocBrown that was awesome
	8 years ago	Post 86 • IP flag post

Collector

16.89K

DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids

My " straddling the fence" is chiefly because you cannot let sleeping dogs lie.

"Let sleeping dogs lie"...? In other words "I, CAK, can say what I'd like, but you better not respond!"

Isn't that a tad presumptuous...?

Your words, from a post further up:

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Honestly, I do not see the point of discussing this any more, on a forum intended for funny books.Out of respect for our host, as well, I am now bowing out...for the final time.

Lots of unsettling implications in that paragraph, but the main one was "...for the final time"...which proved to NOT BE the "final time."

Like I said, the answer is simple: either engage in the debate, or not. Saying you're "bowing out" multiple times, while simultaneously NOT bowing out, means you don't take your word seriously...so why should others? Regardless of issues, either debate, or don't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
I have a pretty solid grasp on how our political system works so really....with all due respect... your 3 point breakdown is just ....well, too damn much.

"With all due respect" is said by people trying to "play nice" when they really mean "you're full of baloney."

If you had a pretty solid grasp on how our political system works, why'd you say Trump proposed a health care bill, which he doesn't have the Constitutional ability to do...?

These aren't tough questions, CAK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
I'll just pass on addressing your point by counter point arguement....someone who thinks Trump "has only had 3 months in office"....his first week was plenty.He is as corrupt as he is dangerous.

More slogans that don't actually answer why you believe these things, but rather attempt to avoid answering these questions.

How is Trump corrupt? Outside of the fact that we are, all of us, corrupt, how is Trump more corrupt than anyone else...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
....and then someone goes on to suggest that his cabinet picks are not riddled with conflicts of interest while insulting my understanding of US economics in the very same sentence?

Such as....?

Your statement here isn't accurate, either. You perform what is common in politics, and reply to something I didn't say. I asked "what about being a Wall St. billionaire A. makes them evil, and B. disqualifies them from serving in the cabinet?"

I did NOT say there were no conflicts of interest. There are ALWAYS conflicts of interest. John Kerry, former Secretary of State, damn near committed treason when he lied under oath about his activities in Vietnam in 1971 before Congress. He still became Secretary of State.

And how was your understanding of US economics insulted...? Asking if you know, when your responses indicate you might not, is a question, not an insult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
How can I be expected to debate you, after these comments you have made...and why would it not be a waste of time?

What, like trying to get you to make specific answers to specific questions? You're like the guy who throws his arms up in mock disgust, and says "I can't work with these people!" because he doesn't want to do his job.

Clearly, it hasn't been a waste of your time thus far, or you wouldn't keep responding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Again, this is a comic book forum.

So? What does the venue have to do with this discussion? Are comic books too "low brow" to discuss serious issues?

I've noticed an immense lift in the overall level of discourse here in the last month or so, and that's because this kind of discussion is allowed...provided it doesn't get personal, and it doesn't need to. People are discussing serious topics...and goofy ones....but it's not just goofy ones anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Again, these are rhetorical questions.

But to answr/address 2 of your questions/requests.

Polling references WRT the majority of Americans being aligned with Sanders' platform can be found , linked, in the article below.

http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/americans-overwhelmingly-support-bernie-sanders-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/

Salon is a decidedly leftist website, so yes, they're going to slant the argument that way. The single greatest problem with polls is that they can easily be led anywhere the pollsters, and subsequent interpreters, want to go.

Examples:

Pollster: "Are you in favor of affordable health care for all people?"

Simple question, right? Who would be opposed to that? Bernie's in favor of it, I'm in favor of it, I imagine you're in favor of it.

We all agree! Huzzah!

But when the question is broken down, and the details discussed, now we diverge. After all...what does "affordable" mean? What does "health care" mean? Should everyone be able to "afford" whatever medical care they desire, even elective surgery? Should I have to pay for your poor life choices? Should you have to pay for mine?

It means something different to me than it does to Bernie Sanders, or you, or everyone else. So, saying "most Americans agree with Sanders!" 1. doesn't mean anything when questions are so broad that anyone would agree with him in principle, and 2. isn't true when you get to the details about how to implement these things.

Here's a great article on the weaknesses of polling:

http://www.charneyresearch.com/resources/the-top-10-ways-to-get-misleading-poll-results/

Also...most people aren't educated, and ALWAYS believe they're paying too much, while everyone else isn't paying enough. What happens when the entitlements...Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid...actually run out of real money? Then what happens? Greece? Spain?

Venezuela...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Sanders' positions are not radical. to call him a "radical leftist", neither are Cenk's.

So you say. The fact that you think a self-described socialist...the very definition of radical leftism...is NOT a radical leftist really shows that you either don't understand what "socialism" and "radical leftism" mean, or you're being dishonest to advance an agenda.

If a socialist isn't the radical left...what is?

Instead of denying it, you ought to embrace it. Bernie has.

Bernie Sanders was a member of the Liberty Union Party from 1971 to 1977, a radical leftist party.

Since you say Bernie hasn't changed his positions in 40 years, then he still believes in the LUP's principles, right...?

Co-Founder of the LUP Peter Diamondstone (doesn't that sound like a Bond villian's name? Super cool!):

"nationhood is an artificial concept."

And:

"patriotism is a defense mechanism"

...that, and more, radical leftist ideologies.

http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/vermonts-third-party-no-longer-just-a-fan-club/Content?oid=2434161

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK

WRT , getting money out of politics....it should be clear that I am referring to super pac's i.e. dark money.

It wasn't clear from your initial statement, so thanks for the clarification. Super PACs should be free, as everyone else is, to support or oppose anyone and anything they like.

It is a violation of free speech to limit what and how individuals can donate to causes and candidates they support.

McCain is a dunce on this issue, as in so many others.

https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/13/campaign-finance-40-years-later-23/limits-on-giving-and-spending-violate-the-first-amendment

This is an opinion piece that appeared in the NY Times...no bastion of conservatism...and watch how he is eviscerated in the comments section.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Sanders campaign was run solely on the contributitions of individuals.

Does that make his campaign more virtuous...? The implication you're making is a resounding "YES!"

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
He had no Super PAC's, unlike Clinton and Trump.

The formation of Citizens United was bad enough, the legislation for its' genesis occured in 1978 with a Supreme Court decision, which I am sure you are aware of.

Justicedemocrats.com.....no super PAC donation allowed.

That, and moreso the fact that the Sanders campaign got to the point that it reached is proof positive that dark money can be taken out of politics.

Cheers.

"Dark money" is YOUR characterization (or, probably more accurately, Uygur's), and is not an accurate characterization of Super PAC money.

I'll ask again: who have you watched/listened to with viewpoints you oppose, to form a balanced and measured response to those with whom you disagree...?

8 years ago

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1
	This is my new favorite thread!
	8 years ago	Post 88 • IP flag post

Collector* 10.54K	10.54K Towmater private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 2
	Quote: Originally Posted by DocBrown Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids My " straddling the fence" is chiefly because you cannot let sleeping dogs lie. "Let sleeping dogs lie"...? In other words "I, CAK, can say what I'd like, but you better not respond!" Isn't that a tad presumptuous...? Your words, from a post further up: Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Honestly, I do not see the point of discussing this any more, on a forum intended for funny books.Out of respect for our host, as well, I am now bowing out...for the final time. Lots of unsettling implications in that paragraph, but the main one was "...for the final time"...which proved to NOT BE the "final time." Like I said, the answer is simple: either engage in the debate, or not. Saying you're "bowing out" multiple times, while simultaneously NOT bowing out, means you don't take your word seriously...so why should others? Regardless of issues, either debate, or don't. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK I have a pretty solid grasp on how our political system works so really....with all due respect... your 3 point breakdown is just ....well, too damn much. "With all due respect" is said by people trying to "play nice" when they really mean "you're full of baloney." If you had a pretty solid grasp on how our political system works, why'd you say Trump proposed a health care bill, which he doesn't have the Constitutional ability to do...? These aren't tough questions, CAK. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK I'll just pass on addressing your point by counter point arguement....someone who thinks Trump "has only had 3 months in office"....his first week was plenty.He is as corrupt as he is dangerous. More slogans that don't actually answer why you believe these things, but rather attempt to avoid answering these questions. How is Trump corrupt? Outside of the fact that we are, all of us, corrupt, how is Trump more corrupt than anyone else...? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK ....and then someone goes on to suggest that his cabinet picks are not riddled with conflicts of interest while insulting my understanding of US economics in the very same sentence? Such as....? Your statement here isn't accurate, either. You perform what is common in politics, and reply to something I didn't say. I asked "what about being a Wall St. billionaire A. makes them evil, and B. disqualifies them from serving in the cabinet?" I did NOT say there were no conflicts of interest. There are ALWAYS conflicts of interest. John Kerry, former Secretary of State, damn near committed treason when he lied under oath about his activities in Vietnam in 1971 before Congress. He still became Secretary of State. And how was your understanding of US economics insulted...? Asking if you know, when your responses indicate you might not, is a question, not an insult. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK How can I be expected to debate you, after these comments you have made...and why would it not be a waste of time? What, like trying to get you to make specific answers to specific questions? You're like the guy who throws his arms up in mock disgust, and says "I can't work with these people!" because he doesn't want to do his job. Clearly, it hasn't been a waste of your time thus far, or you wouldn't keep responding. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Again, this is a comic book forum. So? What does the venue have to do with this discussion? Are comic books too "low brow" to discuss serious issues? I've noticed an immense lift in the overall level of discourse here in the last month or so, and that's because this kind of discussion is allowed...provided it doesn't get personal, and it doesn't need to. People are discussing serious topics...and goofy ones....but it's not just goofy ones anymore. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Again, these are rhetorical questions. But to answr/address 2 of your questions/requests. Polling references WRT the majority of Americans being aligned with Sanders' platform can be found , linked, in the article below. http://www.salon.com/2017/01/14/americans-overwhelmingly-support-bernie-sanders-economic-policies-so-howd-we-end-up-here/ Salon is a decidedly leftist website, so yes, they're going to slant the argument that way. The single greatest problem with polls is that they can easily be led anywhere the pollsters, and subsequent interpreters, want to go. Examples: Pollster: "Are you in favor of affordable health care for all people?" Simple question, right? Who would be opposed to that? Bernie's in favor of it, I'm in favor of it, I imagine you're in favor of it. We all agree! Huzzah! But when the question is broken down, and the details discussed, now we diverge. After all...what does "affordable" mean? What does "health care" mean? Should everyone be able to "afford" whatever medical care they desire, even elective surgery? Should I have to pay for your poor life choices? Should you have to pay for mine? It means something different to me than it does to Bernie Sanders, or you, or everyone else. So, saying "most Americans agree with Sanders!" 1. doesn't mean anything when questions are so broad that anyone would agree with him in principle, and 2. isn't true when you get to the details about how to implement these things. Here's a great article on the weaknesses of polling: http://www.charneyresearch.com/resources/the-top-10-ways-to-get-misleading-poll-results/ Also...most people aren't educated, and ALWAYS believe they're paying too much, while everyone else isn't paying enough. What happens when the entitlements...Medicare, Social Security, and Medicaid...actually run out of real money? Then what happens? Greece? Spain? Venezuela...? Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Sanders' positions are not radical. to call him a "radical leftist", neither are Cenk's. So you say. The fact that you think a self-described socialist...the very definition of radical leftism...is NOT a radical leftist really shows that you either don't understand what "socialism" and "radical leftism" mean, or you're being dishonest to advance an agenda. If a socialist isn't the radical left...what is? Instead of denying it, you ought to embrace it. Bernie has. Bernie Sanders was a member of the Liberty Union Party from 1971 to 1977, a radical leftist party. Since you say Bernie hasn't changed his positions in 40 years, then he still believes in the LUP's principles, right...? Co-Founder of the LUP Peter Diamondstone (doesn't that sound like a Bond villian's name? Super cool!): "nationhood is an artificial concept." And: "patriotism is a defense mechanism" ...that, and more, radical leftist ideologies. http://www.sevendaysvt.com/vermont/vermonts-third-party-no-longer-just-a-fan-club/Content?oid=2434161 Quote: Originally Posted by CAK WRT , getting money out of politics....it should be clear that I am referring to super pac's i.e. dark money. It wasn't clear from your initial statement, so thanks for the clarification. Super PACs should be free, as everyone else is, to support or oppose anyone and anything they like. It is a violation of free speech to limit what and how individuals can donate to causes and candidates they support. McCain is a dunce on this issue, as in so many others. https://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/13/campaign-finance-40-years-later-23/limits-on-giving-and-spending-violate-the-first-amendment This is an opinion piece that appeared in the NY Times...no bastion of conservatism...and watch how he is eviscerated in the comments section. Quote: Originally Posted by CAK Sanders campaign was run solely on the contributitions of individuals. Does that make his campaign more virtuous...? The implication you're making is a resounding "YES!" Quote: Originally Posted by CAK He had no Super PAC's, unlike Clinton and Trump. The formation of Citizens United was bad enough, the legislation for its' genesis occured in 1978 with a Supreme Court decision, which I am sure you are aware of. Justicedemocrats.com.....no super PAC donation allowed. That, and moreso the fact that the Sanders campaign got to the point that it reached is proof positive that dark money can be taken out of politics. Cheers. "Dark money" is YOUR characterization (or, probably more accurately, Uygur's), and is not an accurate characterization of Super PAC money. I'll ask again: who have you watched/listened to with viewpoints you oppose, to form a balanced and measured response to those with whom you disagree...? tl;dr
	8 years ago	Post 89 • IP flag post

Collector 15.6K	15.6K BrianGreensnips private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 2
	Quote: Originally Posted by BigRig Im not one to argue over politics or any of that. I will say this and leave it at that... Only from my own personal experiences. All Muslims are not bad people. My neighbors were Muslims in fact. And they were some of the best people Iv meet and I have traveled all over our great country. They were always kind and said hello and asked how our day was every time we saw each other outside. They keep to them self and were the hardest working people I know. They had two jobs, he and his wife both. They just moved to WI this week and I hated to see them go. But when they left they knew our washing machine had just hit the bricks. We left for the weekend on vacation and didnt get to tell them good bye. Instead of taking their washer with them it was on our pourch. With a note saying they wanted to give it to us to use until we got a new one. I thought that was very nice of them. We cant group everyone in a certian class of people. Every religion race whatever has some bad eggs. What the artist did was wrong and honestly if not posted here or in the news now I wouldn't have never have known about it. And no Im not a snowflake. That was very nice of them to leave you their washer. It feels good to help others in need and to also receive a blessing once in awhile, especially when it is not expected. It give me hope for the world.
	8 years ago	Post 90 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 3.77K	3.77K Foghorn_Sam private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 4
	I want the same health care plan that our elected politicians get (for life at virtually no cost to them at taxpayers expense). It must be nice for our politicians to try to come up with a health care plan for everyone else that they themselves are exempt from having to participate in. Just sayin'.
	8 years ago	Post 91 • IP flag post

Collector 3.72K	3.72K CopperAgeKids private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 4
	DocBrown, My point with the whole, a CBCS hosted comic book forum (or any comic forum) really is not the place to discuss politics. Just because the CBCS mods have seemed to let political tinged posts stand lately, that does not mean either of us, should engage in back and forth political discussion. The two, actually three, reasons I see for not engaging with you on a debate over politics on a comic bosrd are as follows: One: Nothing productive will come out of a back and forth discussion between two people talking about political issues on a comic book forum.Political activism is not related to comics, at all.People should hear opposing perspectives. That is the point of political activism i.e. protesting and volunteering your time for the causes you believe in. Which I actually do, that time is well spent and productive. Which brings me to... Two: Discussion of politics and religion can alienate customers, and often does.I do not sell comics for a living but that is besides the point.It is certainly a business for me and talking politics in the presence of comic collectors/buyers is not good business sense.This is also related to Point One (directly above) as it is actually counterproductive towards time management as well. Hell, half of my closest personal friends are conservatives.I have nothing against Republicans. ....which brings me to ..... Three Factor in points one and two, as detailed above, and add them in with you implying or even outright saying that I am parroting words from Cenk Uygur and Bernie Sanders, with no understanding of their meaning....and asking me questions which you have to know, that I know.....is not only insulting but your condescending is really just ....well, it is condescending. Yup, that's the word I was looking for. Condescending. That said, I don't take all of this personally.I know better than to get charged up over the lot of this back and forth with you. As I am sure you likely do, as well. Cheers, mate.
	8 years ago	Post 92 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 3
	You seemed fine discussing politics when you were presenting you own liberal opinions. When someone began shooting holes in your whole ideology, it suddenly becomes the wrong venue for a discussion.
	8 years ago	Post 93 • IP flag post

Collector 3.72K	3.72K CopperAgeKids private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Darth, that is incorrect. The post I initially put forth in this thread were in regards to the racism, this thread is based on. When the talk veered into politics, as the two topics are virtually intertwined, I THEN posted that this forum is not a proper venue to discuss politics. DocBrown ahot a sum total of zero holes in my "liberal ideology". But if you want to believe that to be the case, so be it.
	8 years ago	Post 94 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 20.52K	20.52K DarthLego private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids DocBrown ahot a sum total of zero holes in my "liberal ideology".
	8 years ago	Post 95 • IP flag post

COLLECTOR 2.01K	2.01K BigRig private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 1

	8 years ago	Post 96 • IP flag post

Collector 16.89K	16.89K DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user	plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0
	Quote: Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids Darth, that is incorrect. The post I initially put forth in this thread were in regards to the racism, this thread is based on. When the talk veered into politics, as the two topics are virtually intertwined, I THEN posted that this forum is not a proper venue to discuss politics. DocBrown ahot a sum total of zero holes in my "liberal ideology". But if you want to believe that to be the case, so be it. DarthLego's point is completely valid. You're perfectly fine with telling everyone how appropriate and correct your ideology is, but if someone challenges it and you, you make it personal, accusing them of being "condescending" and "insulting." Asking you legitimate questions that you refuse to answer is neither condescending nor insulting. You make claims that are demonstrably inaccurate, then become offended that someone would correct you, while doing the very thing you're complaining about. You're not interested in an honest debate. You're not interested in the exchange of ideas. You're only interested in telling people what you believe, and then pretending that you haven't done so, by saying "this isn't the place for the discussion" while simultaneously...ya know...discussing it. You cannot have it both ways. You said you were done discussing this no less than FOUR separate times, yet you continue to post, in direct contradiction of yourself. Why? Virtue signaling: you want to give the impression that you're "above all this petty arguing", and that you're "showing respect" for our hosts, while reserving the right to continue arguing. That's not honest, and if you're going to post your opinions, you should be prepared for people to disagree, and to say why. If you're going to become upset about what people say about your opinions, you ought to refrain from posting your comments about these subjects entirely.
	8 years ago	Post 97 • IP flag post

Collector

16.89K

DocBrown private msg quote post Address this user

plus 1 plus 1 plus 1 0

Quote:

Originally Posted by CopperAgeKids
DocBrown,

My point with the whole, a CBCS hosted comic book forum (or any comic forum) really is not the place to discuss politics.

According to whom...?

If CBCS allows this conversation...and clearly they do, at least up to this point...who is anyone who is NOT CBCS to say what is, and what is not, "the place" to discuss a particular subject?

It's presumptuous. You don't speak for CBCS. Neither do I. No rancor there, just stating what is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK

Just because the CBCS mods have seemed to let political tinged posts stand lately, that does not mean either of us, should engage in back and forth political discussion.[

That is YOUR opinion. Others do not share that opinion. The only opinions about it that matter are CBCS'.

But...and this is critical to understand, especially in your case: if you're going to say, over and over, "this isn't the place to discuss this subject", then you ought to entirely, completely, and totally refrain from discussing it, at any level, in any depth, at all.

If it's not appropriate, in your opinion, then you ought to abide by your opinion and not discuss it at all, rather than doing what you have been doing, which is talking about it, while pretending not to talk about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
The two, actually three, reasons I see for not engaging with you on a debate over politics on a comic bosrd are as follows:

One:

Nothing productive will come out of a back and forth discussion between two people talking about political issues on a comic book forum.

Your opinion. Others disagree. I think many productive things come out of these discussions.

Think about this: if you think "nothing productive" can come from these discussions, if you aren't open to the possibility that someone could say something that might get you to reconsider what you believe...

...isn't that the definition of "closed-minded"...?

I think so.

I'm not trying to trap you, CAK, or play "gotcha!"...these are legitimate questions I'm asking you, and I'm hoping for some honest answers.

You also still have not explained what's wrong with "comic book forums" that they can't be used to discuss serious issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Political activism is not related to comics, at all.People should hear opposing perspectives.

Comic books are an art form. Art forms have been used to express political ideas and concepts for millenia.

"Art imitates life."

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
That is the point of political activism i.e. protesting and volunteering your time for the causes you believe in.

Which I actually do, that time is well spent and productive.

I completely and totally and utterly disagree that your time is well spent and productive advancing the issues you say you believe in, but that's neither here nor there. YOU believe they are, and that's what matters to you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Which brings me to...

Two:

Discussion of politics and religion can alienate customers, and often does.I do not sell comics for a living but that is besides the point.It is certainly a business for me and talking politics in the presence of comic collectors/buyers is not good business sense.This is also related to Point One (directly above) as it is actually counterproductive towards time management as well.

If it were "counterproductive to time management"...why do you keep taking your time to post about it...?

Indeed, political and religious discussions can alienate customers. So will telling people the truth. How many customers have I lost by not playing the social game with people, telling them the truth, rather than what they want to hear...?

More than one, for sure.

My principles are worth more than my sales.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
Hell, half of my closest personal friends are conservatives.I have nothing against Republicans.

Point of order: "conservative" and "Republican" are decidedly NOT the same thing.

Back to the discussion...

I'm not sure what "I have (blank) friends" proves about anyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
....which brings me to .....

Three

Factor in points one and two, as detailed above, and add them in with you implying or even outright saying that I am parroting words from Cenk Uygur and Bernie Sanders, with no understanding of their meaning

Nope. Not what I said nor implied.

If you inferred that, you are mistaken.

If you directly answered my direct questions, we could work out why you think that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
....and asking me questions which you have to know, that I know.....is not only insulting but your condescending is really just ....well, it is condescending.

Yup, that's the word I was looking for.

Condescending.

Your opinion. I think saying "you're done" with the conversation no less than four different times, while continuing to post about the topic, is insulting and condescending to everyone reading this thread. I think that being closed-minded, while pretending otherwise, is insulting and condescending. I think saying "this is a comic book forum", as if comics aren't worthy of tackling serious issues, is insulting and condescending.

But I don't make an issue of those things, because there are things to be learned, here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
That said, I don't take all of this personally.I know better than to get charged up over the lot of this back and forth with you.

And yet...you reply in a manner which suggests you HAVE taken all of this personally. Maybe I'm inferring something you have neither stated nor implied. I'm willing to reconsider. Are you...?

Quote:

Originally Posted by CAK
As I am sure you likely do, as well.

Cheers, mate.

I deal with ideologues on a regular basis. I understand why they are ideologues, and I don't condemn them for it. But, if there exists any chance to speak truth to ideology, I'll take it...knowing that the ideologue isn't the one whose positions will be most influenced.

This is a good discussion. I hope people can take something productive from it. I know I have.

8 years ago

638526 98 23

« Forum Home

Pages:

1 2 3 4

Thread locked. No more posts permitted. Return home.