IT.COM
Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Who is to Blame for the Troubled US Economy?

  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.
  • Both Parties

    268 
    votes
    44.7%
  • Neither Party

    57 
    votes
    9.5%
  • Democrats

    134 
    votes
    22.3%
  • Republicans

    141 
    votes
    23.5%
  • This poll is still running and the standings may change.

Impact
8,557
Here you can spout your USA political views.

Rules:
1. Keep it clean
2. No fighting
3. Respect the views of others.
4. US Political views, No Religious views
5. Have fun :)

:wave:
 
8
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
After reading comments in this thread, I am more certain than ever that Trump will remain for another four years.
 
2
•••
I am more certain than ever that Trump will remain for another four years.

If it happens, there will be lots of:

tenor (1).gif


Followed by higher voter turnout outs by the younger generation in future elections.

To ensure, this two party lobbyist-dominant political atrocity doesn't continue.
 
0
•••
Followed by higher voter turnout outs by the younger generation in future elections.
I am optimistic of the younger generation. I believe the younger generation is figuring out the fake propaganda that the main stream media and liberal professors are promoting. The majority of the younger generation doesn't want an expansive and overwhelming government dictating to them, as our founding fathers were no different.
 
1
•••
2
•••
2
•••
2
•••
1
•••
0
•••
2
•••
The mainstream media is our enemy. That’s undeniable; to deny it is to deny what we see and hear with our own eyes and ears every day. Don’t be a “the media is garbage” denier. It would be like denying climate change if climate change was a real thing instead of a media-driven scam designed to take your money and freedom.

https://townhall.com/columnists/kur...a-is-lying-garbage-but-you-knew-that-n2545860
 
2
•••
Examples of the worst things they have promoted would be?
Well for one they have promoted socialism, and to some extent Marxism. While doing so they promote evil dictators as "revolutionary" and good for common people such as Che.
 
2
•••
I blocked JB.

No you didn't, I took apart that lie earlier in the thread.

I don’t think so, the year of the Lord doesnt coincide with other religions.


“First, consider the meaning of the First Amendment to the Constitution: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....” We have been told that, by “establishment of religion,” the Framers meant for the government to maintain complete religious neutrality and that pluralism ought to prevail, i.e., that all religions (whether Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, or Hinduism), though equally tolerated, must not be given any acknowledgement in the public sector. But such an outlandish claim is absolutely false. All one has to do is to go directly to the delegate discussions pertaining to the wording of the First Amendment in order to ascertain the context and original intent of the final wording (Annals of Congress, 1789, pp. 440ff.). The facts of the matter are that by their use of the term “religion,” the Framers had in mind the several Protestant denominations. Their concern was to prevent any single Christian denomination from being elevated above the others and made the State religion—a circumstance that the Founders had endured under British rule when the Anglican Church was the state religion of the thirteen colonies. They further sought to leave the individual States free to make their own determinations with regard to religious (i.e., Christian) matters (cf. Story, 1833, 3.1873:730-731). The “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, actually proposed the following wording for the First Amendment, which demonstrates the context of their wording:

[A]ll men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of Christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others (as quoted in Rowland, 1892, 1:244, emp. added).

By “prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” the Framers intended to convey that the federal government was not to interfere with the free and public practice of the Christian religion—the very thing that the courts have been doing since the 1960s.

Second, consider the wording of a sentence from Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution: “If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it....” “Sundays excepted”? The government shuts down and does not transact business on Sunday? Why? If this provision had been made in respect of Jews, the Constitution would have read “Saturdays excepted.” If provision had been made for Muslims, the Constitution would have read “Fridays excepted.” If the Founders had intended to encourage a day of inactivity for the government without regard to any one religion, they could have chosen Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday. Instead, the federal Constitution reads “Sundays excepted”—proving conclusively that America was Christian in its orientation and that the Framers themselves shared the Christian worldview and gave political recognition to and accommodation of that fact.

Third, if these two allusions to Christianity are not enough, consider yet another. Immediately after Article VII, the Constitution closes with the following words:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth....

Did you catch it? Their work was done “in the Year of our Lord.” The Christian world dates all of human history in terms of the birth of Christ. “B.C.” means “before Christ,” and “A.D.” is the abbreviation for the Latin words “anno Domini,” meaning “year of our Lord.” If the Framers were interested in being pluralistic, multi-cultural, and politically correct, they would have refrained from using the B.C./A.D. designation. Or they would have used the religionless designations “C.E.,” Common Era, and “B.C.E.,” Before the Common Era (see “Common Era,” 2008). In so doing, they would have avoided offending Jews, atheists, agnostics, and humanists. Or they could have used “A.H.” (anno hegirae—which means “in the year of the Hijrah” and refers to Muhammad’s flight from Mecca in A.D. 622), the date used by Muslims as the commencement date for the Islamic calendar. Instead, the Framers chose to utilize the dating method that indicated the worldview they shared. What’s more, their reference to “our Lord” does not refer to a generic deity, nor does it refer even to God the Father. It refers to God the Son—an explicit reference to Jesus Christ. Make no mistake: the Constitution of the United States contains an explicit reference to Jesus Christ—not Allah, Buddha, Muhammad, nor the gods of Hindus or Native Americans!

Let’s get this straight: The Declaration of Independence contains four allusions to the God of the Bible. The U.S. Constitution contains allusions to the freedom to practice the Christian religion unimpeded, the significance and priority of Sunday worship, as well as the place of Jesus Christ in history. So, according to the thinking of the ACLU and a host of liberal educators, politicians, and judges, the Constitution is—unconstitutional! Go figure.”


http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=2556

Yeah, I figured I would get a lot of Christian Revisionist replies. I can directly quote a Treaty, the founders, the Constitution itself and Christians would try to debate it, tell me they really didn't mean to say that etc.

"Respect for religious pluralism gradually became the norm. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.

While some of the country's founders believed that the government should espouse Christianity, that viewpoint soon became a losing proposition. In Virginia, Patrick Henry argued in favor of tax support for Christian churches. But Henry and his cohorts were in the minority and lost that battle. Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among the state's religious groups ended Virginia's established church and helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law guaranteeing religious freedom to all."

-----
This was nice of Julie Anni

Rudy Giuliani Cancels His Trip to Ukraine, Blaming Democrats’ ‘Spin

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-blaming-democrats-spin/ar-AABdq9x?li=BBnb7Kz
 
Last edited:
2
•••
1
•••
Yeah, I figured I would get a lot of Christian Revisionist replies. I can directly quote a Treaty, the founders, the Constitution itself and Christians would try to debate it, tell me they really didn't mean to say that etc.

"Respect for religious pluralism gradually became the norm. When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, for example, he spoke of "unalienable rights endowed by our Creator." He used generic religious language that all religious groups of the day would respond to, not narrowly Christian language traditionally employed by nations with state churches.

While some of the country's founders believed that the government should espouse Christianity, that viewpoint soon became a losing proposition. In Virginia, Patrick Henry argued in favor of tax support for Christian churches. But Henry and his cohorts were in the minority and lost that battle. Jefferson, James Madison and their allies among the state's religious groups ended Virginia's established church and helped pass the Virginia Statute for Religious Liberty, a 1786 law guaranteeing religious freedom to all."

-----
This was nice of Julie Anni

Rudy Giuliani Cancels His Trip to Ukraine, Blaming Democrats’ ‘Spin

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/poli...-blaming-democrats-spin/ar-AABdq9x?li=BBnb7Kz
Why are you so offended that the founding fathers were Christian?

When you are offended to the point of trying to re-write history, it's safe to say you should lay off the history books. True history doesn't mold to fit an agenda, it is what it is.
 
1
•••
Why are you so offended that the founding fathers were Christian?

When you are offended to the point of trying to re-write history, it's safe to say you should lay off the history books. True history doesn't mold to fit an agenda, it is what it is.

You again. Where do you see I'm offended? I'm just stating reality, which seems to offend you. Not once did I say some of them weren't Christian. You can still be Christian and understand what America is supposed to be about. What you quoted isn't rewriting of history, it's actual history. Something you seem to fail at.

Of course some of the same people want to keep Evolution from being taught in schools but want Creation taught instead.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Trump has promoted dictator-type figures many times......

He is the one full of propaganda bullshit, don't you love it

Bet you just think he's "telling it like it is"
 
1
•••
1
•••
Trump has promoted dictator-type figures many times......

He is the one full of propaganda bullsh*t, don't you love it

Bet you just think he's "telling it like it is"
You will find that Trump's policies are far from a dictatorship. The proof is in the policies. You are most likely referring to him meeting dictators and the photos ensuing. Well, the one thing you wont find is him bowing to terrorist governments as Obama did.
 
0
•••
The majority of the younger generation doesn't want an expansive and overwhelming government dictating to them, as our founding fathers were no different.

Agreed.

Thus the absurdity for a government to try to dictate what a woman can and can't do with her body.

I feel, with declining faith in religion and the traditional sense of family, the value of pro-choice will supercede any pro-life government dictatorship.

Though, I am optimistic, that future advancements, and the care for single mothers, and struggling families (or whomever is most at risk) will reach a moral point to comfortably decide against abortion. But, again, that's their choice. And it's to be respected. Even if the smartest man in the world and the smartest world were to get pregnant?

Which would be a wild case to bring up to the supreme court. Your honor, the smartest man, and the smartest woman in the world got pregnant. Will you really allow an abortion to proceed thus potentially depriving the world of genetically speaking the smartest human to ever be born?

The man wants to keep the baby. The woman wants an abortion. They are both respectively the smartest people in the world, and they're are at a stale mate. Will the courts force her to do something against her will? Or will they put her in jail, and deprive the world of her genus, for ten years?

Does the verdict differ if both the smartest man, and the smartest woman want an abortion?

If yes, then isn't that ultimately a man saying, have my baby (which was consummated consensually. Doesn't matter if the condom broker. Or if birth control failed) or else the government will jail you for ten years? This, on top of any internal physical and moral trauma a woman might be experiencing post abortion.

Lastly, what happens when the smartest man wants the abortion, but the smartest woman doesn't? Does the smartest man have no say, and is financially on the hook despite his say? Or are there other remedies, such as government stepping up, and saying the father legally signed his rights away, and may be classified as a deadbeat dad, thus the state (or fed) will step up in the absent father's place, to give the child, and mother a fighting chance. And will there be any jail time for the man who wanted the abortion?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Trump once said he wants waterboarding and a "hell of a lot worse than waterboarding"..... and wants to kill terrorist's families
"take out their families"
He's said so many things beyond the pale, and people still want him
'I like people who weren't captured'

It's just "politically incorrect" to be openly pro-torture, isn't it, he is so TOUGH

You will find that Trump's policies are far from a dictatorship. The proof is in the policies. You are most likely referring to him meeting dictators and the photos ensuing. Well, the one thing you wont find is him bowing to terrorist governments as Obama did.
attorney general basically said he is above the law https://www.namepros.com/threads/the-nps-official-usa-political-thread.764342/page-1433#post-7219745
As long as you say you are falsely accused and something appears to 'groundless' to you, you can just 'terminate' it, not corrupt lol
 
0
•••
“The public good be damned”

 
0
•••
1
•••
“The public good be damned”


Here's the thing...

Minds like Rearden come once in a lifetime, which for arguments sake, let's say every 100 years.

They are experts at what they do because they spend every waking moment thinking, perfecting, and innovating.

When you lose him, and his proprietary knowledge, you have to hope he passed it on, for future generations to understand and maintain. For if not, you are dependent upon him.

But in terms of AI, a computer system that can process and connect far more information than any human can process in thousands of lifetimes, (similar to the introduction of machines and the industrial revolution to the manual workforce) it is far beyond being dependent on one man from an intellectual standpoint.

The industrial revolution gave us the muscle.

The technological revolution gave us the connectivity.

And AI gives us the brain.

#HoldOnToYourBritches
 
Last edited:
0
•••
@Grilled Objectivism. Ayn Rand.


If you have Amazon Prime, you should watch Kal Penn's, This beast that is the global economy season 1 episode 4 about AI. There's some other episodes you might enjoy if you can look past the liberalness.

"Kal Penn meets artificial intelligence face-to-interface, and gets an anus-puckering glimpse of how A.I. is learning -- on its own -- how to self-drive the global economy straight into the next industrial revolution. Could you tell if a robot is stealing your job, or even writing this episode description? The answer will definitely surprise you."
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Agreed.

Thus the absurdity for a government to try to dictate what a woman can and can't do with her body.

I feel, with declining faith in religion and the traditional sense of family, the value of pro-choice will supercede any pro-life government dictatorship.

Though, I am optimistic, that future advancements, and the care for single mothers, and struggling families (or whomever is most at risk) will reach a moral point to comfortably decide against abortion. But, again, that's their choice. And it's to be respected. Even if the smartest man in the world and the smartest world were to get pregnant?

Which would be a wild case to bring up to the supreme court. Your honor, the smartest man, and the smartest woman in the world got pregnant. Will you really allow an abortion to proceed thus potentially depriving the world of genetically speaking the smartest human to ever be born?

The man wants to keep the baby. The woman wants an abortion. They are both respectively the smartest people in the world, and they're are at a stale mate. Will the courts force her to do something against her will? Or will they put her in jail, and deprive the world of her genus, for ten years?

Does the verdict differ if both the smartest man, and the smartest woman want an abortion?

If yes, then isn't that ultimately a man saying, have my baby (which was consummated consensually. Doesn't matter if the condom broker. Or if birth control failed) or else the government will jail you for ten years? This, on top of any internal physical and moral trauma a woman might be experiencing post abortion.

Lastly, what happens when the smartest man wants the abortion, but the smartest woman doesn't? Does the smartest man have no say, and is financially on the hook despite his say? Or are there other remedies, such as government stepping up, and saying the father legally signed his rights away, and may be classified as a deadbeat dad, thus the state (or fed) will step up in the absent father's place, to give the child, and mother a fighting chance. And will there be any jail time for the man who wanted the abortion?
No doubt "abortion" is one of the toughest subjects for society due to some of the reasons you listed.
 
1
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back