"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown
You chimed in to make the distinction, I don't much give a shit how it tastes.
No, I bitch about unnecessary and burdensome government. I bitch about shitty laws, shitty regulations, and shitty behavior of our government.
So, those abortion regulations that the conservatives want to put in, does that mean you support those regulations, because you want to make sure corporations have more rules to follow?
Or, are you a corporation sycophant?
Because the other options are...?
No, there is just no perfect candidate. You're never gonna find a candidate that agrees with 100% of what you want.
Right now, those are the rules of the game. If you don't play by them, you're at a disadvantage.
This is like with HR1 and campaign finance reform. It's not sexy, and it's far from perfect, but it's needed. Badly. But it's a hard thing to get through given the political forces at work, and has taken huge efforts from voters in pressuring their Reps/Senators for it. One battle at a time, sadly, and I hope gerrymandering is up soon.
- - - Updated - - -
This kinda absolutist thinking that leaves no room for nuance is why this "discussion" has gone in circles for eternity. That and y'all continually talking past each other rather than to each other.
You know.... not supporting gerrymandering, by not voting for gerrymanderers.
People lie all the time when it comes to issues like that. The only people who really care about gerrymandering, are the losers. But, when they are in charge, their concern diminishes considerable. It's a lot like the budget in that manner.
As for those rules, you made my point for me, the winners have no incentive to change the rules.
- - - Updated - - -
He's the one who just labeled me, I just used his own fucking argument against him.
This all started, because I was opposing a regulation being pushed by a major corporation to tip the competitive playing field.
I tried talking to people, I literally mentioned those regulations to try and find middle ground, go back and check. I was trying to show that compromise can be made, by pointing to very small regulations, and did so for a reason. Do you know what happened? Every fucking so-called progressive jumped in to shit on me, and defend that legislation.
So, if they want to keep that shit up, I can give it right back. Shall we go back and roll the tape when you chimed in to try and pile on?
Here's my two posts where I tried to show compromise and reasonable steps:
Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-13 at 03:13 AM.
You say that as if
A) Gerrymandering is a "single issue" kinda vote and...it ain't.
B) There's ever an anti-gerrymandering candidate who doesn't also come with some other...baggage.
C) There are multiple candidates that put gerrymandering at the center of their platform, or even really address it at all for voters to chose from
Everything in your world is easy, or at least should be. That's not how it is in reality.
Sure, and the same goes for campaign finance reform and electoral reform. But look at Democrats, at least in the House, pushing that shit hard. Because there's pressure. There just needs to be pressure on other issues, one (or two) things at a time.
Except, I'm stating emphatically what I support, and I'm sticking to it.
You fucking called it marketing.
- - - Updated - - -
Which proves my point that people don't actually give a shit about gerrymandering, and it shows why gun control will never be a thing (in my lifetime), no matter how much people swear it's totes a popular issue.
Gerrymandering isn't going to be a federal issue, it will be one solved at the state level. You've made your stance on that quite clear. And, we've seen that the party in power in states, be it Democrat or Republican, has embraced gerrymandering.
The thing is, and why people keep being as exhausted at you as they are, is that what you claim to support will inevitably lead to a world dominated by the mega wealthy and everyone else being defacto indepted persons if not outright slaves.
You can claim to be against that result as much as you want. The policies and world that you argue for would end up there.
That you use a horrid example of regulation used to hurt people to try and counter what is at worst a neutral one doesn't help your case. The Tennesee Whisky law is common I Europe.
Look up Feta Cheese, Parmesan, Parma Ham, Champagne, or lots if other regionally produced produce that has to follow set standards.
What are your opinion on Glass-Steagle? Was that a good harm preventing regulation?
- Lars
So, getting rid of that single regulation will lead to a world dominated by the mega wealthy? That regulation was pushed by a multi-billion-dollar corporation.
So, because of things like that, you won't have my sympathy when the GOP-controlled SCOTUS shreds abortion rights. Now, as much as I detest the attacks on liberty, I'm used to them by now. So, I'll at least be able to enjoy the misery of hypocrites.
What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you asking me where I stand on corporate abortions?
I said I wanted the people in charge of the government instead of corporations. You called that authoritarian, facist and socialism. And since then have been arguing in favor of LESS regulation of corporations so they have more unhindered power to literally do as they please.
And you keep trying to peg everyone else as the corporatist.
It’s batshit fucking cuckoo bird bananas.
Are there a few unnecessary regulations? Yes. But you’re acting like the biggest fucking travesty you can think of is standards for Tennessee whiskey, when right now Amazon workers are forced to shit in bags.
"When Facism comes to America, it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross." - Unknown
And, people will be in charge of the government when they restrict abortions.
I've been arguing in favor of more liberty, the entire time. That hasn't changed. As for the corporatist thing, you guys are the ones supporting the regulations pushed by the major corporation in order to gain a competitive advantage.
No, I was pointing to very small regulations, so as to show middle ground can be found. I picked minor ones on purpose. The fact that you guys were so intractable, shows exactly why people like me won't really give two shits when the GOP seeks to push major ones. After all, if you guys are so unwilling to compromise, why should people like me lift a finger? The liberties being taken away by both parties aren't much different.
- - - Updated - - -
I have long said I enjoy the misery of miserable people.
Guilty as charged.
No, the issue is that I know the difference between what I say, and what you guys think I said.
I pointed to a single piece of legislation that was unnecessary, and being pushed by a major corporation to give itself a competitive advantage, to show that compromise can be found.
I guess there's no room for compromise, which means I shouldn't care when the GOP does this same shit for the things you guys do care about. And yes, you and I both know it's coming, and soon.
Na, you've presented regulations that you thought were a perfect example of corporations pushing regulations that harm the competition. The GMO thing blew up in your face so fast you dropped it like a hot potato. The JD one is the only thing you've got left and that has been established to not harm the competition but protect smaller and larger corporations against the biggest player in the market. You weren't able to produce anything but an article with interviews to back up your claim. You could've shown revenue numbers or profits because enough time has passed but for a very weird reason, you don't want to go there. My guess is you've looked at them and found out that you are entirely wrong and just hope no one else does it so you can use that one regulation as an example for your black/white reasoning that if you aren't against one "unnecessary" regulation you mustn't be against abortion regulations.
But where you are the wrongest any person ever was in the history of being wrong is when you equate healthcare to regular services and even products because most of the time people have very very little choice in what healthcare "service" they can use which should be obvious to everyone that ever had to go to the doctor because of an emergency.
That's why you're a hypocrite. And that's why it's ironic that you preach one thing and constantly argue for the exact opposite while screaming you're against it.
I'm more than willing to talk a out the GMO thing, let's do it.
The dude who is saying it's just marketing saying I'm wrong doesn't make it so. A bunch of hypocritical progressives disagreeing with me doesn't make me wrong.
Do I need to remind you that you called this all marketing?
Oh, and abortion is a service,you really need to learn what words mean.
Last edited by Machismo; 2021-04-13 at 12:25 PM.
Ivanstone already showed them that more distilleries opened that make Tennessee Whiskey since the regulation was passed or that distilleries making said whiskey by said process also have had increased revenue since then. They just ignored those facts and kept taking about this harming people even though everyone knows that all Tennessee Whiskey now has to adhere to the specific Lincoln County distillation and resting method and have at least a majority of corn for it's starch, otherwise its just bourbon. Somehow increased consumer confidence in a specifically labeled product is bad.