"The Wasting of the Evangelical Mind"

jamiche

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 13, 2008
Messages
22,228
Reaction score
2,316
Points
113
Oh yes, we have had so little govt intervention over the past year. Travel banned. People locked in their homes. Businesses forced to close. Everyone forced to wear masks. It’s a wonder all that intervention didn’t work.
That was necessary because Donald's response was ill prepared, inefficient, incompetent, insufficient and ill conceived. Secondly, everything you described was handled in a piecemeal, insufficient, uncoordinated fashion, which is why people are still dying. Finally, Donald's gubmint was insufficiently prepared to distribute the vaccine manufactured by the drug companies.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,577
Reaction score
3,033
Points
113
That was necessary because Donald's response was ill prepared, inefficient, incompetent, insufficient and ill conceived. Secondly, everything you described was handled in a piecemeal, insufficient, uncoordinated fashion, which is why people are still dying. Finally, Donald's gubmint was insufficiently prepared to distribute the vaccine manufactured by the drug companies.
It was ILL!
His response was so bad that Biden’s plan is...exactly the same.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,115
Reaction score
10,613
Points
113
Oh yes, we have had so little govt intervention over the past year. Travel banned. People locked in their homes. Businesses forced to close. Everyone forced to wear masks. It’s a wonder all that intervention didn’t work.
People were locked in their homes?!? Trump was worse than I thought....
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,115
Reaction score
10,613
Points
113
I’ve given extremely detailed explanations of every idea I’ve ever proposed. And I’ve never said what you incorrectly quoted me as saying. One of your favorite lies.
cnc made a very vague statement about how to solve our problems. Listen to facts! Work together! Pithy tropes that are meaningless.
You've never said "I would stamp my feet until my proposals are adopted" but it's an accurate summary of what would happen. For example, your "plan" for marriage equality was to "get rid of marriage." When asked what you would do if Congress won't do that, you have no answer. They must do as you say or nothing. The same black and white logic would crater all your "plans."

CNC made a vague statement but "less government" and "government protects rights" aren't vague?
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
3,541
Points
113
I want the government to protect my right to drive on roads free of congestion.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,577
Reaction score
3,033
Points
113
You've never said "I would stamp my feet until my proposals are adopted" but it's an accurate summary of what would happen. For example, your "plan" for marriage equality was to "get rid of marriage." When asked what you would do if Congress won't do that, you have no answer. They must do as you say or nothing. The same black and white logic would crater all your "plans."

CNC made a vague statement but "less government" and "government protects rights" aren't vague?
My plan was NOT to “eliminate marriage.” It was to get government out of marriage.
And So what?
“Here’s the best proposal that congress should implement”.
“Yeah but if they don’t vote for it, then what!!!”
That’s your comeback?? How idiotic.
Hey we should eliminate Jim Crow or slavery or grant women the right to vote!
What if Congress doesn’t vote for it!? It’s obviously a dumb plan and unrealistic and you have no answer!!
I’m not bound by what is likely to pass in congress or what is popular. I push for what’s the best solution, or the most just course. If it doesn’t happen it doesn’t happen. If enough people agreed with me it would happen. Your position is just stupid.

less government is not vague. Government spends around half the national income, maybe more now? I’d like to see that around 1%. That’s a lot less vague than “listen to facts and cooperate”. What he means is, shut up, listen to experts like me, and we will decide what is best for you.
 

howeda7

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2008
Messages
53,115
Reaction score
10,613
Points
113
I’m not bound by what is likely to pass in congress or what is popular. I push for what’s the best solution, or the most just course.
You don't care what realistic or what can pass. You deal in theory only. And if anyone points that out, you stamp your feet and deflect.

But CnC must provide concrete details or his plans are "too vague."
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,577
Reaction score
3,033
Points
113
You don't care what realistic or what can pass. You deal in theory only. And if anyone points that out, you stamp your feet and deflect.

But CnC must provide concrete details or his plans are "too vague."
At one point it was unrealistic to oppose slavery. A ban wouldn’t have passed. Were emancipation proponents only dealing in theory? According to you yes. They were stamping their feet and deflecting!
We just need to deal in facts and compromise. That’s much less vague than discussing limited government. The basis for American government and the constitution. Vague!!
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,577
Reaction score
3,033
Points
113
Uh, no it isn't. Not even close.
This ought to be good. Please outline the 2-3 major differences
This will be hard, but try to avoid pithy statements like “trust the science”
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
3,541
Points
113
My plan was NOT to “eliminate marriage.” It was to get government out of marriage.
And So what?

You want the government to not acknowledge marriage? That would be quite a boon for lawyers.

If the government grants privledges for marriage, ie inheritance ect then by definition they can't "stay out of marriage". That's just the way it is.
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
7,316
Reaction score
3,541
Points
113
I’m not bound by what is likely to pass in congress or what is popular. I push for what’s the best solution, or the most just course. If it doesn’t happen it doesn’t happen. If enough people agreed with me it would happen.

I agree with you on this...
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,577
Reaction score
3,033
Points
113
You want the government to not acknowledge marriage? That would be quite a boon for lawyers.

If the government grants privledges for marriage, ie inheritance ect then by definition they can't "stay out of marriage". That's just the way it is.
Why should government grant privileges for marriage? Maybe don’t do that. Anyone is free to voluntarily enter into contracts if they want. There is no need for government to sanction marriage.
 

GopherJake

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 21, 2009
Messages
17,902
Reaction score
1,747
Points
113
Why should government grant privileges for marriage? Maybe don’t do that. Anyone is free to voluntarily enter into contracts if they want. There is no need for government to sanction marriage.
As soon as you get that overturned, then we can continue the discussion. Until then, continue to whack off to your Gym Bro video.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
47,577
Reaction score
3,033
Points
113
That's news to everyone in the country but you, apparently.
That’s the impression the MSM gives everyone. The vaccines just became available the last month of Trumps presidency. They’ve made some minor changes to the vaccine rollout. Everything else is pretty much the same. You’re just a sheep.
 

cncmin

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
18,009
Reaction score
2,208
Points
113
Waiting for a breakdown...
Use The Google. Learn. Maybe if you actually read real news and didn't need to be spoonfed readily available news information, you would be appropriately informed and we could have better discussions.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom