Ranting on ignorance.

[ScottP]

Now you are twisting my quotes, as those quotes were intended for other quotes...

What I have said was our government is based on a bi-partisan system.. Which is as close to me saying that "bipartisanship" is a form of government...

But it is NOT "based on a bipartisan system". If fact is was BASED on a NO PARTY system. It was originally intended for officials to run on their own platforms, be judged and elected by their own merits. It was NEVER intended for people to ignore what was going on around them, then on election day to vote for "R" or "D".

What happened is over time, people with like minded goals formed into parties to help back each other to further their own agendas. This is largely WHY we are in the shape we are in.

One final thought. If we had a council of 10 dictators 5 each from two different parties. That would still be a "bipartisan" dictatorship. If we had 2 leaders, one each from two different parties that inherited their position by birthright, that would also be considered bipartisan. As I have said before "bipartisan" ONLY describes the number of political parties involved in the system....NOT the system itself.

 

[Brusky]

But it is NOT "based on a bipartisan system". If fact is was BASED on a NO PARTY system. It was originally intended for officials to run on their own platforms, be judged and elected by their own merits. It was NEVER intended for people to ignore what was going on around them, then on election day to vote for "R" or "D".

What happened is over time, people with like minded goals formed into parties to help back each other to further their own agendas. This is largely WHY we are in the shape we are in.

One final thought. If we had a council of 10 dictators 5 each from two different parties. That would still be a "bipartisan" dictatorship. If we had 2 leaders, one each from two different parties that inherited their position by birthright, that would also be considered bipartisan. As I have said before "bipartisan" ONLY describes the number of political parties involved in the system....NOT the system itself.

America has always had partisan polarization of elected officials to work towards bipartisan agreements.. Most recent? debt ceiling..

 

[BillyWJ]

ok.. I already told you I never said bipartisanship is a form of government.

When I said it was I wanted you to tell me why it is not..

Do you know what our government is? Democracy? Republic?
Lets say we are a republic. How is a republican government ran? The people? Who protects the people from the government? The law?

Is america not on bipartisan consensus? Where bipartisanship formulates policies?

Bipartisanship is not a consensus, it's a situation. The Dems and Repubs have NEVER sat down and agreed to a two part system, and our Federal Republic is not an official two party system - we have more than two parties, but the smaller ones don't get their candidates elected to the more prominent offices, like the Tea Party, or the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party.

Laws can be crafted and voted on in a bipartisan fashion, but it is not an official standing in any way, and in the majority of votes these days, it's all done along party lines with very little true bipartisanship happening.

I think you've assigned far too much value to the word, when it's just a description of a government with two dominant parties among many. The press and politicians like to make a lot of noise with the word, but it is just that - noise. There is nothing in our Constitution that ascribes or commands bipartisanship, and our policies are formulated by the Rule of Law and by committee in the Congress and in the Executive Branch.

And, we are most certainly a Federal Republic, there is no "let's say" about it. The function of one is fairly easy to figure out, it's spelled out in our Constitution.

 

[ScottP]

America has always had partisan polarization of elected officials to work towards bipartisan agreements.. Most recent? debt ceiling..

Yes, we have two primary parties active in our Federal Republic system of government. No, we have not always. Yes, we do actually have smaller "third parties" such as the Libertarian Party. There have even been recent Presidential elections with more than 2 parties on the ballot. Are you trying to make some point beyond this?

 

[Brusky]

Bipartisanship is not a consensus, it's a situation. The Dems and Repubs have NEVER sat down and agreed to a two part system, and our Federal Republic is not an official two party system - we have more than two parties, but the smaller ones don't get their candidates elected to the more prominent offices, like the Tea Party, or the Green Party, or the Libertarian Party.

Laws can be crafted and voted on in a bipartisan fashion, but it is not an official standing in any way, and in the majority of votes these days, it's all done along party lines with very little true bipartisanship happening.

I think you've assigned far too much value to the word, when it's just a description of a government with two dominant parties among many. The press and politicians like to make a lot of noise with the word, but it is just that - noise. There is nothing in our Constitution that ascribes or commands bipartisanship, and our policies are formulated by the Rule of Law and by committee in the Congress and in the Executive Branch.

And, we are most certainly a Federal Republic, there is no "let's say" about it. The function of one is fairly easy to figure out, it's spelled out in our Constitution.

I don't think you are understand what bipartisan consensus means. Or how our government is operating as of now?

Do you know why we had a government shutdown? it has to do with the flaw in our bi-partisan system, with one side not coming to a bipartisan consensus, in not allowing the other side to win. Which in the end no agreement came, leading to the government shutdown.

This is the big flaw in our system..

 

[Brusky]

Yes, we have two primary parties active in our Federal Republic system of government. No, we have not always. Yes, we do actually have smaller "third parties" such as the Libertarian Party. There have even been recent Presidential elections with more than 2 parties on the ballot. Are you trying to make some point beyond this?

ok? So you went from, we are a no-party democracy to a multi?

 

[Phoenyx]

I understand that the rant was about ignorance, but I can't help but focus on the tangent of flavors being around to attract the kiddies. I have two kids and I'm constantly cloud chasing, but they are proud that I've used it to move away from analogs and they understand that it is to keep me away from cigarettes and not a toy. When did we stop teaching our kids and start baby proofing the world? It's no wonder they all have personality disorders and mood disorders.... the WORLD is out of order! Sheesh! Heaven forbid we expect them to think or accept limits!

As for the ignoramuses you encounter; my mother used to say "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't, none will do." vape on cool-breeze! We got ya!

 

[BillyWJ]

I don't think you are understand what bipartisan consensus means. Or how our government is operating as of now?

Do you know why we had a government shutdown? it has to do with the flaw in our bi-partisan system, with one side not coming to a bipartisan consensus, in not allowing the other side to win. Which in the end no agreement came, leading to the government shutdown.

This is the big flaw in our system..

I don't think you understand that "bipartisan" is just a description for a situation, not a mandate of any kind - and since I understand that, and you can't seem to grasp a VERY simple concept, I suspect my understanding of how government works is much broader and deeper than yours.

There is no "bipartisan consensus", it does not exist, it has never existed, it goes against the Constitution. Without you comprehending and accepting that, there's no point in this conversation moving forward, because we are dealing with fantasy as long as you keep insisting that this "bipartisan" thing exists. It's a theoretical situation where two parties agree on something.

(Bold is mine)

"Bipartisanship is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system, in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise, in theory. It has been debated among political theorists however that in practice, each party advances their own political agenda at the expense of the other party because of the conflicting ideologies."

Bipartisanship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no consensus. There never will be a consensus. Bipartisanship is a theoretical SITUATION.

 

[ScottP]

I don't think you are understand what bipartisan consensus means. Or how our government is operating as of now?

Do you know why we had a government shutdown? it has to do with the flaw in our bi-partisan system, with one side not coming to a bipartisan consensus, in not allowing the other side to win. Which in the end no agreement came, leading to the government shutdown.

This is the big flaw in our system..

ok? So you went from, we are a no-party democracy to a multi?

 

[ScottP]

I don't think you understand that "bipartisan" is just a description for a situation, not a mandate of any kind - and since I understand that, and you can't seem to grasp a VERY simple concept, I suspect my understanding of how government works is much broader and deeper than yours.

There is no "bipartisan consensus", it does not exist, it has never existed, it goes against the Constitution. Without you comprehending and accepting that, there's no point in this conversation moving forward, because we are dealing with fantasy as long as you keep insisting that this "bipartisan" thing exists. It's a theoretical situation where two parties agree on something.

(Bold is mine)

"Bipartisanship is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system, in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise, in theory. It has been debated among political theorists however that in practice, each party advances their own political agenda at the expense of the other party because of the conflicting ideologies."

Bipartisanship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no consensus. There never will be a consensus. Bipartisanship is a theoretical SITUATION.

At this point I think he is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. There really is no point to anything he has said and none of it is at all relevant to this thread.

 

[BillyWJ]

ok? So you went from, we are a no-party democracy to a multi?

Are you trolling? I have to ask, after this question of yours.

The United States is NOT a democracy, it never has been. We are a Federal Republic.

Political parties in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Constitution, which establishes and lays out how our Republic functions, does not specify parties in anyway, the Founders were against the idea. Parties developed over the years, but no Constitutional Amendment has been made to establish ANY party officially, and it is not required. A person could run as independent and gain the Office Of The President of the United States. Many candidates have tried.

This is basic stuff, and I strongly urge you to educate yourself before getting into arguments over it. I'm politically agnostic, and I agree our system has severe issues, but I at the very least know how it's structured, and what governs that structure - and it pointless to argue with you if you don't understand the basic principles involved.

Start with the Constitution of The United States, it's the document that lays it all out, plain to read.

 

[Brusky]

I don't think you understand that "bipartisan" is just a description for a situation, not a mandate of any kind - and since I understand that, and you can't seem to grasp a VERY simple concept, I suspect my understanding of how government works is much broader and deeper than yours.

There is no "bipartisan consensus", it does not exist, it has never existed, it goes against the Constitution. Without you comprehending and accepting that, there's no point in this conversation moving forward, because we are dealing with fantasy as long as you keep insisting that this "bipartisan" thing exists. It's a theoretical situation where two parties agree on something.

(Bold is mine)

"Bipartisanship is a political situation, usually in the context of a two-party system, in which opposing political parties find common ground through compromise, in theory. It has been debated among political theorists however that in practice, each party advances their own political agenda at the expense of the other party because of the conflicting ideologies."

Bipartisanship - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is no consensus. There never will be a consensus. Bipartisanship is a theoretical SITUATION.

I think if you watch some news, your mind may get blown with terminologies, that you have to use wiki to find out what it means, and yet still be confused..

FYI: bipartisanship is not just a situation. And Bipartisan and Bipartisanship is different, just as partisan and partisanship is.

 

[BillyWJ]

At this point I think he is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. There really is no point to anything he has said and none of it is at all relevant to this thread.

You may be right, but maybe someone else will learn something.

 

[BillyWJ]

I think if you watch some news, your mind may get blown with terminologies, that you have to use wiki to find out what it means, and yet still be confused..

FYI: bipartisanship is not just a situation. And Bipartisan and Bipartisanship is different, just as partisan and partisanship is.

Okay, you're being intentionally obtuse now, I'm done. There's no point discussing anything with someone who aggressively refuses to admit they're wrong.

 

[Brusky]

Okay, you're being intentionally obtuse now, I'm done. There's no point discussing anything with someone who aggressively refuses to admit they're wrong.

Do you know America has shifted from republic, to democracy, and onward towards oligarchy? Look at our CEO's to lobbyists to president constituents..

Do you even know what the difference between democracy and republic is? How are we different from democratic republic? But if all you can do is copy and paste wiki notes and call me obtuse, sure..

 

[BillyWJ]

Do you know America has shifted from republic, to democracy, and onward towards oligarchy? Look at our CEO's to lobbyists to president constituents..

Do you even know what the difference between democracy and republic is? How are we different from democratic republic? But if all you can do is copy and paste wiki notes and call me obtuse, sure..

What part of "I'm done" did you not understand?

It most assuredly does not mean "Tell me even more far flung and factually incorrect statements".

Have a good night - I'm not responding to you anymore. Go pick a fake fight with someone else.

 

[Seann.V91]

I second that

 

[EddardinWinter]

At this point I think he is just trying to argue for the sake of arguing. There really is no point to anything he has said and none of it is at all relevant to this thread.

You left out that the posts display a feeble grasp of both our language and government systems, are simultaneously condescending and totally wrong, and the poster refuses to allow previous positions to affect his current position in any way.

I love how when confronted with his own contradictions, the poster blames the person quoting him!

Amazing.



Roaring via Tapatalk

 

[jpargana]

I understand that the rant was about ignorance, but I can't help but focus on the tangent of flavors being around to attract the kiddies. I have two kids and I'm constantly cloud chasing, but they are proud that I've used it to move away from analogs and they understand that it is to keep me away from cigarettes and not a toy. When did we stop teaching our kids and start baby proofing the world? It's no wonder they all have personality disorders and mood disorders.... the WORLD is out of order! Sheesh! Heaven forbid we expect them to think or accept limits!

As for the ignoramuses you encounter; my mother used to say "To those who understand, no explanation is necessary. To those who don't, none will do." Vape on cool-breeze! We got ya!

This "Sorry to mess with your liberties, but you must understand, this is for the little kids" really messes with my head, because:

1) Many times, you can see it is NOT actually "for the kinds" (See the menthol exception in the cigarette flavour ban, for example). Using the 'kids', or 'social policy', or 'consumer protection' to try to hide the fact that what you're doing is actually protectionism, is simply preposterous. Not all people are dumb enough as to not see right thru it.

2) Even when it is really for the kids, when was I asked to take care of other people's children?? I already have my own daughter to love, protect, care for, and educate, thankyouverymuch. Maybe YOU should try to do the same for YOUR own kids. If YOU could be bothered to do just that, then maybe WE would not 'need' to have so much restrictions in our ADULT lives!! For pity's sake!!

 

[meanckz]

Kids are wimps these days, hell, maybe it will toughen them up.

I completely agree ... my daughter runs to the hospital (emergency room no less) constantly