At 12/2/17 04:59 PM, orangebomb wrote: Okay, let’s set the record straight here, George Washington was the first elected president under our Constitution. The other presidents were under the Articles of Confederation, (Peyton Randolph, Thomas McKean) but they were little more than placeholders in a government who were barely off the ground. Simply put, they were glorified student council presidents who had little power and were quick to be replaced, which is probably why no one remembers them.

You are absolutely arbitrarily giving more merit to a constitution based nation than an articles of confederation based nation. There is no reason for this other than that one is the one you're familiar with.

It doesn't matter if the government was "barely off the ground" Duh? Obviously the first president is going to be the president of a nation that is barely off the ground.

Now you're making your case even weaker by saying that the first president doesn't count until... I guess until a bunch of presidents have already served to get the country off the ground.. Then when it's "off the ground" bam then we count it.

Nice try. I saw through it with the precision and intelligence of someone who watched Rick and Morty long before it was cool.

At 12/2/17 05:15 PM, sharpnova wrote: stuff

Wow, I give you facts and you shit all over them, or are you trying to take credit for I said?

Nice try. I saw through it with the precision and intelligence of someone who watched Rick and Morty long before it was cool.

So what of it? Back to the Future is better anyway, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

At 12/2/17 06:33 PM, orangebomb wrote: Wow, I give you facts and you shit all over them, or are you trying to take credit for I said?

Your facts were toilet paper. We had multiple presidents before GW. If you want to establish the constitution as the arbitrary starting point where the presidents "count" then be my guest. My guest to leave this conversation.

So what of it? Back to the Future is better anyway, but that has nothing to do with this thread.

Back to the Future was basically based on R&M. And no. R&M is far better.

At 12/2/17 06:59 PM, sharpnova wrote: Your facts were toilet paper. We had multiple presidents before GW. If you want to establish the constitution as the arbitrary starting point where the presidents "count" then be my guest. My guest to leave this conversation.

This is not "arbitrary" in any way. As I pointed out earlier, while it is important to understand the Articles as our first attempt at government, it is equally important to understand their current nature as a "dead letter" and that when the Constitution was ratified one of the things it explicitly did was to override and kill all prior forms of governance within the territories that were, and would become the United States. You're trying to sound like the smartest guy in the room, but because you've missed this simply fact it's not working. A President under the Articles, or of the Continental Congress, is a RADICALLY and completely non-analogous figure to our current POTUS, or any POTUS who sat before him.

At 12/2/17 05:13 PM, sharpnova wrote: When a person jumps into a massive logical fallacy or personal attack,

So you've been losing every argument in ever since this is a great description of your tactics. Also the goalpost shifts and the cherry picking you do. But that's ok, please turn all logical fallacies you commit into an "ad hominem" definition because in the end, you're probably the smartest kid in your little corner of the world, but on the internet, in the global community? Yeah, always somebody smarter.

At 12/2/17 07:27 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: So you've been losing every argument in ever since this is a great description of your tactics. Also the goalpost shifts and the cherry picking you do. But that's ok, please turn all logical fallacies you commit into an "ad hominem" definition because in the end, you're probably the smartest kid in your little corner of the world, but on the internet, in the global community? Yeah, always somebody smarter.

tl;dr

I'm sorry but ever since you came into the thread and lost against my logic and then resorted to calling me an anti-semite, you are no longer being read or taken seriously here. You were ejected and that, my best friend, stands.

At 11/28/17 05:27 PM, sharpnova wrote: Surprisingly, after Donald Trump, the second richest president was our second president: George Washington with a net worth of around $580 million.

Washington wasn't about power, but he was about status :) He actually married his wife, due to her fortune and connections. George Washington was a fascinating guy.

At 12/2/17 10:15 PM, sharpnova wrote: I'm sorry but ever since you came into the thread and lost against my logic and then resorted to calling me an anti-semite, you are no longer being read or taken seriously here. You were ejected and that, my best friend, stands.

How about you either engage me on the points I made that refute your statements, or perhaps we could talk about why you still seem to believe the Articles of Confederation are something other then a failed first attempt to goven the US?

If none of that appeals to, you kindly stop replying to me and derailing what little activity this thread has. This will be the last time I politely ask, the choice is yours.

At 12/3/17 03:13 AM, RoboRick wrote: Washington wasn't about power, but he was about status :) He actually married his wife, due to her fortune and connections. George Washington was a fascinating guy.

Indeed, I think even though he is one of our most famous he's also one of our least well known and understood Presidents. For example, I think many people aren't aware the Cabinet was a Washington idea. He also disdained political parties as he felt it would lead to division and factionalism.

At 12/3/17 03:18 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: If none of that appeals to, you kindly stop replying to me and derailing what little activity this thread has. This will be the last time I politely ask, the choice is yours.

I don't see why you have a position here where you can reply to me and I can't reply to you. I've made my position clear. It was incredibly immature of you to call me an anti-semite. You had no basis for that and when you did it you invalidated your point of view on this topic.

If you want to continue having me explain this then by all means keep replying. Otherwise, you can stop. If you talk to me, I can talk to you.

I will make my position clear: I think liberals and SJW's use "racist" and "anti-semite" accusations to shut down dissent. It's intellecutally dishonest, it's childish, and it's disgusting. You did it and that showed me that you are not a person that deserves any respect whatsoever.

If you want to apologize for that and take it back, then we can have a conversation.

At 12/3/17 03:21 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: He also disdained political parties as he felt it would lead to division and factionalism.

And he was absolutely right, in hindsight.

Also, can we please drop the shouting match and move on? The discussion hasn't progressed at all since, and I was interested in the topic prior to that development.

At 12/3/17 05:06 PM, sharpnova wrote: If you want to apologize for that and take it back, then we can have a conversation.

Guess this is the end of the road then. Because saying "Jews that run the media" is clearly, and classically an anti-semitic idea. That's my basis. The most common reason for anti-Semites to dislike those of Jewish heritage is because they believe in some grand conspiracy where they are pulling the strings of the world. Also I took the way you used "Jew" in that context to pretty obviously be a slur on them so....yeah. I stand behind my position.

At 12/3/17 05:18 PM, ADR3-N wrote: And he was absolutely right, in hindsight.

Didn't even take him long to prove it really, those Jefferson/Adams elections were nasty as all hell.

Also, can we please drop the shouting match and move on?

Who's shouting? I just wanted someone to debate me on my points, that's not happening, so we're moving right along. Sometimes people just gotta ignore the bits they don't like.

At 12/3/17 05:20 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Because saying "Jews that run the media" is clearly, and classically an anti-semitic idea. That's my basis. The most common reason for anti-Semites to dislike those of Jewish heritage is because they believe in some grand conspiracy where they are pulling the strings of the world. Also I took the way you used "Jew" in that context to pretty obviously be a slur on them so....yeah. I stand behind my position.

But.. I'm not anti-semitic and I don't dislike those of Jewish heritage. So you are 100% wrong and owe me an apology.

You explained your reasoning behind it. Fine. Now that you know you're wrong, apologize. Your only recourse is to accuse me of lying and claim that I am anti-semitic despite clearly saying I'm not. And if calling me a liar is your recourse then you have absolutely resigned in this.

It's not a grand conspiracy. It is absolutely demonstrable that the media in general is run by mostly Jewish people. It is a true and factual and easily verifiable statement.

Saying it doesn't make me an anti-semite. But being aware of it, how would one not factor that into their assessment of the media and what it says? How is a bias not inevitable?

At 12/3/17 10:15 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Jews running the media is just a popular myth, just like nazis making lampshades out of our skins. The facts don't actually support it.

Research it.

At 12/4/17 03:40 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote:

At 12/4/17 03:25 AM, sharpnova wrote:

At 12/3/17 10:15 PM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: Jews running the media is just a popular myth, just like nazis making lampshades out of our skins. The facts don't actually support it.

Research it.

I did the facts don't match.

Please show your work. How did you actually research it? What query to google and which results did you actually look at? I would be fascinated to see how you did this and came to such a ridiculous conclusion.

At 12/4/17 08:05 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: For starters. Here is a wiki page of jewish myths controlling the media is one of those myths listed.

No. You don't do unbiased research by searching for something that confirms your hypothesis. That is absurd. I could just as easily do a search for some anti-semitic website and cite that as a source. First source: absolutely eliminated.

Then i found this old article from 7 years ago about a cnn anchor making the same claim.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2010/10/do_jews_really_control_the_media.html

Nope. That doesn't strengthen your argument at all.

then if you type "jews run the media" into google you will just get similar articles both recent and older, all of which debunk the claim.

Again. Implicit bias when you search that way.

You have one more chance. You search for information sources only. Not opinion pieces. If not you not only admit complete wrongness here, you apologize.

Regarding the Clintons, Gates and others, 'foundations' are used to hide wealth, it's not a new invention, though in the past few decades, it's received special protection.

At 12/5/17 12:09 AM, SolidPantsSnake wrote: I am sorry that you are a low intelligence person. You yourself have provided absolutely no evidence at all. By virtue of your failure and incompetence to provide any counter evidence at all I win by default.

lol. Hahahaha

Let's just leave it at that then. You crack me up.

The Foundation is the wizard of oz curtain for that magic math cash bucket.

And they're all supposed to have tax payer paid salaries around what a surgeon makes. Hmmm no issue there...

At 12/8/17 11:31 AM, Tybia99 wrote: And they're all supposed to have tax payer paid salaries around what a surgeon makes. Hmmm no issue there...

They used to make $200k. Clinton had it bumped to $400k, starting with the first president after himself.

A lot of people overlook that aspect. Thinking that these numbers are irrelevant. Maybe because they know presidents are already rich or something.

I think that is an insane salary. Way too much.

At 12/10/17 07:35 PM, sharpnova wrote: I think that is an insane salary. Way too much.

If you think that’s high, just look at the salaries of a top-flight college football head coach.

A $400k salary to make decisions that has an effect on geopolitical and national matters, that doesn’t really sound that bad, along within a presidential library at the end.

At 12/10/17 08:43 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 12/10/17 07:35 PM, sharpnova wrote: I think that is an insane salary. Way too much.

If you think that’s high, just look at the salaries of a top-flight college football head coach.

A $400k salary to make decisions that has an effect on geopolitical and national matters, that doesn’t really sound that bad, along within a presidential library at the end.

Huh? People in sports are paid according to supply/demand. I don't care what they're paid. You're just jealous. Get over it.

The president doesn't need to make $400k/year. He's supposed to be a servant. He should make $0.

If I could have it my way, Republicans would make a respectable salary of $100k and Democrats would work for free, since they get the privilege of being a president on such a retarded platform in the first place. Call it a libtard tax if you will.

At 12/5/17 06:05 PM, Sause wrote:

At 12/5/17 02:17 PM, TheHumanElement01 wrote: The Foundation is the wizard of oz curtain for that magic math cash bucket.

I have a feeling OP is a wizard

lolz - https://youtu.be/FWtO0cfgewY?t=7