What would Hillary have to do for you to stop supporting/not vote for her?

[rogue06]

Trump is too unqualified, and believes he has the right to sexually harass anyone he wants. I can't.
Clinton has had her share of issues although I think it goes farther than just her.
They both are deranged. However I can't vote for anyone that says what he stated mic(ed) on the access hollywood bus then just denies it. And of course acts like this over and over and over again. Not to mention we are at war. I stated in another post due to an issue we've had I actually can't vote right now, but rest assured, it would be a democratic ticket. I've seen what the far right has done in Kansas.

Hillary merely thinks that she is above the law and can lie, cheat and steal to her heart's content. It is essentially a race between a cad and a crook. Neither is a pleasant choice but crooks can usually do far more harm.

[Yttrium]

Hillary merely thinks that she is above the law and can lie, cheat and steal to her heart's content. It is essentially a race between a cad and a crook. Neither is a pleasant choice but crooks can usually do far more harm.

Unless perhaps the cad is also a delusional nutcase.

[rogue06]

Unless perhaps the cad is also a delusional nutcase.

As is the crook

[Yttrium]

As is the crook

My friend, that is not a contest you can possibly hope to win. The cad's delusions far exceed anyone I've ever seen in politics.

[rogue06]

My friend, that is not a contest you can possibly hope to win.

000000000000vrs.jpg
We ain't given up!

[lilpixieofterror]

Extremely dubious. The UK government has been in power since 1707, Sweden has had continuity of rule since 1523 and the government of San Marino has not been interrupted since about 1200.

My my Jorge Jr, you really need to try to stop being a jack ass before you jump down my throat to 'correct' me because comments like this show you're a pompus jackass, that has a pathological need to try to 'prove me wrong' on even the smallest of details. Here is the criteria I am using is the following:

1. Continuous rule. This means that if a country was invaded or has had a new government put into power, it can't count as 'continuous rule'.
2. Similar government. Likewise, I am using the criteria that the government has to look and act similar to be considered the same government in power. If the government doesn't act and function similar to how it functioned, i don't count it as the same government.

Now let's see if your claims match up to the criteria I have selected.

-Sweden was defeated during the Napoleonic Wars and had The Treaty of Paris forced upon them. Their royal line stems from the king that Napoleon put into place during that time. This dates from 1810 and is the first of the four fundamental laws that make up the constitution of Sweden. Sorry, but the criteria I am using would say that Sweden would be out of the running by both counts. Unless having a king forced upon you by a foreign power, doesn't count that is.
- San Marino has been invaded 3 times since 1200 and it's constitution dates from 1600. The last of which was in 1944. Likewise, the government is not functionally the same today as it was in 1200 (for example, voting was finally held in the early 20th century). So this example would have you 'ignoring' things too.
- The UK is a little bit more difficult to nail down because while the UK meets the first criteria I set forth (IE there has been a continuous rule, with no major government overthrows for centuries), but the second one is a little bit harder to nail down. The reason is that the UK is not ran or governed by a constitution, but a series of laws. However; I know the UK can't be set at 1707 due to my second criteria because the UK government is not functionally the same in 1707 as it is in 2016. How can I say this, ask yourself this question... when was the position of Prime Minster established? 1721 seems to be the commonly accepted date, although the title was not officially established until 1925. See, since the UK government evolved over time and hasn't been officially established by any sort of constitution, it is quite hard to nail down that second criteria. The question is this... at what point in time has the government of the UK looked and acted enough like the modern government to be functionally the same. So according to you, the arbitrator of all there is, at what point did the UK government functionally act and look like the one of today since that date is obviously not 1707?

The only way to justify the claim that the US government is the oldest is to invoke very specific and non-obvious criteria that count certain events in other countries such as changes of borders or constitutional/governmental reforms as resetting the clock while ignoring similar events in the US including the addition of new states to the union, constitutional amendments, the assassination of presidents and the occupation of the capital by a foreign power.

Not at all Jorge Jr because this question isn't a hard answer like 2+2 is. There is several 'right' answers, all depending on the criteria we use. The criteria I picked does indeed make the US the oldest, if not among the oldest, governments in power. Do keep trying though Jorge Jr because after all, perhaps you'll find yet a new soundbite of mine to rip out of context for your next signature you dishonest hack.

[One Bad Pig]

My my Jorge Jr, you really need to try to stop being a jack ass before you jump down my throat to 'correct' me because comments like this show you're a pompus jackass, that has a pathological need to try to 'prove me wrong' on even the smallest of details. Here is the criteria I am using is the following:

1. Continuous rule. This means that if a country was invaded or has had a new government put into power, it can't count as 'continuous rule'.
2. Similar government. Likewise, I am using the criteria that the government has to look and act similar to be considered the same government in power. If the government doesn't act and function similar to how it functioned, i don't count it as the same government.

Now let's see if your claims match up to the criteria I have selected.

-Sweden was defeated during the Napoleonic Wars and had The Treaty of Paris forced upon them. Their royal line stems from the king that Napoleon put into place during that time. This dates from 1810 and is the first of the four fundamental laws that make up the constitution of Sweden. Sorry, but the criteria I am using would say that Sweden would be out of the running by both counts. Unless having a king forced upon you by a foreign power, doesn't count that is.
- San Marino has been invaded 3 times since 1200 and it's constitution dates from 1600. The last of which was in 1944. Likewise, the government is not functionally the same today as it was in 1200 (for example, voting was finally held in the early 20th century).
- The UK is a little bit more difficult to nail down because while the UK meets the first criteria I set forth (IE there has been a continuous rule, with no major government overthrows for centuries), but the second one is a little bit harder to nail down. The reason is that the UK is not ran or governed by a constitution, but a series of laws. However; I know the UK can't be set at 1707 due to my second criteria because the UK government is not functionally the same in 1707 as it is in 2016. How can I say this, ask yourself this question... when was the position of Prime Minster established? 1721 seems to be the commonly accepted date, although the title was not officially established until 1925. See, since the UK government evolved over time and hasn't been officially established by any sort of constitution, it is quite hard to nail down that second criteria. The question is this... at what point in time has the government of the UK looked and acted enough like the modern government to be functionally the same. So according to you, the arbitrator of all there is, at what point did the UK government functionally act and look like the one of today since that date is obviously not 1707?



Not at all Jorge Jr because this question isn't a hard answer like 2+2 is. There is several 'right' answers, all depending on the criteria we use. The criteria I picked does indeed make the US the oldest, if not among the oldest, governments in power. Do keep trying though Jorge Jr because after all, perhaps you'll find yet a new soundbite of mine to rip out of context for your next signature you dishonest hack.

Eh, I've had my disagreements with Roy, but calling hime Jorge Jr. is a little over the top, and he's got a good point here. Your first point has an odd qualifier ("was invaded"); US territory was invaded as recently as 1941. Now, San Marino is pretty insignificant given its size, but England is not a bad comparison. The US is among the oldest, but your insistence that it is THE oldest is a little more difficult to defend.

[Cow Poke]

Eh, I've had my disagreements with Roy...

I think Roy is definitely one of our nicer 'bad guys'.



(kidding about the bad guys, Roy)

[lilpixieofterror]

Eh, I've had my disagreements with Roy, but calling hime Jorge Jr. is a little over the top, and he's got a good point here. Your first point has an odd qualifier ("was invaded"); US territory was invaded as recently as 1941. Now, San Marino is pretty insignificant given its size, but England is not a bad comparison. The US is among the oldest, but your insistence that it is THE oldest is a little more difficult to defend.

He wants to misquote me and keep jumping down my throat, just to be a jackass, he deserves every bit of disrespect he gets until he can show others the respect they deserve, I will continue to show that hack every bit of disrespect he shows me. Anyway, I should have changed that invaded part to invaded and had their government overthrown (since pretty much every country has faced some sort of invasion since the 19th or even 20th century). San Marino's constitution dates from 1600 and even at that, there's been huge changes since that time (such as the voting seems to date from the early 20th century). The UK is a bit harder to nail down because the UK isn't ran by a set constitution, but a series of laws and traditions that can be a little hard to nail down a precise date. The question is, at what point in time can we say that UK government started to resemble it's modern version?

[One Bad Pig]

He wants to misquote me and keep jumping down my throat, just to be a jackass, he deserves every bit of disrespect he gets until he can show others the respect they deserve, I will continue to show that hack every bit of disrespect he shows me.

As Christians, the response to someone being a jackass should not be to be a jackass in return, and calling an ideological opponent of Jorge "Jorge Jr." is incontrovertably being a jackass.

[lilpixieofterror]

As Christians, the response to someone being a jackass should not be to be a jackass in return, and calling an ideological opponent of Jorge "Jorge Jr." is incontrovertably being a jackass.

It's about giving him what he deserves and showing him the attitude he has justly earned. If he can't respect others, I will not give him any sort of respect in return and he shown a history of refusing to have any sort of respect for others. Of course I know calling him Jorge Jr is being a jackass because he deserves every bit of disrespect he gets (and than some). He misquotes his opponents, just like Jorge does. He makes up things to make it easier to refute his opponents, just like Jorge does. He refutes to admit to the tiniest of errors, just like Jorge does. He can't even respect the beliefs of those who are not even his opponents, even while disagreeing with him, just like Jorge does. If he doesn't want to be called Jorge Jr, he should stop acting like Jorge. Until the time comes that he can show others the respect they deserve, I will continue to treat him the exact same way he treats others. Nothing more and nothing less.

[One Bad Pig]

Well, I don't really have anything further to add beyond my last post, which you didn't much address beyond acknowledging that you were being a jackass. I disagree with Roy on just about everything. I would think, though, that demonstrating that a certain assertion comes from a misquotation and that the facts are on your side would serve you better than being inflammatory in retaliation, even if you weren't a Christian.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well, I don't really have anything further to add beyond my last post, which you didn't much address beyond acknowledging that you were being a jackass. I disagree with Roy on just about everything. I would think, though, that demonstrating that a certain assertion comes from a misquotation and that the facts are on your side would serve you better than being inflammatory in retaliation, even if you weren't a Christian.

I've already have shown before that he misquotes his opponents and can't even remember his own words that he said, just days before. He knows this, but doesn't care because this is about his petty little ego and how he is obsessed with trying to 'prove me wrong' on every tiny detail, even on stuff as subjective as 'the oldest government' since such a claim has a lot to do with the criteria you are using and is quite subjective at that (look around and you'll find several different answers, all depending on how you ask and the criteria that is being used). Am I being a jackass? Sure I am and I believe I have good reasons to do so. He had no reason to start a fight here with me, but choose to do it anyway not because I am technically wrong, but for his own petty little ego. When he can stop being a jerk to others, I will stop being a jerk to him.

[One Bad Pig]

I've already have shown before that he misquotes his opponents and can't even remember his own words that he said, just days before. He knows this, but doesn't care because this is about his petty little ego and how he is obsessed with trying to 'prove me wrong' on every tiny detail, even on stuff as subjective as 'the oldest government' since such a claim has a lot to do with the criteria you are using and is quite subjective at that (look around and you'll find several different answers, all depending on how you ask and the criteria that is being used). Am I being a jackass? Sure I am and I believe I have good reasons to do so. He had no reason to start a fight here with me, but choose to do it anyway not because I am technically wrong, but for his own petty little ego. When he can stop being a jerk to others, I will stop being a jerk to him.

You're completely missing the point of my post (Luke 6:27-31).

[Jaecp]

Eh, I've had my disagreements with Roy, but calling hime Jorge Jr. is a little over the top, and he's got a good point here. Your first point has an odd qualifier ("was invaded"); US territory was invaded as recently as 1941. Now, San Marino is pretty insignificant given its size, but England is not a bad comparison. The US is among the oldest, but your insistence that it is THE oldest is a little more difficult to defend.

1945, actually, if you count the Japanese firebombings that hit the west coast!

http://www.history.com/news/history-...g-world-war-ii