Quantcast

Jump to content

» «
Photo

General political discussion thread

578 replies to this topic
Raavi
  • Raavi

    Allergic to bullsh*t

  • Moderator
  • Joined: 27 Jan 2012
  • United-Kingdom
  • Winner of World Cup 2014 Prediction League
    Best Forum Ledby 2013
    Most Improved 2013

#511

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:37 AM

 

 

 

Contradictions, binders full of contradictions..

Are you referencing Romney's 'binders full of women' line? 

 

Nah man, I'm sure he isn't.

 

That old joke has run its course it is time to let it die.

 

 

But is it legitimate?


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#512

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:38 AM

 

 

 

Contradictions, binders full of contradictions..

Are you referencing Romney's 'binders full of women' line? 

 

Nah man, I'm sure he isn't.

 

That old joke has run its course it is time to let it die.

 

I feel the same way about you.


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    Canis Bodhi driver.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#513

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:41 AM

 

 

 

 

Contradictions, binders full of contradictions..

Are you referencing Romney's 'binders full of women' line? 

 

Nah man, I'm sure he isn't.

 

That old joke has run its course it is time to let it die.

 

 

But is it legitimate?

 

Good question. But I'm sure only Romney knows the answer.


 

 

 

 

Contradictions, binders full of contradictions..

Are you referencing Romney's 'binders full of women' line? 

 

Nah man, I'm sure he isn't.

 

That old joke has run its course it is time to let it die.

 

I feel the same way about you.

 

That's way too cold. 


El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#514

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:45 AM

Right, but the thing is you support this system, so what are you saying here?

participation does not necessarily equal support.

you have to address the system somewhere. doing nothing is the opposite end of bullsh*t.

  • TheGreenSadler likes this

Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#515

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:46 AM

 

Right, but the thing is you support this system, so what are you saying here?

participation does not necessarily equal support.

you have to address the system somewhere. doing nothing is the opposite end of bullsh*t.

 

I see you've missed the past 10 pages of his posts.


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    Canis Bodhi driver.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#516

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:47 AM

 

 

Right, but the thing is you support this system, so what are you saying here?

participation does not necessarily equal support.

you have to address the system somewhere. doing nothing is the opposite end of bullsh*t.

 

I see you've missed the past 10 pages of his posts.

 

I see you need to leave me the hell alone.


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#517

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:49 AM

 

 

 

Right, but the thing is you support this system, so what are you saying here?

participation does not necessarily equal support.

you have to address the system somewhere. doing nothing is the opposite end of bullsh*t.

 

I see you've missed the past 10 pages of his posts.

 

I see you need to leave me the hell alone.

 

And this ladies and gents is how you commit unrepentant irony.


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    Canis Bodhi driver.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#518

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:52 AM

 

 

Bah! You need money to form a party in the US. The Koresh Party will have to wait until Ron Paul wins the lottery or someone loses a substantial bet. No, more likely it'd be the Tea Party, which I'd be ecstatic about because it'd sap all the wackos out of the Republicans, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the very same reasons.

The Tea Party is a protest movement not a party. Most of the members of the Tea Party movement are former Republicans who splintered off because the Republican party isnt conservative enough. They would most likely join the Libertarian party

 

The Republicans are the most conservative electable party in the country. I wouldn't call the LP conservative.

 

They're conservative when it comes to limiting government.


Myron
  • Myron

    I shot Reagan

  • Members
  • Joined: 18 Oct 2013
  • Palestine

#519

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:55 AM

The idea that conservatism means limited government is hilarious and patently false. The only thing that can vaguely said to be true is limiting public access to government, which isn't really what it says on the tin.

  • El_Diablo and Melchior like this

Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#520

Posted 27 February 2014 - 05:59 AM

 

 

 

Bah! You need money to form a party in the US. The Koresh Party will have to wait until Ron Paul wins the lottery or someone loses a substantial bet. No, more likely it'd be the Tea Party, which I'd be ecstatic about because it'd sap all the wackos out of the Republicans, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the very same reasons.

The Tea Party is a protest movement not a party. Most of the members of the Tea Party movement are former Republicans who splintered off because the Republican party isnt conservative enough. They would most likely join the Libertarian party

 

The Republicans are the most conservative electable party in the country. I wouldn't call the LP conservative.

 

They're conservative when it comes to limiting government.

 

 

Conservative meaning 'republicanism and valuing liberty' has widely been replaced in the United States by libertarianism. Republicans have poisoned the word conservative, and now it's synonymous with Christian values and limiting the government... for certain groups.


TheGreenSadler
  • TheGreenSadler

    Canis Bodhi driver.

  • Members
  • Joined: 29 Jun 2013
  • United-States

#521

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:00 AM Edited by TheGreenSadler, 27 February 2014 - 10:11 PM.

The idea that conservatism means limited government is hilarious and patently false. The only thing that can vaguely said to be true is limiting public access to government, which isn't really what it says on the tin.

What the hell are you talking about? American conservatives want to reduce government.


El_Diablo
  • El_Diablo

    "The_Devil"

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 03 Aug 2002
  • Mars

#522

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:01 AM Edited by El_Diablo, 27 February 2014 - 06:01 AM.

The idea that conservatism means limited government is hilarious and patently false. The only thing that can vaguely said to be true is limiting public access to government, which isn't really what it says on the tin.

What are you talking about? American conservatives want small government. They bitch about it all the time.

it's funny because the size of government (deficit spending, public sector jobs) has only ever grown larger under every single administration since the dawn of the Republic. government has never shrunk. no party is for limited government. there's no such thing.


Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#523

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:22 AM Edited by Vlynor, 27 February 2014 - 06:22 AM.

 

The idea that conservatism means limited government is hilarious and patently false. The only thing that can vaguely said to be true is limiting public access to government, which isn't really what it says on the tin.

 

 

What are you talking about? American conservatives want small government. They bitch about it all the time.

it's funny because the size of government (deficit spending, public sector jobs) has only ever grown larger under every single administration since the dawn of the Republic. government has never shrunk. no party is for limited government. there's no such thing.

 

Neither of those are true.


Forty
  • Forty

    he shouts stroke darker the strings

  • The Precinct
  • Joined: 01 Sep 2002
  • None

#524

Posted 27 February 2014 - 06:37 AM Edited by Forty, 27 February 2014 - 06:38 AM.

The conservative party is definitely for smaller government. The fact that the government continues to grow, even with the Republican president of 2000-2008, is more indicative of recent presidents' failures to follow through on promises and party policy rather than signifying any shift in philosophy. No one has done a good job of keeping sh*t under control.

AndrewDeSanta
  • AndrewDeSanta

    Republitarian

  • Members
  • Joined: 03 Jan 2012
  • United-States

#525

Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:02 AM

Conservative.

- Liberal in Australia (Completely different than a US "Liberal" stupid name for a conservative party I must admit)

- Republican/Tea Party in the US

Hate communism and socialism and both should be eradicated. Obama has introduced a new age of self-entitlement. America is crumbling thanks to him, should be impeached. Romney should have won in '12. Illegal immigrants have no right to come into any country and expect benefits, let alone support. Few family members hate how right wing I am. And Yeah. 

  • TheGreenSadler and Vlynor like this

gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    The Night Is Like A Dagger, Long And Cold And Sharp

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#526

Posted 27 February 2014 - 07:30 AM

 

 

 

 

Bah! You need money to form a party in the US. The Koresh Party will have to wait until Ron Paul wins the lottery or someone loses a substantial bet. No, more likely it'd be the Tea Party, which I'd be ecstatic about because it'd sap all the wackos out of the Republicans, but I wouldn't hold my breath for the very same reasons.

The Tea Party is a protest movement not a party. Most of the members of the Tea Party movement are former Republicans who splintered off because the Republican party isnt conservative enough. They would most likely join the Libertarian party

 

The Republicans are the most conservative electable party in the country. I wouldn't call the LP conservative.

 

They're conservative when it comes to limiting government.

 

 

Conservative meaning 'republicanism and valuing liberty' has widely been replaced in the United States by libertarianism. Republicans have poisoned the word conservative, and now it's synonymous with Christian values and limiting the government... for certain groups.

 

Thats true. I would say the LP is really the only classically conservative party left in the US. The republican party of today bears no resemblance at all to the Republican party that abolished slavery. 

  • Forty and TheGreenSadler like this

Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#527

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:23 AM

The Tea Party is intrinsically at odds with anyone who would dare call themselves 'libertarian' without smirking. Religious and personal freedoms, these are deal breakers to your Sarah Palins and Ted Cruzs.

Meh, they don't admit it, but libertarians are a part of the conservative movement. It's why they shriek endlessly about economic freedom and how everyone should be armed to the teeth but give half hearted answers about gay marriage, and rarely mention secularisation, drug legalisation etc. They don't want to offend their allies. Conservatives and libertarians seem to share this vague, nebulous notion of a "liberal elite" destroying the world by trying to interfere with a natural order they have blind faith in; there's a shared narrative of well-intentioned leftists trying to help people from on high but f*cking everything up.

 

...at the very least, libertarians don't seem too offended by the Tea Party, and even go out of their way to defend it.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#528

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:28 AM Edited by Melchior, 27 February 2014 - 08:32 AM.

 

Economically. I think they're as liberal as you get regarding social issues.

 

Oh right, that's why you always see Penn Jillette waving a rainbow flag and talking about women's reproductive rights.

 

Oh wait, no.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    The Night Is Like A Dagger, Long And Cold And Sharp

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#529

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:29 AM


The Tea Party is intrinsically at odds with anyone who would dare call themselves 'libertarian' without smirking. Religious and personal freedoms, these are deal breakers to your Sarah Palins and Ted Cruzs.

Meh, they don't admit it, but libertarians are a part of the conservative movement. It's why they shriek endlessly about economic freedom and how everyone should be armed to the teeth but give half hearted answers about gay marriage, and rarely mention secularisation, drug legalisation etc. They don't want to offend their allies. Conservatives and libertarians seem to share this vague, nebulous notion of a "liberal elite" destroying the world by trying to interfere with a natural order they have blind faith in; there's a shared narrative of well-intentioned leftists trying to help people from on high but f*cking everything up.
 
...at the very least, libertarians don't seem too offended by the Tea Party, and even go out of their way to defend it.

Because the Tea party is where they intend on picking the majority of their future voters from
  • Melchior likes this

Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#530

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:29 AM

 

The Tea Party is intrinsically at odds with anyone who would dare call themselves 'libertarian' without smirking. Religious and personal freedoms, these are deal breakers to your Sarah Palins and Ted Cruzs.

Meh, they don't admit it, but libertarians are a part of the conservative movement. It's why they shriek endlessly about economic freedom and how everyone should be armed to the teeth but give half hearted answers about gay marriage, and rarely mention secularisation, drug legalisation etc. They don't want to offend their allies. Conservatives and libertarians seem to share this vague, nebulous notion of a "liberal elite" destroying the world by trying to interfere with a natural order they have blind faith in; there's a shared narrative of well-intentioned leftists trying to help people from on high but f*cking everything up.

 

...at the very least, libertarians don't seem too offended by the Tea Party, and even go out of their way to defend it.

 

 

The LP has pretty straight answers on gay marriage, abortion, and drug legalization. Self-proclaimed libertarians, such as Rand Paul, might not, but I don't think he's much a libertarian and leans towards the conservative end.


gtamann123
  • gtamann123

    The Night Is Like A Dagger, Long And Cold And Sharp

  • Members
  • Joined: 10 Jun 2008
  • United-States

#531

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:30 AM


 

Economically. I think they're as liberal as you get regarding social issues.
 

Oh right, that's why you always see Pinn Jillette waving a rainbow flag and talking about women's reproductive rights.
 
Oh wait, no.

His show tackled some pretty controversial social issues though. And showed that he is pretty liberal on social issues

Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#532

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:34 AM Edited by Vlynor, 27 February 2014 - 08:34 AM.

 

 

Economically. I think they're as liberal as you get regarding social issues.

 

Oh right, that's why you always see Pinn Jillette waving a rainbow flag and talking about women's reproductive rights.

 

Oh wait, no.

 

 

 

- Gay marriage.

 

Don't know about abortion.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#533

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:35 AM

You two are missing the point. It's not that libertarians are actually hard-core theocrats, it's that they're apart of a movement full of hard-core theocrats, go out of their way not to offend said theocrats, and save all their "anti-authoritarian" vitriol for the left.


Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#534

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:38 AM

You two are missing the point. It's not that libertarians are actually hard-core theocrats, it's that they're apart of a movement full of hard-core theocrats, go out of their way not to offend said theocrats, and save all their "anti-authoritarian" vitriol for the left.

 

I don't think I'm missing a point, you just made a statement without truth behind it. And if we're talking libertarians and you can use Penn Jillette as an example, so can we. He's tackled the religious many times on his show, as well as on talk shows. Can you name a libertarian, not a conservative, who has done what you say?


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#535

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:40 AM Edited by Melchior, 27 February 2014 - 08:48 AM.

 

 

- Gay marriage.

 

Don't know about abortion.

 

My point exactly. "Marriage is none of the government's business" is a bullsh*t, non-committal answer and it's pretty clearly contrived not to offend conservatives. Anyone who is "socially liberal" would have said "men can be into the cock. deal with it." and wouldn't have even mentioned polygamy in the same breath as same-sex marriage. 

 

EDIT: Do you know who Andrew Breitbart is? He was a pretty popular libertarian pundit and he frequently defended Rush Limbaugh. Although I still think Penn Jillette is a fine example. There's a difference between supporting gay rights when asked by an interviewer (with a position that is entirely different to the mainstream left's position and isn't particularly offensive to anyone who disagrees, but whatever) and actively campaigning for it. Yet he's our there defending capitalism and, *sigh* gun ownership like there's no tomorrow.

 

How many libertarians in here have ever wrote to their representative about gay rights or women's issues?

 

To cut a long story short, there's a difference between not being a theocrat and being "socially liberal." The libertarian movement isn't socially liberal.


Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#536

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:42 AM Edited by Vlynor, 27 February 2014 - 08:44 AM.

 

 

 

- Gay marriage.

 

Don't know about abortion.

 

My point exactly. "Marriage is none of the government's business" is a bullsh*t, non-committal answer and it's pretty clearly contrived not to offend conservatives. Anyone who is "socially liberal" would have said "men can be into the cock. deal with it." and wouldn't have even mentioned polygamy in the same breath as same-sex marriage. 

 

 

Let's not listen to the sound bite 20 seconds after.

 

Edit: Not even after. He says we need gay marriage 19 seconds in.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#537

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:53 AM

I watched the entire thing. Perhaps read my post again.


Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#538

Posted 27 February 2014 - 08:55 AM Edited by Vlynor, 27 February 2014 - 08:56 AM.

I watched the entire thing. Perhaps read my post again.

 

He clearly says "we absolutely need gay-marriage" and he mentioned polygamy because it is commonly brought up as a 'slippery-slope' argument against gay marriage.

 

I still don't see what your problem with him is other than 'the government shouldn't be involved in marriage'. Which wouldn't explain your other points.


Melchior
  • Melchior

    come on and tell me twice

  • Andolini Mafia Family
  • Joined: 16 May 2009
  • Unknown

#539

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:07 AM Edited by Melchior, 27 February 2014 - 09:25 AM.

The issue is- and I've said this a thousand (well, three) times now- that libertarians aren't just a bunch of guys with abstract ideas about freedom. They work with(in) the conservative movement. There's a huge amount of crossover and cooperation between the (xenophobic and Christian fundamentalist) tea part and the libertarian movement.

 

But tell me: if they are just "economically right and socially left" then why do they spend all their time defending capitalism and none of their time actually talking about social issues? When have you seen Chunkyman complain about old white men telling women what to do with their vaginas? Never. When have you seen him complain about "leftists" telling businesses that they have to associate with minorities? All the freaking time!

 

Then there's the issue of a shared narrative (see my initial post) and the strong tinge of American nationalism present within the libertarian movement .


Vlynor
  • Vlynor

    Big Homie

  • Leone Family Mafia
  • Joined: 01 Oct 2013
  • United-States

#540

Posted 27 February 2014 - 09:16 AM

The issue is- and I've said this a thousand (well, three) times now- that libertarians aren't just a bunch of guys with abstract ideas about freedom. They worth with(in) the conservative movement. There's a huge amount of crossover and cooperation between the (xenophobic and Christian fundamentalist) tea part and the libertarian movement.

 

But tell me: if they are just "economically right and socially left" then why do they spend all their time defending capitalism and none of their time actually talking about social issues? When have you seen Chunkyman complain about old white men telling women what to do with their vaginas? Never. When have you seen him complain about "leftists" telling businesses that they have to associate with minorities? All the freaking time!

 

Then there's the issue of a shared narrative (see my initial post) and the strong tinge of American nationalism present within the libertarian movement .

 

Do you need to be speaking about every individual issue to be considered a part of 'x' group?

 

That aside, when it was brought up, both Gary Johnson and Ron Paul talked about social issues; gay marriage, abortion, and the War on Drugs (which doubles as an economic issue). Rand Paul (the only, self-proclaimed might I add, libertarian I know of in the fed. government) also talks about it. You just don't hear about it nearly as much.

 

And yes, they might tackle some issues together, but that doesn't mean they're entirely in-line with one another. Since laws are usually passed regarding one issue or the other, sometimes their goals will match up. If there was a socialist party in the United States, and the Democrats agreed on the issue of taxes and social security, I wouldn't call them part of the Socialist movement.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users