Duke4.net Forums: Political Shitshooting - Duke4.net Forums

Captain Awesome, on 10 August 2012 - 07:00 PM, said:

Ya don't say?

So are you advocating overthrowing the government or what? Why would another government fix problems if the government can't fix any problems?

We vote in politicians to make decisions for us, but why not have something where the people of the country make the decisions instead of politicians? I think some of us might do a better job than the politicians. There's a lot of smart people out there who aren't politicians, but have some pretty smart ideas on how to fix things, economic or otherwise.

Have you seen the idiots that run about this place? Majority rules don't work in mental institutions.

I was going to add that it was not a politician that fixed the BP oil spill in the Gulf. Just an example how people who aren't politicians who can solve some of the world's problems.

No, I advocate smaller government and empowering people to take care of themselves and each other instead of punishing them when they try. You know it's illegal to give food to the homeless or donate to soup kitchens around here now? Small businesses are getting crushed and they're starting at a young age with this bullshit stomping out kids' lemonade stands. Half of my town was just torn up because the EPA said so. No real explanation was given besides health reasons. Nobody was ever sick, so why did the government do it? That's the kinda overreaching nonsense we don't need anymore. And it's happening everywhere. It's creating this sense of hopelessness. You can sense this unease and growing anger out there. If you start with the neighborhood then your town and it expands and gets bigger and effects everybody. Big government doesn't get it and never will.

You don't have to tell me. They've started bombing (okay not literally) Food Not Bombs all over the place.

Jeff, on 10 August 2012 - 05:45 PM, said:

Because greedy bastards don't give a crap about anything but themselves. Not even their own children. Hardly any money-maker with power out there is thinking at all about the future, because it's a future they don't have to deal with. Sure you've got some who care... but most probably fall into one of three categories of thought:

#1: "The second coming of the almighty is going to happen soon, so it doesn't matter if I screw things up." So basically, they don't worry about denting the car because they're expecting a higher power to come incinerate it.

#2: "I won't be here when the shit hits the fan, so whatever." They're hoping the Earth will manage to maintain its stability until they die, so it just ends up being someone else's problem.

#3: "There's plenty of time to fix this, IF it's even a problem. Why the rush for change?" They think they can keep going with business as usual (at least long enough to retire with millions) or they think environmental change is just a bunch of propaganda made up by people with their own agendas.

Quote

I was wondering about this question a lot after the BP oil spill got taken care of. It got me wondering how long the nations of the world would've allowed that to continue if the leak wasn't stopped. I wondered if at some point, as the problem worsened, someone had enough and said, "Either plug that up now or we'll do it for you", and then the U.K. and/or BP refused to resign control of the situation. That would leave another nation no choice but to forcefully remove them from the area so that total obliteration of Earth's oceans could be prevented.

Wit that in mind, preytell, if something gets to the extreme point of, "Crap we are all royally screwed", why the heck shouldn't war be declared on countries that refuse to stop poisoning the world? If humanity doesn't wake up, someone's going to end up declaring an "eco war" sooner or later, not for the sake of being an ass, but because there's no other choice. Look at it another way... suicide in America is currently illegal. Shooting oneself in the head is classified as suicide. But chain-smoking isn't considered suicide, even though If something else didn't kill you first, chain-smoking would lead to death eventually.

No let's look at the same thing on a global scale. Launching a nuclear attack would be considered an act of war. But slowly increasing the poison in the air we breathe? Perfectly acceptable. Both will ultimately lead to an apocalypse, but only the former type of act is considered malicious and merits a response.

As for Obama... for the millionth time, shut up about Obama. You hate Obama. We know. We now know it better than we know that the Energizer batteries keep going. I'm going to start thinking that you and Obama were classmates in grade school, and that he regularly raped you behind the playground. We're talking about the potential end of complex life on Earth and you're trying to sneak in jabs at Obama again. Get over it.

Jeff, on 10 August 2012 - 07:22 PM, said:

I've felt for a long time that what we should be voting for shouldn't technically be representatives. We can vote in the "idea" people,, who propose bills and such, but at the end of the day, when it comes time to vote on those bills, WE do it, rather than have the reps do it for us.

Seeing that map in the earlier post reminds of when I saw that map or a similar one overlayed with where a lot of our oil and natural gas deposits are suspected to be. What a coincidence that those areas have been taken away from potential developement. And leases being revoked or denied. And then our "leader" looks into his teleprompter and tells us how much he is doing for our own domestic oil and natural gas programs.

wayskobfssae, on 10 August 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Actually, I don't think we're talking about anything in particular in this thread, hence "Political Shitshooting". It would be pointless to recognize an actual topic.

Also, like many conservatives, Mad Max doesn't hate Obama... he just vehemently disagrees with his policy and ideology.

Bush was hated. People on the left openly admitted to hating Bush.

Quote

Agreed. Representatives don't represent the people they are elected by - which is why Dick Lugar was tossed out unceremoniously in his Senate primary. There is a growing sense of disdain towards incumbent politicians in the U.S.

Achenar, on 11 August 2012 - 05:30 AM, said:

In that case, if it happens again, I shall remember to respond with less... surgical accuracy.

Quote

My assessment on Max's feelings for Obama was more based on the attempts to drag the discussion back to it after we had (appeared) to move on from it, rather than the insults that he's tossed out.

Quote

It doesn't help that political positions have turned into careers, and means to a wealthy retirement; something they never should have/were never intended to be.

I totally agree with the last statement.

wayskobfssae, on 10 August 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

Who are you talking about specifically? This is just the same old rhetoric without any substance to back it up. Not everyone who owns a business is some billionaire oil baron living in a castle or something. Even those supposed big evil billionaires like Bill Gates give most of their money to charity. It's so sad that every time people have this conversation they have to be re-taught every facet of civilization. You're just gonna have to figure it out on you're own with time.

Quote

So you're pro-war then for practically any reason? You are such a fucking hypocrite it's hilarious. Just like the rest of the liberals out there. You say anything without really thinking about the consequences. Aren't people tired of war? It destroys economies, kills millions of innocent people, all because some ideologue inside a white building signed his name on a piece of paper. Why should somebody tell people at the other side of the world how to live? Do as we say or we blow you up. That's tyranny.

As for the environmental problems, let them rot. It took America almost a century to realize what we were doing was bad. Actually look back at how disgusting our rivers were in the early 20th century. Compared to now it's like a night and day difference. Everything else is an Al Gore conspiracy theory. Nothing he said in his movie came true and all of the scientists involved came out and said it was bullshit.

Look, I used to think exactly like you. But as you see enough time go by and go out there to witness what's going on with your own two eyes, everything is so completely different than what you believe. It takes a while putting things back together in your head. You will eventually reach this point, as I did. Or you'll teach at Columbia.

Quote

I'm sure there will come a day where the people will wake up and stand up to these corporations. It's kind of already happening with a lot of the protests and such.

Mad Max RW, on 11 August 2012 - 06:07 AM, said:

You think I'm just talking about oil? ANY industry that relies on resources that are at the very least, HARD to replenish, is guilty of this thought process. Bringing up Bill Gates is moot since software has a pretty non-existent carbon footprint. And giving to a charity will mean diddly squat if everyone is dead. Not that I think Gates is like this, but anyone can donate to charity just for some good PR.

Quote

Hardly any reason. Once again you didn't read anything. "ooOOOOhhh, such a fucking hypocrite it's hilarious, just like the rest (obvious generalization is obvious) of the liberals out there." Look in a fucking mirror, Mr. All-Knowing. Everything you've been projecting on me, you yourself possess. You responded once again to everything I said with some bullshit generalization, so don't you dare go and tell me that's what I'm doing.

So you think that war should be avoided even if it means letting humanity perish? It really wouldn't surprise me, because you've got your head shoved so far up your liberal-hating ass, that it really wouldn't surprise me if you'd prefer the world end... as long as it wasn't a liberal who saved it.

Quote

HAA hahahahahaaa, yep... I was WAITING for that one. Al Gore conspiracy theory. Blah blah blah same old rhetoric without any substance, blah blah blah.

I don't know about you, but I was hearing about this way before Al Gore went into filmmaking. If his research is all you're going by, it's just to ignore its possibilities. Perpetual growth CANNOT be sustained. Earth does not get bigger. Humanity's population does. It is growing exponentially. As is the number of cars those people need. And the food those people need. And the medicine. And the air. And the land. And the jobs. The list goes on and on. One not even need to look specifically at ecology to see where this will inevitably lead. If you can't realize it, then you're blind in a far worse way than you're accusing me of. Not to mention just as much of a tyrant. You just think it's somehow less evil to kill people through environmental destruction than it is to do so with guns or bombs. Death is death, no matter how you slice it. Whether you do it with a sword, a pen, or carbon monoxide.

Quote

Mmhm... yes, because politics are SOOOO much more important then SURVIVAL. You're thinking like society as we have it today is the same as it will be 100 years from now. It won't be. It CAN'T be. There is no way it can sustain itself. When there isn't enough of something, humans WILL turn on each other. And if you want to whine about how terrible war is, go ahead. Billions will die as a result of coming disasters whether there is war or not. War will happen not because the people are tyrants or because they like beating people up, but because people will all want to be one of the ones who SURVIVES. Feel free to look for a way to blame Obama for a the few billion years of evolutionary survival instinct that tends to put humanity into this mindset.

Haha, now who's coming off as an angry hate-filled child? I love your end of the world conspiracy theories, btw. It's pretty obvious from the last few days I exposed you for the ignorant person you truly are.

I'm sure if we look at all the negative stuff, we might be doomed to extinction in a hundred years or so. There are some who are actually seeing a positive future ahead for us.

IIRC, the guy that helped convince Al Gore back in the early 80's of global warming was the same guy predicting a mini ice age in the 70's. And if you go by the previous timelines of "point of no return" which we have passed a few times already it sure does weaken their case.

I'm going to construct a timeline of all of the topics that we have touched upon in this thread, because I think we have covered just about all of the hot-button political issues - except maybe for Israel.

I didn't read all pages in this thread. Has anyone touched on the subject of the CBO and how some consider it the final word on a subject and others say "garbage in= garbage out" when they figure their reports.

There's another saying that someone said to me. What you believe is what you create. So if people want to believe that we'll have a peaceful world in another 50 years or so, then that's what will happen. Anything can happen if we put our minds to it. Or on the flip side, with the doomsday thing, if we let our negative thoughts will get the better of us, then in another 50 years the world will look like a post-apocalyptic war zone where people are fighting over basic essentials like food, water, and shelter.

Mad Max RW, on 11 August 2012 - 07:20 AM, said:

Well it it's not me. I just decided that in accordance with the following:

A: Since you're just going to spew the same pointless insults at me over and over, (oh look there's the one about being an idiot again too, isn't that cute?)
B: Since you claim that the only things wrong with the country are the ones that that affect you directly
C: Since you claim everything not covered under B is a liberal hallucination
D: Are still obsessed with telling me how ignorant I am
E: Ignored everything I said for the umpteenth time.

I might as well follow your example and not bother being the least bit decent either.

And If you hate war so much, you'd think you would try harder not to initiate them.

Israel? Yeah, I'll go ahead and say it, fuck Israel.

Captain Awesome, on 11 August 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

That is just WRONG on so many levels.

... you can't have sex with a nation.

Jeff, on 11 August 2012 - 09:13 AM, said:

So if we believe that we'll have more resources then... *BINGO* we will? So that's how that deity fed 5000 people with 5 loaves of bread and 2 fish. He just believed it was more and so it was? You must teach us all this mastery of reality, Neo. Release us from the Matrix.

wayskobfssae, on 11 August 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

I don't know. I'm just trying to see it differently than rather a doom and gloom point of view. People seem to have this idea that is it our destiny to destroy ourselves, but that's not always the case. That's just one possible outcome. There are many.

Jeff, on 11 August 2012 - 11:33 AM, said:

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But I've definitely found, in just about every aspect of life, that destruction always has this way of being "easier" than creation. It can take all day to climb a mountain, but only one loose rock or a moment of clumsiness to slip and die. Sure we can survive. But we won't do that by sitting around and pretending that everything will just fix itself.

wayskobfssae, on 11 August 2012 - 11:10 AM, said:

You could do the Vatican in less than a year.

LeoD, on 11 August 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

Perhaps, except... we don't do the Vatican. The Vatican does us.

wayskobfssae, on 10 August 2012 - 04:29 PM, said:

+1 to you, sir.

Growth is extremely dangerous, and people don't realise it. If something grows 7% every year, in ten years it is double the size it was to begin with. In industry this has massive repercussions. Let's say you take a town, who's population is growing 3.5% a year. In 20 years, that town needs double the resources it had to begin with. Double the food, double the power, double everything that is being consumed. Capitalism is based on growth. In a capitalist society, nothing is better than healthy, steady growth. It's a short-sighted way of life that cannot continue forever.



This chap explains it marvellously.