[Mikko]

http://www.foxnews.c...are-device-tax/

Martin, on 29 July 2012 - 05:45 AM, said:

Lol Mikko, you thought you'd slip a retort in ages later.

Eh, what? What difference does it make when I choose to reply? You consider a day "ages later" and replying in a normal manner "slipping in"?

I'll get back to the topic at hand when circumstances permit; I have a friend over for about a week so we'll see.

[Hendricks266]

The Tea Party is idiotic.

[Mad Max RW]

Hendricks266, on 29 July 2012 - 11:07 AM, said:

The Tea Party is idiotic.

Why? What do you know about the Tea Party? But first ask yourself where you got your information about them to form such a thoughtful opinion.

Oh, and if you go into the same old rhetoric about them being racist or promoting violence be sure to have specific examples to back it up.

[Hendricks266]

Tea Baggers on the ground level are not much more than large groups of people who don't know what the fuck they are talking about.

http://latftp.com/

http://lookatthisfuc...ger.tumblr.com/

[Mad Max RW]

Haha, oh brother. Your website spews more hatred than any unproven claim about the Tea Party. You just walked right into it. More proof the far left is full of the true racists and hate-mongers. But keep on believing. It's good for a laugh.

I'd like to clarify I'm not a member of any party, past or present. I think labeling yourself as Republican, Democrat, Tea-Party, Occupier, or whatever is ridiculous and stupid and goes against why America was founded in the first place. Just nipping that one in the bud before you claim or question otherwise to deflect your little argument.

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 29 July 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

Haha, oh brother. Your website spews more hatred than any unproven claim about the Tea Party. You just walked right into it. More proof the far left is full of the true racists and hate-mongers. But keep on believing. It's good for a laugh.

I'd like to clarify I'm not a member of any party, past or present. I think labeling yourself as Republican, Democrat, Tea-Party, Occupier, or whatever is ridiculous and stupid and goes against why America was founded in the first place. Just nipping that one in the bud before you claim or question otherwise to deflect your little argument.

Too bad the official Tea Party site uses all youtube vids to explain their views.

[Mad Max RW]

wayskobfssae, on 29 July 2012 - 11:38 AM, said:

Too bad the official Tea Party site uses all youtube vids to explain their views.

What? I'm looking at their official website now and I can't find a single youtube video.

[wayskobfssae]

Mad Max RW, on 29 July 2012 - 11:43 AM, said:

What? I'm looking at their official website now and I can't find a single youtube video.

Actually I just went back there and now it looks entirely different. Same web addy, different site. Like I was given a redirect. That was... creepy.

[Mad Max RW]

It must've been the Bilderberg Group. Now there's a conspiracy theory.

[Danukem]

Mad Max RW, on 29 July 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

I think labeling yourself as Republican, Democrat, Tea-Party, Occupier, or whatever is ridiculous and stupid and goes against why America was founded in the first place.

Any significant political party or movement is bound to contain unsavory elements. And you can count on the opponents of that party or movement to characterize it by its worst members. If you want to avoid making enemies, the safest thing is to refrain from labeling yourself as part of a political group. But the fact is that these groups have a huge role in shaping the political landscape, and that when we vote for representatives, they always belong to one group or another. If you vote, you probably vote in a consistent manner, which means that those you vote for will tend to be from a certain political party. If that's the case, you might as well admit that you are of that party. Unless, that is, you are just trying to avoid making enemies in public.

What we should be able to do is go ahead and label ourselves, but with the understanding that we are still individuals and the label doesn't fit us perfectly, nor do we endorse the actions of every nutter who also uses that same label. Why? Because labeling, while crude, does get across useful information about ourselves. Unfortunately, there is so much political hatred in our society that most people will hate us the minute we label ourselves and won't listen to anything we say from that point forward.

[wayskobfssae]

Trooper Dan, on 29 July 2012 - 03:47 PM, said:

Any significant political party or movement is bound to contain unsavory elements. And you can count on the opponents of that party or movement to characterize it by its worst members. If you want to avoid making enemies, the safest thing is to refrain from labeling yourself as part of a political group. But the fact is that these groups have a huge role in shaping the political landscape, and that when we vote for representatives, they always belong to one group or another. If you vote, you probably vote in a consistent manner, which means that those you vote for will tend to be from a certain political party. If that's the case, you might as well admit that you are of that party. Unless, that is, you are just trying to avoid making enemies in public.

What we should be able to do is go ahead and label ourselves, but with the understanding that we are still individuals and the label doesn't fit us perfectly, nor do we endorse the actions of every nutter who also uses that same label. Why? Because labeling, while crude, does get across useful information about ourselves. Unfortunately, there is so much political hatred in our society that most people will hate us the minute we label ourselves and won't listen to anything we say from that point forward.

Labels seem worse in our culture now than they ever have been before, despite the current anti-stereotype/political correctness obsession. One need only complain about a local gas station who is price-gouging to be labelled a Socialist scumbag.

What is even weirder these days though is that, you can more easily challenge someone to a duel to the death just by saying, "I disagree with you", than you could by hitting them with every single curse word in the slang dictionary.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Well, to nobody's surprise, it seems that we have steered away from the specific issue of U.S. nationalized healthcare and more towards a broad, unfocused discussion on ideology. I'm getting a headache just reading the last six posts. Maybe it's because I thought I was over and done with this after finishing college.

Going on what DeeperThought said:

Quote

If you vote, you probably vote in a consistent manner, which means that those you vote for will tend to be from a certain political party. If that's the case, you might as well admit that you are of that party.

A great point, except it doesn't work that way in the United States. I took a political quiz and found that my positions aligned 99% with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. I am a self-identified Libertarian. What are the chances that I'm going to vote Libertarian this election? Probably very slim.

Quote

What is even weirder these days though is that, you can more easily challenge someone to a duel to the death just by saying, "I disagree with you", than you could by hitting them with every single curse word in the slang dictionary.

That's ideology for you. Once people start telling other people how they ought to live their life, we start tapping into that basic, raw human instinct that screams "I am an individual and I am not your slave". God knows how many wars have been fought over this.

[Danukem]

Achenar, on 29 July 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

A great point, except it doesn't work that way in the United States. I took a political quiz and found that my positions aligned 99% with Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson. What are the chances that I'm going to vote Libertarian this election? Probably very slim.

I'm guessing you probably end up voting for Republicans, since they tend to line up with Libertarian views more than Democrats. What I'm saying is, if you tend to vote with a certain party (even if it's because that party is the lesser of two evils), then there should be nothing wrong with identifying yourself with that party, just to give people a rough idea of where you stand. Or if you want to qualify it more, you could say something like, "I'm really a Libertarian, but I tend to vote Republican because I don't want to throw my vote away."

[Jimmy]

Mad Max RW, on 29 July 2012 - 10:00 AM, said:

Verifiable facts are not theories.

I wasn't commenting on the facts as you say. My point was rather that the crazies don't need a few corporate sham parades for them to figure out true stuff and come up with insane shit. People would still be talking about this stuff without the Tea Party or Ron Paul. Our culture and technology is prime for proliferation of information and ideas, more than ever before. Why do you think people want to shut down the free internet and turn it into another mondo-condo shopping mall marketing scheme from Hell?

I'm voting for Jello Biafra. There is always room for Jello.

[wayskobfssae]

Achenar, on 29 July 2012 - 03:55 PM, said:

Well, to nobody's surprise, it seems that we have steered away from the specific issue of U.S. nationalized healthcare and more towards a broad, unfocused discussion on ideology. I'm getting a headache just reading the last six posts. Maybe it's because I thought I was over and done with this after finishing college.

Not really too surprising. Though it seems we all more or less agree that while it has its good points, National Healthcare has its flaws, and we're discussing alternatives. But the "spirit" of the idea of healthcare for everyone, is making life affordable. And "universally affordable living" is a really BIG cookie.

Captain Awesome, on 29 July 2012 - 06:05 PM, said:

I wasn't commenting on the facts as you say. My point was rather that the crazies don't need a few corporate sham parades for them to figure out true stuff and come up with insane shit. People would still be talking about this stuff without the Tea Party or Ron Paul. Our culture and technology is prime for proliferation of information and ideas, more than ever before. Why do you think people want to shut down the free internet and turn it into another mondo-condo shopping mall marketing scheme from Hell?

And preventing that from happening would be a good thing.

BUT... that would be Socialism, and Socialism is the new Communism, which at one time was the new Galaxy-Conquering Baby-Eating Satanism.

[Jimmy]

Anyone who uses Socialism/Communism as a descriptive term for something 'evil' is a dolt and I don't trust their judgement.

[Ronin]

Empathy goes a long way, I get the feeling many posters here are completely devoid of it. I'm alright Jack keep your hands off of my stash. As long as things go my way fuck everybody else. That's the truth no matter how you try to dress it up. Cro-Magnon consciousnesses.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Ripemanewone, on 29 July 2012 - 08:23 PM, said:

Empathy goes a long way, I get the feeling many posters here are completely devoid of it. I'm alright Jack keep your hands off of my stash. As long as things go my way fuck everybody else. That's the truth no matter how you try to dress it up. Cro-Magnon consciousnesses.

Way to completely be presumptuous.

Put it this way; I'm going to help out the people that I know for a fact deserve the help, and those who know me personally know that I am a very caring person. I don't want government mandating who my money goes to, how much, and when. Let me be the judge of that. Charities exist for a reason.

[wayskobfssae]

Achenar, on 29 July 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

Way to completely be presumptuous.

Put it this way; I'm going to help out the people that I know for a fact deserve the help, and those who know me personally know that I am a very caring person. I don't want government mandating who my money goes to, how much, and when. Let me be the judge of that. Charities exist for a reason.

Speaking of presumptuous...

[Inspector Lagomorf]

wayskobfssae, on 29 July 2012 - 09:14 PM, said:

Speaking of presumptuous...

I'm on a bit of a short fuse tonight. I'm sorry for the hostile nature of my previous post.

[wayskobfssae]

Achenar, on 29 July 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

I'm on a bit of a short fuse tonight. I'm sorry for the hostile nature of my previous post.

It's cool, no problem.

[Ronin]

Achenar, on 29 July 2012 - 09:22 PM, said:

I'm on a bit of a short fuse tonight. I'm sorry for the hostile nature of my previous post.

I didn't take it as hostile, just defensive. I can't really judge you as most of us are programmed to think in terms of the self, we probably all are, but we don't all remain that way. Some break off and are more interested in a more progressive way of thinking and as a result, they do.

[CruX]

This billboard brought to you by the "liberal-dominated media with an agenda". I'm no fan of Obama and I won't make any excuses for the left when it comes to getting their point across, because I know they aren't exactly angels either, but Obama's presidency really has brought out the worst in rightwing activism. Living in Texas (a state that hasn't had a Dem for a governor since hee-haw), I see some vicious-natured crap like this almost every day. I really have no problem with the Tea Party or folks on the right, which is why things like this are more disappointing than anything else.

[wayskobfssae]

EmericaSkater, on 30 July 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

This billboard brought to you by the "liberal-dominated media with an agenda". I'm no fan of Obama and I won't make any excuses for the left when it comes to getting their point across, because I know they aren't exactly angels either, but Obama's presidency really has brought out the worst in rightwing activism. Living in Texas (a state that hasn't had a Dem for a governor since hee-haw), I see some vicious-natured crap like this almost every day. I really have no problem with the Tea Party or folks on the right, which is why things like this are more disappointing than anything else.

I bet a lot of the people who agree with that billboard would probably see no problem with putting W. Bush back in office. Closer to the original topic, corporate money-mongering, health insurance costs, etc kill people all the time, and nobody points a finger because, "It's just business." Biggest cop-out expression in modern history.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

EmericaSkater, on 30 July 2012 - 05:48 AM, said:

Obviously that billboard is over-the-top, and drawing attention to it isn't making reconciliation between political groups any easier, especially since we can cite examples of this for both major parties.

Quote

I bet a lot of the people who agree with that billboard would probably see no problem with putting W. Bush back in office.

I don't see what George W. Bush has to do with this.

[wayskobfssae]

Achenar, on 30 July 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

I don't see what George W. Bush has to do with this.

Putting holes in peoples' bodies.

I'm just saying, considering the recent republican presidential track record, they have no business even saying how many people Obama has gotten killed.

And on another side-note... is 4chan now in charge of political advertising?

[CruX]

Achenar, on 30 July 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Obviously that billboard is over-the-top, and drawing attention to it isn't making reconciliation between political groups any easier, especially since we can cite examples of this for both major parties.

What I was mentioning was more in reference to the whole liberal-dominated media thing than political reconciliation, which nobody seems to be concerned over anyway. Just rubs me wrong when I hear somebody say the "media is dominated by ideal x", and the latter part of your post explains why.

[Hendricks266]

Achenar, on 30 July 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

especially since we can cite examples of this for both major parties.

Really? The two parties are not symmetrical. The Democratic Party is a neutered 15-year old dog. You just don't see this kind of shit coming from the left, especially since the left does not have the same fear-mongering, hate-spewing, and sometimes grammar-incapable fan base as the right. I remember vivid criticisms of George W. Bush while he was in office from liberals, but he was never compared to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or chimpanzees. Obama hasn't really done anything wrong. You could argue that Obamacare et al was problematic (and I would agree) but at least it was in the interest of the people and not lying your way into a bogus war that cost a lot of money and killed 2000+ of our finest fresh adults.

[Inspector Lagomorf]

Hendricks266, on 30 July 2012 - 10:37 AM, said:

I remember vivid criticisms of George W. Bush while he was in office from liberals, but he was never compared to Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or chimpanzees.

Here you go

I just found in ten seconds on Google at least three examples. I am sure Obama has received similar comparisons, but it is completely false to state that only the right engages in this form of "fear-mongering, hate-spewing" rhetoric. Stop looking at things from the perspective of "this party right, that party wrong". There are idiots and geniuses on both sides.

[wayskobfssae]

Aye, and this current tangent needs to stop soon, or this discussion is going to degrade into a U.N. meeting.