44% of Republicans Believe "Armed Revolution is Necessary"

[quote name='dohdough']
Says the person that held Sweden as an example of the success of the free market and how shareholders are immune from poor financial earnings and losses caused by a CEO. The irony of this post is giving me tetanus.[/QUOTE]
Let me school you once again. When I talked about Sweden, I mentioned that they only prospered under free market reforms and economically declined when socialists took over. I explained that to you and even gave some concrete examples.

I never said shareholders were immune from financial risks. What I did say is that they were not penalized like a an employee or CEO would. For example if CEO does a piss poor job then he would be fired. Simple as that.

Again if you fail to grasp this information then I am sorry. Try taking an econ class.
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Sometimes I just can't decide if it's just straight up over exaggerated opinions just to troll or if they really do strongly believe these things... I suspect it's the former but that's probably because I'm too optimistic to think it's the latter.

In either situation, useful and thought-provoking discussion is quickly dwindling away from the VS. board.[/QUOTE]

In reality it seems only people on the left are trolling on these forums. The conservatives actually try and defend their points. I am not saying all of you are the same, Dohdough actually argues his points but in the end fails miserably.

The reason why it is so hard to have a good discussion is because you people either personally attack another member, post useless comments or make worst assumptions of us when we disagree instead of trying to actually process what we say.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']


In reality it seems only people on the left are trolling on these forums. The conservatives actually try and defend their points. I am not saying all of you are the same, Dohdough actually argues his points but in the end fails miserably.

The reason why it is so hard to have a good discussion is because you people either personally attack another member, post useless comments or make worst assumptions of us when we disagree instead of trying to actually process what we say.[/QUOTE]

Eh, it goes both ways, I see people on both sides in this forum trolling. The problem is that both groups are pretty entrenched in their positions, so it's just really mostly yelling at each other.
 
[quote name='egofed']
You want the gov't to be able to tell you who you can rent to, yet not be able to tell a person on welfare what junk foods they can't buy with tax payer money.....ooooookkkkkkk:roll:[/QUOTE]

Yes because trying to ensure everyone has the right to rent an apartment is exactly the same as telling someone what they CANNOT do. I want the government to make sure I can do what I want and if some idiot tries to discriminate then they are held accountable. The example above is actually very consistent with my core belief. Government telling me not to eat junk food infringes on my rights. Someone being told to rent apartments to anyone who can afford them also protects my rights. You think a person has the right to limit other people's rights and that is the problem. I always thought the Libertarians motto was do it as long as it does not hurt someone else? Discrimination is hurting someone else.
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']I want the government to make sure I can do what I want and if some idiot tries to discriminate then they are held accountable.[/QUOTE]

Why is your "want" to do something on/to someone's private property more important than that someone's "want" to keep their private property under their control?
 
[quote name='unclebob']why is your "want" to do something on/to someone's private property more important than that someone's "want" to keep their private property under their control?[/quote]

bingo!!!!
 
[quote name='UncleBob']But that isn't what I (or some others) have said.

"I think private citizens should be allowed to control who goes on their own private property." isn't anywhere in the same ball park as "I think private citizens should control who goes on their own private property based on the color of one's skin."

.[/QUOTE]

oh to be young and naive again

[quote name='UncleBob']Why is your "want" to do something on/to someone's private property more important than that someone's "want" to keep their private property under their control?[/QUOTE]


because, you fucking live in society and not on a island by yourself. Same with the myopic "let the idiot" do what he wants argument...we all wind up paying for that guy in some way. The days of that guy not impacting everyone else are largely long gone (unless he live in he middle of WY)
 
[quote name='cancerman1120']Yes because trying to ensure everyone has the right to rent an apartment is exactly the same as telling someone what they CANNOT do. I want the government to make sure I can do what I want and if some idiot tries to discriminate then they are held accountable. The example above is actually very consistent with my core belief. Government telling me not to eat junk food infringes on my rights. Someone being told to rent apartments to anyone who can afford them also protects my rights. You think a person has the right to limit other people's rights and that is the problem. I always thought the Libertarians motto was do it as long as it does not hurt someone else? Discrimination is hurting someone else.[/QUOTE]

You missed my point entirely. I definitely do not want the gov't to be able to enforce any type of junk food ban, the only possible exception I see for gov't "Big Brother" laws is when people are living off of gov't assistance. We have a ton of people on disability for high blood pressure and diabetes. WE pay them to live, and have no rules against them buying and consuming the same crap that lead to their condition in the first place. You are cool wit dat? I value liberty and freedom above all else, but I see taking someone's money to give to others who didn't earn it as breaking those liberties and freedoms, and if you are gonna infringe, then you might as well regulate the hell out of those people who are causing the infringement. Rejoin society as a contributing member, or at least not a financial liability, and enjoy your freedom and liberty like the rest of us.
 
[quote name='usickenme']because, you fucking live in society and not on a island by yourself. Same with the myopic "let the idiot" do what he wants argument...we all wind up paying for that guy in some way. The days of that guy not impacting everyone else are largely long gone (unless he live in he middle of WY)[/QUOTE]

So... because we live in a society, your individual wants are more important than the individual wants of others. Makes sense.

As for your view regarding "let the idiot do what they want" - do you feel that the government should force a particular diet on people?
 
[quote name='egofed']There's a big difference between ensuring equal treatment of all people under the gov't's domain when dealing with said gov't, and trying to regulate private interactions among private citizens. Also, elevating groups ABOVE others to ensure equality seems rather odd, no? The whole "hate crime" bullcrap is nonsense. A murderer's motive for premeditated killing and who his victim is should not matter in dealing out punishment. Once you make the same laws apply to all people, the gov't's job is done. Who's beating and killing black people with impunity today? Maybe just....the gov't.;)

Say what you want about silk, but he at least responds to criticism and doesn't hide behind the ignore function as far as I know.

I also wanted to make sure cancerman knew that I am aware of the Civil Rights Acts that are on the books. I'm saying that the ones concerning private citizens and private property are crap when viewed by someone who supports personal freedom and liberty. Outlawing racism and hatred is like outlawing ignorance and stupidity. It is pointless, ineffective, and waaay out of the gov't's scope of power when it concerns the PRIVATE world.

You want the gov't to be able to tell you who you can rent to, yet not be able to tell a person on welfare what junk foods they can't buy with tax payer money.....ooooookkkkkkk:roll:[/QUOTE]
Hmmm...giving black people the same benefits and resources that they were previously excluded from is somehow putting them ABOVE whites that continue to have the same benefits and resources. Yeah ok. Tell me more about how blacks(Latinos and Southeast Asians for that matter) are getting put so far ahead of whites that they're taking over all yer jubz from whitey.
It ain't happening.

There's a difference between targeting individuals and targeting groups. Do you think that there should be no difference in the classification between people that rape adults and children? How about punishments?

There's also a difference between the government telling someone that they can't not rent to someone else for reasons x, y, z and telling someone that they HAVE to rent to someone for reasons a, b, c and x, y, z. But I guess since the devil is in the details, you try to shy away from them. edit: This isn't even taking into account that reasons d through w are perfectly valid to refuse someone service.

But since you're living high on the hog off the government teat and mah taxez, I'd like to know if you're wasting tax payer money while posting on the internet instead of doing something more productive like...I dunno...actually working.

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Let me school you once again. When I talked about Sweden, I mentioned that they only prospered under free market reforms and economically declined when socialists took over. I explained that to you and even gave some concrete examples.

I never said shareholders were immune from financial risks. What I did say is that they were not penalized like a an employee or CEO would. For example if CEO does a piss poor job then he would be fired. Simple as that.

Again if you fail to grasp this information then I am sorry. Try taking an econ class.


In reality it seems only people on the left are trolling on these forums. The conservatives actually try and defend their points. I am not saying all of you are the same, Dohdough actually argues his points but in the end fails miserably.

The reason why it is so hard to have a good discussion is because you people either personally attack another member, post useless comments or make worst assumptions of us when we disagree instead of trying to actually process what we say.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ...and when I brought up that Sweden still had better social safety nets, unique circumstances pre and post WW2, the loosening of regulations causing a real estate bubble, and partially nationalizing the banks, all I heard were mantras about FREE MARKET REFORMS and bagging on Hollande.

Lemme refresh your memory on what you said exactly:
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']When the company experiences the hardships, shareholders do not get penalized instead it is the person who runs the company. If the company prospers then the CEO gets a nice bonus. Its not rocket science.[/quote]

http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10702169&postcount=58

If by "penalized," you mean getting a golden parachute, then you'd not only be pedantic, but correct.

And LOLZ at taking an econ class. Sorry buddy, but I made it a little further past the concept of supply and demand, so maybe you should take econ 101 again. Or maybe you can tell me how good of an econ student you were and even tutored your classmates while currently forgetting almost everything you learned. Yeah, that's the ticket.

I fail because you think I'm trying to convince you? Dude, your epistemic closure is locked up so tight that you can't even stay logically consistent in one post. Must be easier for you to make passive aggressive insults instead of reason, I suppose. Nebulous and loaded terms like "freedom" and "liberty" to McGuffin your way into and out of a debate isn't exactly "defending their post."

[quote name='soulvengeance']Eh, it goes both ways, I see people on both sides in this forum trolling. The problem is that both groups are pretty entrenched in their positions, so it's just really mostly yelling at each other.[/QUOTE]
To be fair, the signal to noise ratio between the ideological factions aren't exactly equal nor is the actual quality of knowledge. I'm far from innocent of making snide remarks, but even when it comes to insults, there's a pretty huge disparity in quality and tone.

mykevermin and others, I hope you appreciate me not breaking your ignore features.:lol:
 
[quote name='dohdough']
LOLZ...and when I brought up that Sweden still had better social safety nets, unique circumstances pre and post WW2, the loosening of regulations causing a real estate bubble, and partially nationalizing the banks, all I heard were mantras about FREE MARKET REFORMS and bagging on Hollande.

Lemme refresh your memory on what you said exactly:
http://www.cheapassgamer.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10702169&postcount=58

If by "penalized," you mean getting a golden parachute, then you'd not only be pedantic, but correct.

And LOLZ at taking an econ class. Sorry buddy, but I made it a little further past the concept of supply and demand, so maybe you should take econ 101 again. Or maybe you can tell me how good of an econ student you were and even tutored your classmates while currently forgetting almost everything you learned. Yeah, that's the ticket.
[/QUOTE]
I am sorry but it seems your wrong when it comes to Econ and basic reading. I already explained to you why the economy in Sweden to falter. It was due to socialist reforms and not the free market ones. I refuted your point in regards to deregulation, go back and read the posts one more time.

When I mentioned the CEO being penalized, I talked about losing a job or getting a paycut. Obviously shareholders lose value of the stock they are holding but that is not what I was referring to. If you can not grasp that then no class will help you. Common sense 101. :wall:

I fail because you think I'm trying to convince you? Dude, your epistemic closure is locked up so tight that you can't even stay logically consistent in one post. Must be easier for you to make passive aggressive insults instead of reason, I suppose. Nebulous and loaded terms like "freedom" and "liberty" to McGuffin your way into and out of a debate isn't exactly "defending their post."
Click to expand...
Now that is funny. I actually used to be a big government supporter when I was a teenager believing that they should be the party who decides everything for us. Then I realized how wrong I was and became a libertarian. Unlike you I keep an open mind about everything, you on the other hand live in a tightly locked, little bubble. My logic>your logic. GG kiddo.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']
In reality it seems only people on the left are trolling on these forums. The conservatives actually try and defend their points. I am not saying all of you are the same, Dohdough actually argues his points but in the end fails miserably. [/quote]

Oh please, don't actually sit here and try to tell me only "your" side ever defends their points and gives supporting evidence. You've embarrassed yourself time and again with your completely haphazard support of your viewpoints. First there was your shareholder/CEO blunder, now you've got this civil rights act cloud hanging over your head for framing the argument as forcing people to get along rather than preventing people from being judged only on their skin color. This gem is still my favorite:

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Next time you throw a party, invite us freedom lovers. If you don't then I will tell the government that you discriminate.[/QUOTE]

It clearly shows you have no idea what you're talking about because it's not even a logically sound argument to make. You're saying here that the civil rights act, and government intervention, is forcing whites to allow other races into their "party" when that's not it at all. Like we've said over and over, the civil rights act is all about preventing people from being discriminated against, not forcing them to be "friends" and party together. To inject it back into your analogy, the difference is that throwing a party and saying "whites only" is what is the subject of civil rights legislation is, not throwing a party and choosing not to invite certain people. As has already been pointed out, there's a nuance there that you're willfully ignoring.

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']
The reason why it is so hard to have a good discussion is because you people either personally attack another member, post useless comments or make worst assumptions of us when we disagree instead of trying to actually process what we say.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, there's insults hurtled in here and condescending remarks. Don't act like you're above it, either. Hell, just after posting that you posted this:

[quote name='mrsilkunderwear'] Unlike you I keep an open mind about everything, you on the other hand live in a tightly locked, little bubble. My logic>your logic. GG kiddo.[/QUOTE]

It don't get much more condescending, insulting, and dismissive than that passive aggressive display right there.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Oh please, don't actually sit here and try to tell me only "your" side ever defends their points and gives supporting evidence. You've embarrassed yourself time and again with your completely haphazard support of your viewpoints. First there was your shareholder/CEO blunder, now you've got this civil rights act cloud hanging over your head for framing the argument as forcing people to get along rather than preventing people from being judged only on their skin color. This gem is still my favorite:
[/QUOTE]
Embarrassed? Well I certainly do not feel that way. Actually I feel quite alright considering I have defended each of my points. I am not some hobo hating, redneck racist your making me out to be. I have explained myself in regards to the CEO point, read it again. What about the civil rights? Just because I disagree that part of it is unconstitutional, I am automatically a bad guy?

It clearly shows you have no idea what you're talking about because it's not even a logically sound argument to make. You're saying here that the civil rights act, and government intervention, is forcing whites to allow other races into their "party" when that's not it at all. Like we've said over and over, the civil rights act is all about preventing people from being discriminated against, not forcing them to be "friends" and party together. To inject it back into your analogy, the difference is that throwing a party and saying "whites only" is what is the subject of civil rights legislation is, not throwing a party and choosing not to invite certain people. As has already been pointed out, there's a nuance there that you're willfully ignoring.
Click to expand...
Actually I feel like your the one who does not what he is talking about. If this was a public event which was sponsored by the local government then yes, shut it down. Instead we have an event which is privately sponsored. The hosts therefore make the rules. This is why you an example of party, quite simple.

Yeah, there's insults hurtled in here and condescending remarks. Don't act like you're above it, either. Hell, just after posting that you posted this:
Click to expand...
Did you see the things he said to me? Re-read all my posts and see if I go ahead and attack anyone for posting their opinion. I only strike back when necessary. I am pretty sure that wasn't the case with you, you just attacked me for having a different opinion on an issue. Maybe you should be the one embarrassed for not being to have a civil discussion.

It don't get much more condescending, insulting, and dismissive than that passive aggressive display right there.
Click to expand...
Nope, yours is the worst so far.
Not inviting someone because they're a moron and an asshole isn't the same as not inviting someone because of the color of their skin.
Click to expand...
Again if you cannot keep emotions to yourself then please do not participate. I am sure none of us here deserve any of the shit that has been spewing.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Embarrassed? Well I certainly do not feel that way. Actually I feel quite alright considering I have defended each of my points. I am not some hobo hating, redneck racist your making me out to be. I have explained myself in regards to the CEO point, read it again. What about the civil rights? Just because I disagree that part of it is unconstitutional, I am automatically a bad guy?


Actually I feel like your the one who does not what he is talking about. If this was a public event which was sponsored by the local government then yes, shut it down. Instead we have an event which is privately sponsored. The hosts therefore make the rules. This is why you an example of party, quite simple.

[/QUOTE]

First off, the connection to public school makes it a quasi-public event in the first place. If using private funds were to circumvent the civil rights act, there'd be no reason to have the act at all. Second of all, hosts can set rules but that doesn't mean they're kings of their own little event, they're still subject to the laws of this country. They couldn't very well have a party where they decide murder is legal, now could they?

They don't need to invite the general public but if they are, or even if they are intending a party only for a targeted group, they can't very well say a subset of that group can't attend simply because of the color of their skin. That, in essence, is the entire point of the civil rights act.

As for the rest of your post, you can insult, we can't, fine, great, whatever...
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']Sometimes I just can't decide if it's just straight up over exaggerated opinions just to troll or if they really do strongly believe these things... I suspect it's the former but that's probably because I'm too optimistic to think it's the latter.

In either situation, useful and thought-provoking discussion is quickly dwindling away from the VS. board.[/QUOTE]
And it's funny that me or any of us gets accused of not adding to the conversation, when I don't see much conversation to add to. I could go on and on about their fucked up view of the world, but whats the point of that? The only thing I've learned from these many vs threads is that Rapture, minus the underwater setting and sci-fi aspect, is probably a lot more likely to happen than we think. The only way that someone with such a personal-island view of the world could be happy is to live on a literal island.
 
[quote name='RedvsBlue']First off, the connection to public school makes it a quasi-public event in the first place. If using private funds were to circumvent the civil rights act, there'd be no reason to have the act at all. Second of all, hosts can set rules but that doesn't mean they're kings of their own little event, they're still subject to the laws of this country. They couldn't very well have a party where they decide murder is legal, now could they?

They don't need to invite the general public but if they are, or even if they are intending a party only for a targeted group, they can't very well say a subset of that group can't attend simply because of the color of their skin. That, in essence, is the entire point of the civil rights act.

As for the rest of your post, you can insult, we can't, fine, great, whatever...[/QUOTE]

Here is the thing, I agree with you that this event is terrible and should not exist. I understand that it involves staff from a public school but again it is a private event. Actually based on what I know about the act so far, I believe it should exist in its current form. I have been trying to explain to you and other people that the best way to change someone's mind is through example and education. Force will not cut it.

They did not invite the general public, did they? Two proms for two different colored types of people. If I decided to throw a party and invite only Mexicans, will I be thrown in jail because I violated the civil rights act? No, because the civil rights act does not top the Constitution.

As for the rest of my post, if you only took that away then we have nothing else to talk about.
 
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']I am sorry but it seems your wrong when it comes to Econ and basic reading. I already explained to you why the economy in Sweden to falter. It was due to socialist reforms and not the free market ones. I refuted your point in regards to deregulation, go back and read the posts one more time.

When I mentioned the CEO being penalized, I talked about losing a job or getting a paycut. Obviously shareholders lose value of the stock they are holding but that is not what I was referring to. If you can not grasp that then no class will help you. Common sense 101. :wall:


Now that is funny. I actually used to be a big government supporter when I was a teenager believing that they should be the party who decides everything for us. Then I realized how wrong I was and became a libertarian. Unlike you I keep an open mind about everything, you on the other hand live in a tightly locked, little bubble. My logic>your logic. GG kiddo.[/QUOTE]
You didn't explain jack shit. All you did was wave those circumstances away as if they had no relevance because the Glorious Free Market can do no wrong. Is deregulating banks a socialist position? Last time I checked, it wasn't. But let's loop back to how the socialists were left holding the bag after the neo-liberals screwed the pooch or did you somehow forget that inbetween typing sentences that the conditions existed before the socialists came into power? Making baseless and vague statements, like the ones you've been making, doesn't refute anything.

Even when confronted with your own contradictory words and statements, I find it humorous that you can't seem to admit that you got yourself twisted up in your circular reasoning. I bet your next post will just rehash my own statements towards you and call me a kid again. Hate to break it to you, but others do the mimicry game far better than you do. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and unoriginal.

Btw, you were the first one to start throwing around insults in the other thread. HTH
 
[quote name='dohdough']You didn't explain jack shit. All you did was wave those circumstances away as if they had no relevance because the Glorious Free Market can do no wrong. Is deregulating banks a socialist position? Last time I checked, it wasn't. But let's loop back to how the socialists were left holding the bag after the neo-liberals screwed the pooch or did you somehow forget that inbetween typing sentences that the conditions existed before the socialists came into power? Making baseless and vague statements, like the ones you've been making, doesn't refute anything.

Even when confronted with your own contradictory words and statements, I find it humorous that you can't seem to admit that you got yourself twisted up in your circular reasoning. I bet your next post will just rehash my own statements towards you and call me a kid again. Hate to break it to you, but others do the mimicry game far better than you do. It'd be funny if it wasn't so pathetic and unoriginal.

Btw, you were the first one to start throwing around insults in the other thread. HTH[/QUOTE]

Glorious Free Market can do wrong. It is not a perfect system, countries will still experience hardships and booms, and busts. It will not be as frequent nor severe. I never claimed that deregulation was a socialist position and in fact we touched upon that before. The country was prospering until the socialists took over. Didn't you get the memo? I have talked about several things which led to the recession of the 1990s, you only counteract with a deregulation argument which is not the root cause. That alone would not trigger anything on such a scale.

What am I contradicting? Tell me, I am quite curious as it seems you have a whole list of things.

If I was the fist one throwing insults then I am sorry, sincerely. I would need you to link it though as I have hard time believing I was not provoked.
 
We are too civilized to have "armed revolutions" don't you agree? Sounds way too messy for our country

Republicans want armed revolution mainly as I see it, because their polls and ratings are going down.
They are not going to win the next election. The truth of Republicans today has become more evident thanks to the ever-expanding sea of information and Bush's history as a Republican.

We are becoming more educated in society and that's great for us, bad for them.
 
If republicans were smart they'd simply try to out-dem the democrats. That's if they were smart, and well.....
 
[quote name='Clak']If republicans were smart they'd simply try to out-dem the democrats. That's if they were smart, and well.....[/QUOTE]

Double amnesty? Double welfare? Four gay dudes can get married to each other?;)

The 2 parties put all the emphasis on petty social issues that are of little consequence to the country as a whole. On the large, important issues, they are WAYYYY too much the same. Inefficient, hypocritical, and beholden to special interests.
 
[quote name='d0ren']We are too civilized to have "armed revolutions" don't you agree? Sounds way too messy for our country

Republicans want armed revolution mainly as I see it, because their polls and ratings are going down.
They are not going to win the next election. The truth of Republicans today has become more evident thanks to the ever-expanding sea of information and Bush's history as a Republican.

We are becoming more educated in society and that's great for us, bad for them.[/QUOTE]

This poll is junk science, a massive uprising isn't going to go unnoticed in this day and age. It's just something to end up in a forum like this for liberals to hiss at Republicans. And let me be honest, it's not any one party that would incur all the wrath. We elected the 1% to represent us and they are doing a bang up job dropping us further in debt, not focusing on the economy, and infringing on our freedoms. We hate the lobbyists, yet don't fault the politicians for taking orders from them instead of ya know representing us. I wonder if they can even relate to the majority of Americans living paycheck to paycheck when they have private jets, multiple homes and better non-Obamacare healthcare. And now they'll give amnesty and benefits in exchange for votes so all the guys waiting for their student loans to be wiped away will have to wait, we gotta give benefits to the terrorists trying to kill us.

And who is going to follow up Obama, grandpa Joe and Hillary, come on, Obama came in one a wave of love, no doubt he lost a lot of support when he got reelected and if you have watched the news recently you'll notice he's just as inept as Bush, they actually have a lot in common. So who is going to be the slam dunk? And between Nixon and Bush 1 there were 4 Republican presidents with only one Democrat elected in a period of 20 years, its silly to right off a party cause your guy got reelected, whoopie.

Besides the gov is all about armed revolutions, they are more organized then a few guys in Waco. Or the radical left organizations like Weather Underground who used bombs to "protest".
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='mrsilkunderwear']Here is the thing, I agree with you that this event is terrible and should not exist. I understand that it involves staff from a public school but again it is a private event. Actually based on what I know about the act so far, I believe it should exist in its current form. I have been trying to explain to you and other people that the best way to change someone's mind is through example and education. Force will not cut it.

.[/QUOTE]

How you feel about WAR then... Torture?

So you agree that the WAR on terrorist, War to free the oppress, ain't going to do squat?
 
[quote name='Finger_Shocker']How you feel about WAR then... Torture?

So you agree that the WAR on terrorist, War to free the oppress, ain't going to do squat?[/QUOTE]

Are you suggesting we declare war on countries that "suppress" their people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top