The "Stay Classy, Republicans" Super Nintendo Chalmers Thread

[quote name='MSI Magus']Meh you are you so I really am not that concerned with it, it was just a curiosity. What you say not what demographic you fit in to shapes my view of you. Its just that the view of you had went so strongly in one direction I had to wonder if race played any role in it or not.[/QUOTE]
Of course it plays a part. Most people assume I'm black because I usually focus on the black/white dichotomy from what is perceived to be a black perspective, which is interesting because anti-racism should be race neutral. And when I make that point, then people assume I have "white guilt" and am a brainwashed race-bating self-hater that thinks black people are naturally inferior because the need the hand of a whitey to help them.

The question shouldn't be about what race I am, but why I have to be a certain race, to talk about these things, in people's minds and why we listen to what some people have to say about it and not others.

So instead of asking me if I'm black in a roundabout way, you should be asking yourself why you thought I was black instead(we pretty much already answered this). Then we can examine the underlying layers that create the foundation of this perspective. mykevermin sheds some light on this.

But to get back on topic for a moment: you already know that there's something amiss in the conservative consciousness that makes it "insensitive to matters of race." But we shouldn't be loathe to at least call racist acts/comments a racist act/comment aka pulling out "the race card."

Anywho, this is probably a lot deeper than you wanted to go with this, but its certainly something you can think about.
 
[quote name='Clak']What kills me is that Buchanan is like MSNBC's token conservative. I assume he's there to quiet the accusation that they're liberally biased. Hell, the closest liberal equivalent on fox news seems to be Shep Smith, and he seems more simply level headed than liberal. Buchanan is just a crazy old guy.[/QUOTE]
The funniest(not really) thing about MSNBC is the liberal stuff during the week and then the prison documentaries on the weekends. Creeps the hell outta me.

[quote name='mykevermin']the conspiratorial part of me thinks that's why he stays on msnbc - he says preposterous, easily refuted racist stuff. So he's not the "token conservative" as much as he is the conservative punching bag on msnbc. The more outrageous he is, the more satisfied liberal viewers are. He wasn't hired to make sense, he was hired to be a parody.

He is, if this holds, msnbc's version of Alan Colmes. Except the punchline is that Pat Buchanan is a genuine politician with a legacy and history; Fox had to dig up a go-nowhere comedian to be a liberal punching bag.[/QUOTE]
And Buchanan is laughing all the way to the bank. Which would be tragic if he didn't believe the mental vomit that comes out of his mouth.
 
Yeah the Colmes comparison didn't escape me. You may be right about why he's there, but that's sad if it's true. Not that he cares I'm sure, I just hate to think MSNBC would play that kind of game.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']the conspiratorial part of me thinks that's why he stays on msnbc - he says preposterous, easily refuted racist stuff. So he's not the "token conservative" as much as he is the conservative punching bag on msnbc. The more outrageous he is, the more satisfied liberal viewers are. He wasn't hired to make sense, he was hired to be a parody.

He is, if this holds, msnbc's version of Alan Colmes. Except the punchline is that Pat Buchanan is a genuine politician with a legacy and history; Fox had to dig up a go-nowhere comedian to be a liberal punching bag.[/QUOTE]

I don't think that's totally out there, it makes sense to do something like that. I would say Juan Williams is to FNC what Buchanan is to MSNBC. He gives the worst defenses of liberal policies, and often times spouts nothing but village wisdom.

Colmes has made better arguments post Hannity. When he was on that show he was pretty awful, although he sometimes made some decent points.
 
First, I'll just drop these here...
http://delagar.blogspot.com/2005/12/our-boy-bush.html
http://baileyalexander.typepad.com/...nd-misattributed-remark-those-who-cannot.html
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2004/09/promises-promis.html
http://www.democraticunderground.co...sg&forum=389&topic_id=6070103&mesg_id=6070360

Second, yes, some of it is racism, intentional and unintentional. No doubt.

Third, some of it is *not* racism... it's phrases and actions that have been used/done for years that it's all very common place... but suddenly, when it's being used to talk about Obama, it's racism. Like the phrase about calling a spade a spade. Remember the blow-up when someone used that?
 
[quote name='dohdough']Of course it plays a part. Most people assume I'm black because I usually focus on the black/white dichotomy from what is perceived to be a black perspective, which is interesting because anti-racism should be race neutral. And when I make that point, then people assume I have "white guilt" and am a brainwashed race-bating self-hater that thinks black people are naturally inferior because the need the hand of a whitey to help them.

The question shouldn't be about what race I am, but why I have to be a certain race, to talk about these things, in people's minds and why we listen to what some people have to say about it and not others.

So instead of asking me if I'm black in a roundabout way, you should be asking yourself why you thought I was black instead(we pretty much already answered this). Then we can examine the underlying layers that create the foundation of this perspective. mykevermin sheds some light on this.

But to get back on topic for a moment: you already know that there's something amiss in the conservative consciousness that makes it "insensitive to matters of race." But we shouldn't be loathe to at least call racist acts/comments a racist act/comment aka pulling out "the race card."

Anywho, this is probably a lot deeper than you wanted to go with this, but its certainly something you can think about.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should ask yourself why you assumed, that I assumed you were black? I totally never did. As I said a post or two back I assumed you were Mexican and for no real reason, just the picture I have in my head for you. Again to me if anything this shows how over the top you go about race and assuming that anyone that does not say something in your narrow frame of race relations is racist or ignorant to what racism/progress for minorities means.

Chew on that sucka! ;)
 
[quote name='UncleBob']First, I'll just drop these here...
http://delagar.blogspot.com/2005/12/our-boy-bush.html
http://baileyalexander.typepad.com/...nd-misattributed-remark-those-who-cannot.html
http://www.blogforchoice.com/archives/2004/09/promises-promis.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=6070103&mesg_id=6070360 [/QUOTE]
Three random blogs and a random forum post. This is not a huge trend buddy.

Second, yes, some of it is racism, intentional and unintentional. No doubt.
Click to expand...
I'm glad we agree. Care to share any examples of "actual" racism?

Third, some of it is *not* racism... it's phrases and actions that have been used/done for years that it's all very common place... but suddenly, when it's being used to talk about Obama, it's racism. Like the phrase about calling a spade a spade. Remember the blow-up when someone used that?
Click to expand...
Context is important. There is a historically racist trend of minstreling and juvenilization of black men. That's the difference. Witch doctors, monkeys, and watermelon patches are in line with racist contextualizations.

[quote name='MSI Magus']Maybe you should ask yourself why you assumed, that I assumed you were black? I totally never did. As I said a post or two back I assumed you were Mexican and for no real reason, just the picture I have in my head for you. Again to me if anything this shows how over the top you go about race and assuming that anyone that does not say something in your narrow frame of race relations is racist or ignorant to what racism/progress for minorities means.[/QUOTE]
Wow really? You only specifically asked me if I was black and then said that it didn't matter, but it obviously carries some weight because you did indeed ask. Your brain is trying to fit me into a racial category that makes sense to you, which is fine. It's completely natural. What I'm trying to get at is what shapes the category you're trying to fit me in. You don't have to be gay to promote gay rights and you don't have to be a woman to be against sexism. The fact that they exist should be reason enough regardless of who's mouth its coming from.

As for being over the top, its as if describing the basic framework of how racism works is the equivalent of suggesting we annex some land for a BLACK PANTHER! States of America as reparations or something. The fact of the matter is that most people are ignorant about race, so don't take it personally. There's no need for me to write another treatise on this, so I won't.

Now generally, I'd be more snarky, but I've had a long day...heh.

Chew on that sucka! ;)
Click to expand...
Not much to chew on apparently. Give me something with a little more meat next time.;)
 
[quote name='dohdough']Did you ever hear some one say, "Your/Our boy, Bush/Reagan/McCain etc? Of course not![/QUOTE]

Three random blogs and a random forum post. This is not a huge trend buddy.
Click to expand...

That's right - Ask for something, then blow it off when the answer doesn't fit into your pre-established view.
 
[quote name='dohdough']
Wow really? You only specifically asked me if I was black and then said that it didn't matter, but it obviously carries some weight because you did indeed ask. Your brain is trying to fit me into a racial category that makes sense to you, which is fine. It's completely natural. What I'm trying to get at is what shapes the category you're trying to fit me in. You don't have to be gay to promote gay rights and you don't have to be a woman to be against sexism. The fact that they exist should be reason enough regardless of who's mouth its coming from.

As for being over the top, its as if describing the basic framework of how racism works is the equivalent of suggesting we annex some land for a BLACK PANTHER! States of America as reparations or something. The fact of the matter is that most people are ignorant about race, so don't take it personally. There's no need for me to write another treatise on this, so I won't.

Now generally, I'd be more snarky, but I've had a long day...heh.


Not much to chew on apparently. Give me something with a little more meat next time.;)[/QUOTE]

*points for a third time to the fact that he pointed out he thought you were Mexican/Hispanic and for no real reason*
As for placing people in to racial profiles. If I start thinking black people are lazy, stupid or some other negative trait then I will care. In the mean time again since I do not think someone having an uber senesitivity to race relations is a defining characteristic...i don't care!

Again I thought you were Hispanic and again you constantly go way off the deep end about race(as you are showing here). This naturally means that regardless of what preconceived notions of you we had, over time the incessant complaining and twisting to the uber liberal left on race issues(hell not even race issues, generally just AA issues)has meant the pitcher of you is now grey and I am now curious. I asked and again you use it as a reason to go off on race issues, so I think after this post ill drop it since your incapable of dealing with the issue of race without a psycho babble rant on race relations and how we are all racist(if ignorant racists) for not agreeing.
 
[quote name='perdition(troy']so...is dohdough black? I'm going to assume so. I'm white witha chunk of injun.[/QUOTE]

Who knows or really cares at this point, not like it was important anyways, just helped to paint a picture of the guy. Again even asking means you assumed he was black all along and are racist. Or that you didnt, but its because he is an intellectual and no black man can be an intellectual. As for race im witcha. White boy with a touch of Middle Eastern here. Even though I look white its because I take after my Irish/Polish mothers side more then my fathers Armenian side, though I do get the patchy Arab beard which is a disappointment ;( O no! I said Arab that time even though I am one, I must hate Muslims...I mean Middle Eastern people too! Dammit, Doh Doh is teaching me all sorts of things about myself!
 
[quote name='Clak']http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout...lthy-parents-religious-schools-175620723.html

Well at least it's going to kids who need it.[/QUOTE]

Maybe I'm not thinking this through all the way, but I don't see what the problem is. The families have more educational options, the kids get an education, and the school district makes 25%-a-head for doing nothing.

The only improvement I would suggest is using that 25% cut to ensure that the religious schools are offering a quality education.
 
You seriously see no problem with giving well off families free money to send their kids to private schools?
 
Yeah, I have a problem with giving wealthy families vouchers for private schools for sure personally.

And I have problems with any vouchers that come from tax money or tax credits which can be used for religious schools.

Any tax vouchers or tax breaks should be for the middle class and below and only for secular private schools (separation of church and state). I don't want any of my tax dollars going to help send kids to religious schools, and I don't like people getting a tax break (if it's just deductions) to do so either.
 
[quote name='Clak']You seriously see no problem with giving well off families free money to send their kids to private schools?[/QUOTE]

If they pay their taxes, why not?The folks using the voucher system could have sent their kids to public schools, but this way the government is saving 25% per kid. Honestly I think it would be a relief to everyone to let the religious kids goto religious school and the normal kids goto normal school. We need to make the rich pay their fair share in taxes. But once they do, I feel the rich are entitled to cash-in on state-funded education just like any other family.
 
[quote name='camoor']If they pay their taxes, why not?The folks using the voucher system could have sent their kids to public schools, but this way the government is saving 25% per kid. Honestly I think it would be a relief to everyone to let the religious kids goto religious school and the normal kids goto normal school. We need to make the rich pay their fair share in taxes. But once they do, I feel the rich are entitled to cash-in on state-funded education just like any other family.[/QUOTE]

Can I cash in on paying for wars and private prisons too? I've paid my fair share! ;)Also, a vast majority of private schools were established as a response to desegregation. The accelerationist in me says that doubling down on bad policy will hasten the workers revolution, but I'm also against giving a protected privileged class MORE protection and privilege.Not to mention the obvious seperation of church and state.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Can I cash in on paying for wars and private prisons too? I've paid my fair share! ;)Also, a vast majority of private schools were established as a response to desegregation. The accelerationist in me says that doubling down on bad policy will hasten the workers revolution, but I'm also against giving a protected privileged class MORE protection and privilege.Not to mention the obvious seperation of church and state.[/QUOTE]

I guess I just don't like the idea of taking away all the options and locking kids into a school. Some schools really do suck, but if the only alternative is ponying up for a private school then I'm betting that alot of parents will just look the other way when it comes to their kid's substandard education in a dangerous environment.

Besides this is America, if the local public schools suck that hard then some private company will figure out how to give the kids a superior education for the 75% they get from the state.

Lastly I feel it would be kind of silly to make a church and state stand here when there are much worse examples already out there, like tax-free church status and state holidays for Jesus. I think people know that for the most part I'm not a big fan of modern American Christianity but I can live with this.
 
[quote name='camoor']I guess I just don't like the idea of taking away all the options and locking kids into a school. Some schools really do suck, but if the only alternative is ponying up for a private school then I'm betting that alot of parents will just look the other way when it comes to their kid's substandard education in a dangerous environment.
[/QUOTE]

The real solution is to do whatever it takes to fix those schools.

If you give vouchers to cover some of the expense for private schools, those schools will just continue to get worse and you're making things even worse for the kid who are still stuck going there. i.e. very low income families who still can't afford private school even with vouchers/credits.

I guess you could make full vouchers for them--but I don't see that happening unless education is totally privatized--and that wouldn't solve anything IMO as you'd still have shitty schools in low income areas that could only charge up to the federal voucher/tax credit amount and better private schools in the suburbs etc. where they can charge higher tuition.

So really the only thing to do is to do whatever it takes to fix crappy schools in the inner cities and poor rural areas as I just don't see any kind of private school system working any better in those areas. They'll have the same problems the have now.

And besides that, your point still doesn't get a why the wealthy need the vouchers/tax credits. They're not living in low-income districts with shitty schools anyway. They're living in higher tax base areas that tend to have the best public schools. If that's not good enough for them, why should they get vouchers or tax credits to send their kids to a private school?
 
[quote name='mykevermin']http://host.madison.com/wsj/news/lo...cle_edcce45c-bfd0-11e0-a056-001cc4c002e0.html

Well, at least it wasn't gay sex for a change.[/QUOTE]

She looks like a turd drying on a long stretch of bad road.

Have you been watching the drunken exploits of the Ohio republicans?

Meckleborg driving drunk with no license in Indiana hopped up on Viagra with a stripper in the car: http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/06/29/state-representative-meckelborg-has-some-splainin-to-do/

Jarrod Martin driving drunk, previously slumped over a Chevy Suburban in the statehouse parking lot, and questioned in a hotel for "wrestling" with his buddies during a bachelor party. (His parents took him home.): http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and...ep-jarrod-martin-americas-drunkest-legislator

Kris Jordan drinking and beating his wife for two years, typically she called his parents to calm him down, but this time calling 911 because they were out of town. Kris telling a responding police officer "Girls just get emotional sometimes.": http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ecutor-wont-file-charges-against-senator.html
 
[quote name='Quillion']She looks like a turd drying on a long stretch of bad road.

Have you been watching the drunken exploits of the Ohio republicans?

Meckleborg driving drunk with no license in Indiana hopped up on Viagra with a stripper in the car: http://www.plunderbund.com/2011/06/29/state-representative-meckelborg-has-some-splainin-to-do/

Jarrod Martin driving drunk, previously slumped over a Chevy Suburban in the statehouse parking lot, and questioned in a hotel for "wrestling" with his buddies during a bachelor party. (His parents took him home.): http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and...ep-jarrod-martin-americas-drunkest-legislator

Kris Jordan drinking and beating his wife for two years, typically she called his parents to calm him down, but this time calling 911 because they were out of town. Kris telling a responding police officer "Girls just get emotional sometimes.": http://www.dispatch.com/content/sto...ecutor-wont-file-charges-against-senator.html[/QUOTE]

I try not to judge people for their drinking problems. Senator or not it happens and I think people enjoy their pain/downfall far too much. However the last guy apparently beats his wife so fuck him. Seriously thats one of the things in life I can not shot tolerance too.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I try not to judge people for their drinking problems. Senator or not it happens and I think people enjoy their pain/downfall far too much. However the last guy apparently beats his wife so fuck him. Seriously thats one of the things in life I can not shot tolerance too.[/QUOTE]

That's fair. But drinking and getting behind the wheel?

If I go shooting guns on the weekend, no big deal. If I take a gun and walk down the road shooting around me indiscriminately, it becomes a big deal.
 
[quote name='Quillion']That's fair. But drinking and getting behind the wheel?

If I go shooting guns on the weekend, no big deal. If I take a gun and walk down the road shooting around me indiscriminately, it becomes a big deal.[/QUOTE]

Is it a habit or is it a one time thing is the question? If you one time get drunk and drive then I think you deserve some basic forgiveness. Everyone makes mistakes and when your shit faced your 1000x more likely to make them. If however you get drunk and drive, wake up and realize whats happened and keep doing the same thing over and over when you could just start drinking at home...then yeah your a jackass and deserve the judgement.

So again question is was this their first time or do they have a history of this.
 
[quote name='Quillion']That's fair. But drinking and getting behind the wheel?

If I go shooting guns on the weekend, no big deal. If I take a gun and walk down the road shooting around me indiscriminately, it becomes a big deal.[/QUOTE]

Being drunk behind the wheel is no joke. However Cops in the city near here have been known to arrest drivers who had one drink. Obviously this is extreme, but I always want to know what drunk means before I come down hard on someone. I think groups like MADD are intent on pushing the limit down as far as they can regardless of the science behind it, MADD are basically prohibitionists masquerading as an anti-drunk driving group. It's a shame because drunk driving is really an important issue that should be seriously addressed, but the draconian laws, hyperbole of groups like MADD, and hypocrisy of legislators serve to drown out any sensible message.

On topic - I don't have any sympathy for the three jokers mentioned, sounds like they deserve anything they get.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']Is it a habit or is it a one time thing is the question? If you one time get drunk and drive then I think you deserve some basic forgiveness. Everyone makes mistakes and when your shit faced your 1000x more likely to make them. If however you get drunk and drive, wake up and realize whats happened and keep doing the same thing over and over when you could just start drinking at home...then yeah your a jackass and deserve the judgement.

So again question is was this their first time or do they have a history of this.[/QUOTE]

It doesn't matter. Drinking and driving is a severe abrogation of personal responsibility. It's incredibly dangerous, and it's not a victim-less crime. 10k people died that way in 2009. In my earlier analogy, is it OK that I fired my gun into the street, because "I didn't mean to hit anyone", and I got lucky and didn't hurt anyone?
 
[quote name='Quillion']It doesn't matter. Drinking and driving is a severe abrogation of personal responsibility. It's incredibly dangerous, and it's not a victim-less crime. 10k people died that way in 2009. In my earlier analogy, is it OK that I fired my gun into the street, because "I didn't mean to hit anyone", and I got lucky and didn't hurt anyone?[/QUOTE]

I never said it was right. I said people deserve forgiveness. Drinking is something that impairs your ability to think straight so if you have too much and do something stupid, realize how stupid it was and take responsibility and then never do it again, then you deserve forgiveness. If its a habit though that is completely different.

Firing a gun in to a street is a stupid example because it is just you doing something stupid for shits and giggles. Yes people go out and get stupid sloppy drunk on purpose. Many others though just have one too many and dont realize it, drink without realizing how their medication effects themselves, never intended to drink but ran in to friends etc etc. It is hardly uncommon to at some point in your life have too many and do something stupid. There are millions of babies out there to attest to that ;)
 
Then you're just in Kentucky.

Looks like the big recall only landed two more democratic seats in WI. That was time and money well spent!
 
Hard to maintain the fury from the passage of SB (um, I forget the #, I only remember that OH's bill was SB5). The only people with any motivation as of yesterday were special interest groups of both political parties.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Hard to maintain the fury from the passage of SB (um, I forget the #, I only remember that OH's bill was SB5). The only people with any motivation as of yesterday were special interest groups of both political parties.[/QUOTE]

You an Ohioan too Myke?
 
[quote name='mykevermin'] Moved to Philly a year ago.[/QUOTE]

Just curious, but would rather not create a whole new topic for it:

What did you think of Mayor Nutter's new curfew for
 
Whole 'nother topic.

It misses the point of what's driving the flash mobs, and it won't work.

Most of the flash mobs are well inside of the curfew time anyway.

Doing something to draw jobs to the city so we don't have to be surrounded by trash with no hope or intention to ever work legit would help the matter. Idle, hopeless youth are what drives the brief moments of rioting.

Scolding people who have zero positive feeling towards people in positions of authority may make voters feel good, but is positively devoid of substantive influence.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Whole 'nother topic.

It misses the point of what's driving the flash mobs, and it won't work.

Most of the flash mobs are well inside of the curfew time anyway.

Doing something to draw jobs to the city so we don't have to be surrounded by trash with no hope or intention to ever work legit would help the matter. Idle, hopeless youth are what drives the brief moments of rioting.

Scolding people who have zero positive feeling towards people in positions of authority may make voters feel good, but is positively devoid of substantive influence.[/QUOTE]
Flash mobs? Like when people get together and do a dance routine in public? This is seen as a HUGE problem?

Or are we talking like UK riots. Or when there was a gang of kids beating people up around the Drexel campus a couple years ago?
 
[quote name='Clak']If Romney manages to get the GOP nomination I'll fall over in shock.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-shouting-match-crowd-iowa-fair-163532052.html


At least he's honest?[/QUOTE]

Honestly, given how the GOP is hell bent on self destruction, he'll get the nod and somehow or another make a decent fight of it until election night. Barring any disasters from 9/12 and on, President Obama will get a second term with about 65% of the electoral college.
 
[quote name='Clak']If Romney manages to get the GOP nomination I'll fall over in shock.

http://news.yahoo.com/romney-shouting-match-crowd-iowa-fair-163532052.html


At least he's honest?[/QUOTE]

That post was highly unfair. Iv seen the video and it was def not a shouting match and the crowd was cheering him. I dont like Romney, but fair is fair. The lady asked her question and it seemed she was a little peeved and a little hard to hear. Romney then repeated the question for the crowd and answered it, at one point he did say something like "now you asked the question, let me answer it". Yahoo, Think progress and others are blowing this way out of proportion.

Now all that said, again I dont like Romney and his typical response to the question was why. He went on attacking Obama and how he has targeted the rich in the country when really what we need to look at is the 50% who are paying no taxes and how the rich are being targeted and penalized for success.

Liberals can easily win these debates on facts and on the crazy shit conservatives say, I do not understand why some insist on vilifying people over such silly things. John Stewart on the Daily Show did a good job pointing this out too. He when talking about the Bachman Newsweek scandal said something like "if you want to make her look bad then why not instead of selecting a bad photo of her, just make the photo out of the crazy shit she has said". Liberals dont need to go out of their way to make conservatives look bad....just sit back and let them hang themselves with their own words.
 
If we could win debates on facts alone we would have already. Which if I remember we already had that discussion here. And conservatives don't hang themselves with their own words because their base will just eat the shit anyway. People like Bachman say stupid shit basically whenever they open their mouths, she probably gets facts wrong in her sleep. I doubt it will hurt her much with conservatives though.
 
Sorry to double post. It isn't even what was happening that interests me, it's what he said in response. The bit about corporations being people especially. Which he isn't wrong or anything, under our ridiculous laws he's right. It's just that he uses that as a defense to what was said about wall street greed. It's like he was saying that they're people too and we shouldn't beat them up, which is bullshit.
 
[quote name='Clak']If we could win debates on facts alone we would have already. Which if I remember we already had that discussion here. And conservatives don't hang themselves with their own words because their base will just eat the shit anyway. People like Bachman say stupid shit basically whenever they open their mouths, she probably gets facts wrong in her sleep. I doubt it will hurt her much with conservatives though.[/QUOTE]

The conservative base is fairly small. Its the rest of the ignorant masses that put them in office. The thing is that they tend to not agree with Republicans, they are just ignorant of the issues. We have been over this a million times.

Personally I will stick to trying to calmly educate the people in the middle(iv given up on the right since again I think science is fast proving they are socially and biologically programed to be the way they are). Any war worth winning is worth winning honestly and a war won by cheating and deceit is not a war won. You can lower yourself to the level of people like Knoell or Bob but when you and DohDoh do that your proving your the same as them.

Finally if all you care about is his words fine, thats what you should care about! However the yahoo link as well as most other blogs have not been focusing on Romneys words, they have been trying to twist the situation to seem like he got in a childish back and forth with the audience.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']The conservative base is fairly small. Its the rest of the ignorant masses that put them in office. The thing is that they tend to not agree with Republicans, they are just ignorant of the issues. We have been over this a million times.

Personally I will stick to trying to calmly educate the people in the middle(iv given up on the right since again I think science is fast proving they are socially and biologically programed to be the way they are). Any war worth winning is worth winning honestly and a war won by cheating and deceit is not a war won. You can lower yourself to the level of people like Knoell or Bob but when you and DohDoh do that your proving your the same as them.

Finally if all you care about is his words fine, thats what you should care about! However the yahoo link as well as most other blogs have not been focusing on Romneys words, they have been trying to twist the situation to seem like he got in a childish back and forth with the audience.[/QUOTE]
Herp derp I'm cool because I'm in the middle and the middle is the bestest!:roll:

I don't see how having history and science is equivalent to horseshit propaganda and outright lies, but hey, somehow in your world, they're magically the same! :applause:

In what universe does tone equal truth?

edit: Just because you don't like how someone is saying it doesn't mean that what they're saying is bullshit. It's no more better than saying that the truth somehow lies close to the center of two opposing forces.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't even read articles like that for how they're spun, I just read for what is said. Which I guess is part ignoring something and part wanting just the facts of what someone said.

But no, I don't want to be on level with how the GOP usually wins debates, but it may be a necessary evil. Which really, there is no lack of that sort of thing in politics. Every candidate from every party is going to have to feign caring about some group of people, or some issue, or just some thing, to win. I don't like it at all, I think we'd be better off if everyone was just honest about everything, but it's politics. It's always been about who can smear the other guy enough to win. Look back at some early presidential elections in the U.S., it's no different today than it was back then.

Maybe I'm just jaded and sick of it all. Elections are like a circus anyway, might as well go all the way.
 
[quote name='dohdough']Herp derp I'm cool because I'm in the middle and the middle is the bestest!:roll:

I don't see how having history and science is equivalent to horseshit propaganda and outright lies, but hey, somehow in your world, they're magically the same! In what universe does tone equal truth?:applause:[/QUOTE]

I am not in the middle I am to the far left. I just do not believe in vilifying the other side to try and make my side look better, personal responsibility to an extent and I believe in compromise(real compromise, not this crap Dems are doing recently) to get deals done during critical times. Again you are just so far left that you cant see anything but your narrow world view. I also would like to point out that you love to sit on your throne shooting everyone down that does not believe what you do, but its rare you actually seem to post anything that actually puts your own solutions out there. Must be hard living in a world where all you ever have to do is tell others they are wrong in some smart ass way.
 
[quote name='Clak']I don't even read articles like that for how they're spun, I just read for what is said. Which I guess is part ignoring something and part wanting just the facts of what someone said.

But no, I don't want to be on level with how the GOP usually wins debates, but it may be a necessary evil. Which really, there is no lack of that sort of thing in politics. Every candidate from every party is going to have to feign caring about some group of people, or some issue, or just some thing, to win. I don't like it at all, I think we'd be better off if everyone was just honest about everything, but it's politics. It's always been about who can smear the other guy enough to win. Look back at some early presidential elections in the U.S., it's no different today than it was back then.

Maybe I'm just jaded and sick of it all. Elections are like a circus anyway, might as well go all the way.[/QUOTE]

Again id rather lose the battle to Republicans. The problem is that liberals are taking the wrong lessons from our battles. We lose an election and we see the growing power of the right and think "geeze its all Rhetoric" when the reality is that its a lack of a fight and a lack of getting facts out to the people. We cant claim that people refuse to see the facts whenever we dont even present them. As a result of this Democrats keep lowering themselves further and further towards a rhetoric battle vs actually standing and for the first time since fucking FDR actually having a battle on the facts. That is part of why Obama is so dissapointing, I had hoped he would be a new FDR. I had hoped he would stand up and fight for the little guy in a very direct and honest way. I had hoped he would show that fire and passion. Instead he is the same bland vanilla Democrat we have seen in recent decades.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top