Amazon's warehouse/sweatshop.

[Trancendental]

[quote name='UncleBob']Ultimately, I honestly don't believe it's a problem that can be fixed. Even if we did limit "corporate payouts", we'd still have rampant corruption... it wasn't very long ago that we did actually have a limit on how much a corporation could donate to a candidate. It didn't seem to make much of a difference.[/QUOTE]

Well with the rising influence of corporate campaign donations there is the biggest recession since the great depression. Which we didn't have before. So there's that.

If you like sensationalism (and who doesn't) I also don't recall so many instances of stuff like mines collapsing, oil rigs exploding, Enron-size companies completely imploding, too big to fail fiascos, and (finally and most pointedly) the rise of the Jack Abramoff-type super lobbyist. Seriously Jack Abramoff's entire career reads like a complete refutation of everything you just said. You should check out what really went down, even if all you do is just a lazy wiki of the guy.

[quote name='UncleBob']As long as the general population keeps voting for candidates like Bush and Obama, we'll always be under the umbrella of corruption.

However, as a step in the right direction, I'd like to see term limits on political candidates, harsher punishment when blatant corruption is found (none of this "resign, then come back three years later" or "resign, then get a cushy, well paying government job" stuff). As for the issue of corporate donations - as I said earlier, I feel all donations should have an individual name tied to them, all candidates running for office should be required to disclose any amount donated to them (and by whom) and the information should be accessible via a public database.[/QUOTE]

Well-paying govt jobs - lol. You tell me when you find one that doesn't come with the title of "college basketball coach" or "Senator".

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']Depends on the situation.[/quote]
Only if you're a moron.

IMHO, no. But here's an idea - there are people who operate the corporation.

Again, I can't say I 100% agree with your idea of the role of the Federal Government, but, for the sake of argument, let's say we agree on that. You have one group that you believe should be there to improve the general welfare and one group that you believe is there to undermine it. Which one of these groups should you be setting higher standards and expectations for?

Money talks and bullshit walks. Apparently you're too ignorant to tie the inherent flaws of capitalism to the modern corporatocratic and oligarchical state of our society. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't so willful.

So that's a "Yes, I'll be sure to cover both sides of the issue"?

Nope. Both sides aren't equal. Someone that believes that the earth is 6000 years old and that some christian concept of a god planted dinosaur bones to test fealty doesn't deserve equal time to actual science.

Instead of trying to get me with a lame gotcha moment of homophobia or sexism for that matter, which you also don't understand, you should've interpreted it as a form of power over one another. Telling someone to suck a cock is gender neutral. Talking about a penis does not make someone homophobic. Only a moron would assume that.

I'm also not defending the interests of the power elite here. You are.

Never claimed to be smarter than you or better than you. If that's how you perceive me, I can't help it.

You're much dumber than you think you are. It's possible that you can't even fathom its depth.

I'm left wondering - with all these evil companies using their evil mind control to trick everyone into voting their guys into office, how do you manage to avoid it?

You're right. Corporations don't spend $100,000,000,000 a year to try and convince you to buy their shit...doesn't work one single bit at all.

Face it, I could state that I know what a corporatocracy is. I could go into detail about it. You wouldn't believe me, you'd rant about how I don't understand it and probably make some crack about Google or male genitalia.

If you understood what a corporatocracy is and how a state gets to that point, you wouldnt be making the arguments that you are.



[/QUOTE]

 

[UncleBob]

Going to work, so I can't address everything just yet, but two quick things:
[quote name='dohdough']Only if you're a moron.[/quote]

So, let's say you have a 2nd grader beating the crap out of another with a baseball bat. While the teacher sits back and watches. You think that only a moron would think that the teacher did a greater injustice than the kid?

Instead of trying to get me with a lame gotcha moment of homophobia or sexism for that matter, which you also don't understand, you should've interpreted it as a form of power over one another. Telling someone to suck a cock is gender neutral. Talking about a penis does not make someone homophobic. Only a moron would assume that.

Telling a man to perform sexual activities on another man in the way of an attack is a clear demonstration that you feel homosexual activities are insult-worthy.

[quote name='dohdough']I'm also not defending the interests of the power elite here. You are.
[/QUOTE]

Not to turn this into a "No, you are", "No, you are" moment... but, "No, you are."

The Federal Government could, in theory, this very afternoon, get together and pull enough of a stunt to literally shut down virtually any individual or group of private companies in this country.

I can't think of a single company or group of companies that could pull the same thing on the Federal Government.

Really, who is the powerful elite?

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']Going to work, so I can't address everything just yet, but two quick things:

So, let's say you have a 2nd grader beating the crap out of another with a baseball bat. While the teacher sits back and watches. You think that only a moron would think that the teacher did a greater injustice than the kid?[/QUOTE]
What was I saying about you making analogies again? You clearly don't understand relationships of power and how it persists and replicates itself in systems.

Telling a man to perform sexual activities on another man in the way of an attack is a clear demonstration that you feel homosexual activities are insult-worthy.

I didn't realize that a metaphorical corporate cock was the same as an actual male cock or that only males can suck a cock or require a male to be homosexual to suck a cock or that you don't even have to be born with a penis to be considered a man. If you can't understand the minutae of relationships within sexual acts, how the can you purport to be anti-homophobia or pro-LGBT rights. If the last line of my quote of knoell's sig confuses you, and I know it does, that's why you can't understand this.

Not to turn this into a "No, you are", "No, you are" moment... but, "No, you are."

The Federal Government could, in theory, this very afternoon, get together and pull enough of a stunt to literally shut down virtually any individual or group of private companies in this country.

I can't think of a single company or group of companies that could pull the same thing on the Federal Government.

Really, who is the powerful elite?

So you have no foundation in basic sociological concepts, don't know what a corporatocracy is, don't know what an oligarchy is, and completely ignore the political history of the country. What we're seeing today isn't new, it's been the status quo. Your revisionist history never existed and the only pushback we've had was when there were much strong labor movements.

You talk about complex concepts and relationships in nebulous ways to the point of meaninglessness, yet don't understand when people call you out on it when you act as if your opinion matters. Guess what: it doesn't and the fact that I engage you doesn't validate it. The only reason I engage you is to curb-stomp ignorance and stupidity.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='dohdough']\So you have no foundation in basic sociological concepts, don't know what a corporatocracy is, don't know what an oligarchy is, and completely ignore the political history of the country. What we're seeing today isn't new, it's been the status quo. Your revisionist history never existed and the only pushback we've had was when there were much strong labor movements.[/QUOTE]

I noticed the same thing too. When talking about corruption, the guy said "I honestly don't believe it's a problem that can be fixed" His general tone is also revisionist, as if politicians have always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today, as if America has always been the country that bails out big-ass banks and screws over working Americans all while shouldering the weight of massive debt.

Garbage in, garbage out. The guy doesn't know many facts so is it any wonder he believes in junk political philsophy?

 

[nasum]

thing of it is, we're not dealing with a parasite/host type of relationship here, it's completey symbiotic between corporate and political. Again, government not being the same as politics.

Apparently funding politicians to block govt while having the cheer squad saying that govt is blocking corporations is just how it is supposed to work.

But you find me a politician that will forgo any private money, not chase endorsements and not placate one special interest over another and I will vote for them strictly on principle, even if their ideology goes completely against that of mine.

 

[cindersphere]

Just saying.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']What was I saying about you making analogies again? You clearly don't understand relationships of power and how it persists and replicates itself in systems.[/quote]

So, you've went from "The person watching isn't as bad as the person doing." to "The person with power is worse than the person without." Am I following you right?

I didn't realize that a metaphorical corporate cock was the same as an actual male cock or that only males can suck a cock or require a male to be homosexual to suck a cock or that you don't even have to be born with a penis to be considered a man. If you can't understand the minutae of relationships within sexual acts, how the can you purport to be anti-homophobia or pro-LGBT rights. If the last line of my quote of knoell's sig confuses you, and I know it does, that's why you can't understand this.

You're absolutely right. Taking an activity that, for better or worse, is associated with one group of people, then using that activity as an insult is perfectly okay for well-rounded, reasonable adults to partake in during mature conversation.

[quote name='dohdough']What we're seeing today isn't new, it's been the status quo. Your revisionist history never existed and the only pushback we've had was when there were much strong labor movements.

[quote name='camoor']as if politicians have always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today, as if America has always been the country that bails out big-ass banks and screws over working Americans all while shouldering the weight of massive debt. [/quote]
[/quote]

I'll let you two fight it out as to if today's political environment is nothing new or if politicians haven't always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today, etc., etc...

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='camoor']I noticed the same thing too. When talking about corruption, the guy said "I honestly don't believe it's a problem that can be fixed" His general tone is also revisionist, as if politicians have always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today, as if America has always been the country that bails out big-ass banks and screws over working Americans all while shouldering the weight of massive debt.

Garbage in, garbage out. The guy doesn't know many facts so is it any wonder he believes in junk political philsophy?[/QUOTE]

It is the same old song and dance, you can point out say a dozen positive things a well run government does.

Con trolls will just point out something, some government anywhere did wrong and try to make a bullshit equivalence (Hiroshima is totally like a free lunch program).

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='UncleBob']I'll let you two fight it out as to if today's political environment is nothing new or if politicians haven't always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today, etc., etc...[/QUOTE]

Why do you think those are contradictory statements?

Just curious - do you have a GED?

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='Msut77']It is the same old song and dance, you can point out say a dozen positive things a well run government does.

Con trolls will just point out something, some government anywhere did wrong and try to make a bullshit equivalence (Hiroshima is totally like a free lunch program).[/QUOTE]

Yeah it's frustrating as hell arguing with guys like UB. However I have to admit he's really good at sucking me in :lol:

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='camoor']Why do you think those are contradictory statements?

Just curious - do you have a GED?[/QUOTE]

High school diploma and graduated college. But I'm sure you don't really care.

Dohdough said that the political landscape - and I can only assume that he's talking about the government/corporate relationship that we've been discussing - isn't anything new. You made a sarcastic comment that implied you believe that politicians have not always been beholden to corporate interests. I'm just trying to figure out which one is "correct".

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']So, you've went from "The person watching isn't as bad as the person doing." to "The person with power is worse than the person without." Am I following you right?[/QUOTE]
You assume that the witness has more power than the aggressor or even has the ability, not to be confused with power, to intervene. If you took an intro to sociology class, you'd know about something called the bystander effect.

You're absolutely right. Taking an activity that, for better or worse, is associated with one group of people, then using that activity as an insult is perfectly okay for well-rounded, reasonable adults to partake in during mature conversation.

You heard it here first folks! Blowjobs are associated more with "homosexual" sex than "straight" sex!

I'll let you two fight it out as to if today's political environment is nothing new or if politicians haven't always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today, etc., etc...

I am correct in the historical sense and camoor is correct on the sense of scale that the US government would intervene. Bailouts of this scale are unprecedented...enacted by republicans in matter of fact. The key phrase to focus on is "as if politicians have always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today..."

[quote name='UncleBob']High school diploma and graduated college. But I'm sure you don't really care.

Dohdough said that the political landscape - and I can only assume that he's talking about the government/corporate relationship that we've been discussing - isn't anything new. You made a sarcastic comment that implied you believe that politicians have not always been beholden to corporate interests. I'm just trying to figure out which one is "correct".[/QUOTE]
There was once something called the East India Trading Company...perhaps you've heard of it?

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']You heard it here first folks! Blowjobs are associated more with "homosexual" sex than "straight" sex![/quote]

I'm going to go out on a limb here (no pun intended) and guess that most of the folks here are already familiar with the wild idea that a man giving a blowjob is generally more associated with homosexual activities than straight activities.

Really... and you call me dishonest...

Bailouts of this scale are unprecedented...

These recent bailouts (of banks, of union jobs, etc.) are pretty nasty, but if you really want a great history example of the government being in bed with banks, you should probably go back to 1913. I'd say handing over our country's entire monetary policy to a secret cabal of bankers is a little worse than giving taxpayer money to a particular group that you don't like verses giving it to a group that you do like.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']I'm going to go out on a limb here (no pun intended) and guess that most of the folks here are already familiar with the wild idea that a man giving a blowjob is generally more associated with homosexual activities than straight activities.

Really... and you call me dishonest...[/quote]
There's a difference between calling someone a fudge-packing f****t cock-sucker and telling someone that they enjoy the the act of sucking some metaphorical corporate cock. Are you going to tell me that brown-nosing is homophobic too?

These recent bailouts (of banks, of union jobs, etc.) are pretty nasty, but if you really want a great history example of the government being in bed with banks, you should probably go back to 1913. I'd say handing over our country's entire monetary policy to a secret cabal of bankers is a little worse than giving taxpayer money to a particular group that you don't like verses giving it to a group that you do like.

Oh jeebus...the Federal Reserve was/is run by a secret cabal? I'm all for oversight, but Ron Paul is a ing wacko that thinks gold is ing money. It's not like there was a huge financial panic that necessitated the creation of a regulatory body like Fed right?

And you con chuckleheads have the balls to say that I'm the one with the tinfoil hat. What a joke.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']There's a difference between calling someone a fudge-packing f****t cock-sucker and telling someone that they enjoy the the act of sucking some metaphorical corporate cock. Are you going to tell me that brown-nosing is homophobic too?[/quote]

Again, the fact that you constantly use a homosexual activity as an attempt to insult others simply shows that you feel those homosexual activities are something degrading.

It's not like there was a huge financial panic that necessitated the creation of a regulatory body like Fed right?

And that body needed to be headed up by a bunch of private bankers?

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']Again, the fact that you constantly use a homosexual activity as an attempt to insult others simply shows that you feel those homosexual activities are something degrading.[/quote]
I know you're trolling me and you think you're being witty and cute, but I'm not going to let your bullshit slide. I know that homophobia isn't something that you're very concerned about and you feigning concern is disgustingly obscene. You pervert the struggle of those people by trying to score cheap shots on an internet forum. I used to think you had SOME scrupples, but now your just another worthless piece of shit like knoell.

That said, at least prostitutes get paid for their services; you do it because you like it.

And that body needed to be headed up by a bunch of private bankers?

What's there for you to complain about? I'd think that someone like you would be happy to suck them off for a paycheck.

I guess that was homophobic too because you're a male and only males give blowjobs. It's like flipping someone the bird, but it's only homophobic if you do it to a man!

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']I know that homophobia isn't something that you're very concerned about and you feigning concern is disgustingly obscene.[/quote]
You know that, huh? Mind providing anything resembling proof for anyone?

Regardless, pointing out that you resort to homophobic comments when things don't go your way doesn't really have any bearing on my own personal life, now does it?

That said, at least prostitutes get paid for their services; you do it because you like it.

Hey, so do those government politicians you love so much.

With that said, if you want to liken me to a prostitute for corporate America, I should point out that I do get paid from corporate America.

Meanwhile, either you don't get paid from these politicians you're such a fan of - or you are making your living by getting redistributed taxpayer money. In which case, I would totally understand why you support more and more government.

What's there for you to complain about? I'd think that someone like you would be happy to suck them off for a paycheck.

I'm left wondering why you're perfectly okay with it... You act all upset and disgruntled because a couple of banks get a few bucks of taxpayer dollars, but seem more than happy to let them control monetary policy for the most powerful country in the world...

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='UncleBob']You act all upset and disgruntled because a couple of banks get a few bucks of taxpayer dollars, but seem more than happy to let them control monetary policy for the most powerful country in the world...[/QUOTE]

For those who'd like to follow up on this, I'll start you out with two links:

http://www.federalreserve.gov/generalinfo/listdirectors/
Current list of directors to the various Federal Reserve Banks. Including which organizations they represent.

http://money.cnn.com/news/specials/storysupplement/bankbailout/
List of banks which received bailout money (and how much, for good measure). Check out the number of banks near the top of this list who are also represented on the previous list.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']You know that, huh? Mind providing anything resembling proof for anyone?[/QUOTE]
So you support same-sex marriages and adoption, good for ing you, but that's a far cry from speaking out against other overt and more subtle forms of oppression and discrimination, of which you do none of here.

Regardless, pointing out that you resort to homophobic comments when things don't go your way doesn't really have any bearing on my own personal life, now does it?

Funny how you keep throwing that word around like you have even a minute understanding of the word. And how are things not "going my way" since you're just chucking shit at the wall to see what sticks, which is evidenced by the comment about being on public assistance. Well guess what, and this might blow your mind, BUT WE ARE ALL ON GOVERNMENT ASSISTANCE.

Hey, so do those government politicians you love so much.

Like who? I've called out Obama for being a neo-liberal corporate shill on many occasions as well as the Democratic party for resurrecting 20 year old Republican ideas. This shit ain't sticking, kid.

With that said, if you want to liken me to a prostitute for corporate America, I should point out that I do get paid from corporate America.

There's a difference between doing it because you have to and prostrating yourself. Once again, you fail to see the difference.

Meanwhile, either you don't get paid from these politicians you're such a fan of - or you are making your living by getting redistributed taxpayer money. In which case, I would totally understand why you support more and more government.

Why? Because only poor people, who are poor because they're lazy according to you, require government assistance? And who are these imaginary politicians you keep talking about?

I'm left wondering why you're perfectly okay with it... You act all upset and disgruntled because a couple of banks get a few bucks of taxpayer dollars, but seem more than happy to let them control monetary policy for the most powerful country in the world...

Of course I'm ok with it. It's not like I ever spoke unkindly of capitalism before. I'm so super capitalistic, that I DO want corporatocratic oligarchs to not only bend me over, but everyone else as well! You have me completely figured out!

And I said what's there for YOU to complain about since you're actively defending the ones they finance. It'd be nice to get a coherent answer, but that's so far beyond your education, that you should be asking your college for a refund and your high school diploma revoked. You must wear loafers because you can't even tie shoelaces together, muchless two obviously salient relationships like power and agency. Oh right, that's because in your delusional mind, someone without power is equal to someone with power...assuming that you understand how power works, which you don't.

tl; dr:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58n1ahmWTDU

 

[Msut77]

Some of the old timers might disagree. But I actually miss the days when right wing trolls called everyone cowardly traitors on their thread titles. At least you they were honest and didn't hit the ground like an Italian soccer player.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']So you support same-sex marriages and adoption, good for ing you, but that's a far cry from speaking out against other overt and more subtle forms of oppression and discrimination, of which you do none of here.[/quote]

Because my entire life is composed of things I do on CAG.

http://thinkb4youspeak.com/ You should check out this site. I know the title/URL might be scary for you to fathom, but, really, there's some good stuff here.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='dohdough']I am correct in the historical sense and camoor is correct on the sense of scale that the US government would intervene. Bailouts of this scale are unprecedented...enacted by republicans in matter of fact. The key phrase to focus on is "as if politicians have always been as beholden to corporate interests as they are today..."[/QUOTE]

Just catching up, but exactly.

It's sad that you have to give a guy who supposedly not only graduated hs but college (college!) reading comprehension lessons. This kind of thing should be learned on one's own prior to engaging others in debate.

UB - you always seem to be surprised by all the venom directed your way, what you don't understand is that by parading around your ignorance you really show this board alot of disrespect.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']Because my entire life is composed of things I do on CAG.[/quote]
Of course it isn't. You just choose to feign outrage here over a comment you not only don't understand, but don't even know how to correctly label that outrage despite declaring what a champion of social justice for the LGBT community!

http://thinkb4youspeak.com/ You should check out this site. I know the title/URL might be scary for you to fathom, but, really, there's some good stuff here.

Again, this does not mean what you think it means in relation to saying that you like the taste of corporate cock. Telling someone to suck a cock is no more homophobic, completely wrong word by the way, than flipping a guy the bird or any other phallic gestures.

You're despicable for co-opting an important issue. What gives you the right to use it if you don't even understand the fight against it. All you have is a shallow commercial that you googled because you saw it on tv.

And just because I like to school your dumb ass, as well as your usage being akin to nails on a chalkboard and to givve people a tool that ACTUALLY CARE about these things, -phobias imply an irrational fear of. Heterosexism is the term to describe classical hate and oppression of the LGBT community. There is overlap, but a very clear difference. Now go run with it you beautiful butterfly.

 

[cochesecochese]

[quote name='UncleBob']High school diploma and graduated college. But I'm sure you don't really care.[/QUOTE]

Oh man.

What school did you go to? What was your major and/or minor? What kind of degree did you graduate with?

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='cochesecochese']Oh man.

What school did you go to? What was your major and/or minor? What kind of degree did you graduate with?[/QUOTE]

While I appreciate the interest in my personal life, I'm not going to answer this question. A) None of you really care, B) It's not relevant to the topic and C) None of you would believe me. Y'all have your pre-formed opinions (as we've seen demonstrated multiple times on this forum) and it wouldn't matter if I graduated with a masters degree in sociology or a two-year degree in janitorial studies.

[quote name='dohdough']Of course it isn't. You just choose to feign outrage here over a comment you not only don't understand, but don't even know how to correctly label that outrage despite declaring what a champion of social justice for the LGBT community![/quote]

Assuming that last sentence was supposed to end with "you are", please, provide any previous statement from me where I claimed any such thing.

Again, this does not mean what you think it means in relation to saying that you like the taste of corporate cock. Telling someone to suck a cock is no more homophobic, completely wrong word by the way, than flipping a guy the bird or any other phallic gestures.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. You can go on thinking it's awesome to take an activity related to a minority group of individuals and use it as an insult to those you disagree with. More power to you, I suppose.

All you have is a shallow commercial that you googled because you saw it on tv.

For what little TV I do watch, I don't even see commercials. Yay DVR. So, unsurprisingly, you're wrong yet again.

And just because I like to school your dumb ass, as well as your usage being akin to nails on a chalkboard and to givve people a tool that ACTUALLY CARE about these things, -phobias imply an irrational fear of. Heterosexism is the term to describe classical hate and oppression of the LGBT community. There is overlap, but a very clear difference. Now go run with it you beautiful butterfly.

*Now* you're worried about the exact definitions of words?

Because, before, you argued how the actual meanings of words didn't matter and how you should be allowed to twist them to fit whatever your particular agenda was.

I suppose you could be correct - in that you don't have an actual fear of homosexual men. Your method of taking an activity closely associated with them and degrading it would be more of a subtle oppression. I don't honestly know you well enough to know if you do actually have an irrational fear of homosexual men or if you're just unknowingly blind to the implications of the words you choose to use. However, considering how much you preach on these boards about things like dog whistle words, systematic oppression of minorities, etc., etc - I do like to assume that you actually recognize the full extent of the exact phrasing you choose when you type your hate-filled rants.

[quote name='camoor']Just catching up, but exactly.

It's sad that you have to give a guy who supposedly not only graduated hs but college (college!) reading comprehension lessons. This kind of thing should be learned on one's own prior to engaging others in debate. [/quote]

So, curious - when would you two say the Federal Government really shifted to the point to where "politicians have become as beholden to corporate interests as they are today.."

UB - you always seem to be surprised by all the venom directed your way,

Not surprised at the hate/venom. I'm surprised at the total lack of an ability of so many on this forum to carry on a mature discussion without degrading to grade school-level insults.

what you don't understand is that by parading around your ignorance you really show this board alot of disrespect.

Perhaps that's the major difference between some of people on here. Some people feel insulted and disrespected when other people don't just bow down unquestionably to their individual opinions (a.k.a. "ignorance"). Some of us completely understand that the world is a complex place full of all kinds of people with alot* of different opinions and viewpoints and we manage to not take it as a personal insult simply because someone has a viewpoint that we disagree with or believe to be wrong. Hell, if someone came up to me tomorrow and said "Isn't the sky a pretty shade of red", I would never resort to a response equivalent to "You're wrong and you're stupid therefore you perform homosexual actives." or anything of the like.

**Not meant to be an insult at your use of "alot" - just a cheap plug for a favorite blog of mine

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='UncleBob']Assuming that last sentence was supposed to end with "you are", please, provide any previous statement from me where I claimed any such thing.[/QUOTE]
There are plenty of threads with outright heterosexism and there is never a peep out of you about it. This is one of many points that are completely lost on you.

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. You can go on thinking it's awesome to take an activity related to a minority group of individuals and use it as an insult to those you disagree with. More power to you, I suppose.

You're absolutely right. Blowjobs are solely the domain of homosexual men.

For what little TV I do watch, I don't even see commercials. Yay DVR. So, unsurprisingly, you're wrong yet again.

It doesn't matter where you caught it. The fact that you dropped it in the thread like it was some sort of super-move demonstrates your ignorance and lack of reflection on the issue. I'm not shocked by your lame attempt because it's very typical of you.

*Now* you're worried about the exact definitions of words?

Because, before, you argued how the actual meanings of words didn't matter and how you should be allowed to twist them to fit whatever your particular agenda was.

Heterosexism/racism implies power; homophobia/prejudice does not. Just because you can't understand it, doesn't mean I'm wrong as demonstrated numerous times on this thread alone.

I suppose you could be correct - in that you don't have an actual fear of homosexual men. Your method of taking an activity closely associated with them and degrading it would be more of a subtle oppression. I don't honestly know you well enough to know if you do actually have an irrational fear of homosexual men or if you're just unknowingly blind to the implications of the words you choose to use. However, considering how much you preach on these boards about things like dog whistle words, systematic oppression of minorities, etc., etc - I do like to assume that you actually recognize the full extent of the exact phrasing you choose when you type your hate-filled rants.

Again, you're absolutely right! Every straight male is really disgusted by his wife/gf/etc performing oral sex on them and secretly wishes it was a man instead. Thank you for clearing that up.

Another profound observation that's deeply rooted in rigorous research in sexuality!

Not surprised at the hate/venom. I'm surprised at the total lack of an ability of so many on this forum to carry on a mature discussion without degrading to grade school-level insults.

So says the person that uses the mimicry method of debate.

 

[UncleBob]

[quote name='dohdough']You're absolutely right. Blowjobs are solely the domain of homosexual men.[/QUOTE]

Back to the blatant dishonesty, I see. A male performing oral sex on another male is a homosexual activity. In fact, it's pretty much right there in the definition of the word.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='UncleBob']So, curious - when would you two say the Federal Government really shifted to the point to where "politicians have become as beholden to corporate interests as they are today.."[/QUOTE]

The government inaction that led to the "too big to fail" bailouts really hits home with me. Abramoff is a close second.

Just one article, but I think it's a good one:

Greenspan said he had made a "mistake" in believing that banks in operating in their self-interest would be sufficient to protect their shareholders and the equity in their institutions. Greenspan said that he had found "a flaw in the model that I perceived is the critical functioning structure that defines how the world works."
...
"The list of mistakes is long and the cost to taxpayers is staggering," Waxman, a Democrat, told the three men. "Our regulators became enablers rather than enforcers. Their trust in the wisdom of the markets was infinite. The mantra became that government regulation is wrong. The market is infallible."
...
Greenspan's critics charge that he left interest rates too low in the early part of this decade, spurring an unsustainable housing boom, while also refusing to exercise the Fed's powers to impose greater regulations on the issuance of new types of mortgages, including subprime loans. It was the collapse of these mortgages and rising defaults a year ago that triggered the current crisis

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/10/23/national/main4540592.shtml

 

[cochesecochese]

[quote name='UncleBob']While I appreciate the interest in my personal life, I'm not going to answer this question. A) None of you really care, B) It's not relevant to the topic and C) None of you would believe me. Y'all have your pre-formed opinions (as we've seen demonstrated multiple times on this forum) and it wouldn't matter if I graduated with a masters degree in sociology or a two-year degree in janitorial studies.[/QUOTE]

Come on Bob. Answer the question.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='camoor']The government inaction that led to the "too big to fail" bailouts really hits home with me. Abramoff is a close second.[/QUOTE]

Reagan began the process of dragging this country back to the gilded age, W came very close to ruining it outright.

W's time in office was the culmination of a generation of effort by the reactionary right. Which is why watching the usual lying morons say otherwise is so sad and hilarious at the same time.

 

[Trancendental]

[quote name='dohdough']Now go run with it you beautiful butterfly.[/QUOTE]

This made me lol

 

[Clak]

[quote name='cochesecochese']Oh man.

What school did you go to? What was your major and/or minor? What kind of degree did you graduate with?[/QUOTE]
Dude, Bob went to Wal-Mart University, didn't you know?

 

[cochesecochese]

[quote name='Clak']Dude, Bob went to Wal-Mart University, didn't you know?[/QUOTE]

Knock it off. Let the man answer.

 

[dohdough]

[quote name='cochesecochese']Knock it off. Let the man answer.[/QUOTE]
I don't think he's going to answer, and to be honest, I don't think it really matters because he obviously isn't reflective on any of the material. Not to mention that most students aren't really reflective either.

I know I pick on him a lot, and a lot of it is deserved...heh, but this is also a failing of the system(society, culture, whatever) to properly educate its students, although, the argument could also be made that the system is doing exactly what it's meant to do by giving the tools needed for the elite to be the future elite and the tools needed for labor to be good laborers to acquiesce to the elite.

 

[Clak]

I'm surprised bob would even enter a liberal bastion like a University.

 

[UncleBob]

Sorry guys, don't have as much time to play with you this week. We inventory at the end of the week, which means some extra hours to put in. In fact, I'm just home for a few mins after working a full shift (plus some), then, helping my wife with her business for about two hours, and going back in here in a couple of minutes for an hour or two (depending if the computer program I need is back up and running yet...)

 

[cindersphere]

[quote name='UncleBob']Sorry guys, don't have as much time to play with you this week. We inventory at the end of the week, which means some extra hours to put in. In fact, I'm just home for a few mins after working a full shift (plus some), then, helping my wife with her business for about two hours, and going back in here in a couple of minutes for an hour or two (depending if the computer program I need is back up and running yet...)[/QUOTE]
I take it your a salaried employee then?

 

[Clak]

[quote name='cochesecochese']Knock it off. Let the man answer.[/QUOTE]
Look, I can't help it. The guy is a living, breathing contradiction.

 

[nasum]

[quote name='UncleBob']While I appreciate the interest in my personal life, I'm not going to answer this question. A) None of you really care, B) It's not relevant to the topic and C) None of you would believe me. Y'all have your pre-formed opinions (as we've seen demonstrated multiple times on this forum) and it wouldn't matter if I graduated with a masters degree in sociology or a two-year degree in janitorial studies.[/QUOTE]


1.) It's almost like they're as prejudiced as they bash others for being
2.) As I've learned before, don't mock janitors or you will be torched in this sub-forum

Wouldn't it be homosexism, the -ism in this case being applied to homosexuals as opposed heterosexuals?

Other stuff now that I caught up-
Does anyone else find it almost impossible that Greenspan hasn't been publicly hanged for treason? I mean seriously, the guy basically took the Friedman model of trickle down economics, massaged it to look pretty for the dumb people and then proceeded to look like a brilliant man while supporting/building a global house of cards based on money laundering for lack of a better term. I realize we're out of the dark ages here, but good god it just amazes me that some of these people are considered beyond suspicion.

 

[Clak]

It's interesting because knowing bob's current opinions leads me to the conclusion that he either brushed off much of what he learned in college, or went to some conservative school like Regent University.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='nasum']1.) It's almost like they're as prejudiced as they bash others for being
2.) As I've learned before, don't mock janitors or you will be torched in this sub-forum[/QUOTE]

1) Do you normally take everyone on the interbutts self stated credentials at face value? If so I know some Nigerian Royalty who want to make a deal.

2) Depends on the janitor.

Also Greenspan is like a murderer who didn't get caught until advanced old age. What are you going to do, give him a 4 month life sentence?

 

[nasum]

1.) With all this BS about "powerful people exacting cruelty on the weak" being wrong, somehow it's ok for powerfully educated people on this board to pick on UB under the presumption that he's some bumpkin strictly because he has some libertarian views. It's hypocritical and I'm pointing that out, not offering to purchase your Nigerian Royal fortune for 80 cents on the dollar. I equate it to birther BS.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='nasum']1.) With all this BS about "powerful people exacting cruelty on the weak" being wrong, somehow it's ok for powerfully educated people[/quote]

I went to a fairly decent state school, not going in to details but it definitely wasn't Harvard.

I wouldn't care if someone decided to call me a liar (not trying to sound arrogant) because my erudition is self evident.

under the presumption that he's some bumpkin strictly because he has some libertarian views.

People like knoell and thrust do not get picked on because of their libertarian views or I should say JUST because of their libertarian views.

It is a combination of things, personally I find them ignorant as about practically everything but mainly it is their dishonest moving the goalposts on basically any "argument" you care to have with them. FYI this is also why they get labelled trolls.

It's hypocritical and I'm pointing that out

I don't find it hypocritical. It is perfectly possible for someone to have no higher education but be well read and aware of what goes on in the world. It is perfectly possible for an auto-didact to have a basic understanding of any number of subjects.

It just happens not to be the case of any of the CAG cons you are white knighting.

not offering to purchase your Nigerian Royal fortune for 80 cents on the dollar. I equate it to birther BS.

That is your prerogative, personally I don't buy it.

P.s. What do you mean about BS in 1)?

 

[nasum]

What I mean about BS is that we have the self-appointed guardians of the disadvantaged running around here putting other people down for putting other people down. That's a very simplistic view of the situation but it does get at the essence of the problem. "This idiocy is wrong and you're an idiot for not seeing it even though it's wrong to point out the idiocy of others as individuals only as a system" or some such rabble. It's ridiculous.

It's not even precisely about education in the case of UB. The hypocricy comes when people get accused of living in bootstrap utopia and following belief system X because of it, while they doing the accusing are falling into the same trap of those saying that people aren't bootstrapping enough.

Example:
Boarder A:
Man, them crack dealing negroes sure make it bad for themselves, if only they'd get a job! (prejudice based upon blacks only selling drugs etc...)
Boarder B:
You're a Tea Party head that is a big dumb-dumb (prejudice based upon the notion that any person involved in the TP deal has to be stupid)

And then the cycle continues. You (not particularly you) champion these causes, but pick and choose when you want to decide between individuals and groups. It's kind of bull shit and people don't often point that out. It's ok to paint anyone who regularly tunes into Rush as some racist/sexist/homosexist/gun toting loony, but to even for one moment think that inner city black teenage boys are even remotely possibly engaged in criminal enterprise means you might as well be burning crosses in all of your spare time.

 

[Msut77]

[quote name='nasum']What I mean about BS is that we have the self-appointed guardians of thedisadvantaged running around here putting other people down for putting other people down.[/quote]

You are talking to a person who files most of the CAG cons under "clownshoes". I may be judgmental, IMHO they made it in the pile on merit.

That's a very simplistic view of the situation but it does get at the essence of the problem. "This idiocy is wrong and you're an idiot for not seeing it even though it's wrong to point out the idiocy of others as individuals only as a system" or some such rabble. It's ridiculous.

What is ridiculous is people who come to a "vs." forum and then do not actually debate anything. You are confusing issues because no one really gets dumped on just for lack of knowledge (ignorance at the very least is curable) but for acting a certain way.

The hypocricy comes when people get accused of living in bootstrap utopia and following belief system X because of it, while they doing the accusing are falling into the same trap of those saying that people aren't bootstrapping enough.

Not going to repeat myself. I can write an entire book about self hating wage slaves. FYI there are plenty of rich (supposedly educated) people who get ragged on here as well.

And then the cycle continues. You (not particularly you) champion these causes, but pick and choose when you want to decide between individuals and groups. It's kind of bull shit and people don't often point that out. It's ok to paint anyone who regularly tunes into Rush as some racist/sexist/homosexist/gun toting loony, but to even for one moment think that inner city black teenage boys are even remotely possibly engaged in criminal enterprise means you might as well be burning crosses in all of your spare time.

There are people who post here regularly who post nothing but what glenn beck, neil boortz etc. tell them to and would rather lie or self immolate than change their minds.

Why you seem to take that as proof you aren't allowed to talk shit about hypothetical black people I have no idea.

 

[nasum]

hey man, I know people don't like to be called hypocrites. It sucks to have it pointed out for you that you're being inconsistent with your own rules. It's pretty simple, applying a prejudice to one group/person (that you dislike) because they've also done so at another group/person (that you favour) and feeling justified in doing so is the very definition of hypocrisy!

 

[Msut77]

nasum,

You can call me a hypocrite all you like but you seem to be just searching for a fancy way of calling people mean doody heads.

 

[depascal22]

Somehow it's become equally bad to call someone racist/ignorant/unwaveringly stubborn as it is to be racist/ignorant/unwaveringly stubborn

 

[Clak]

[quote name='nasum']1.) With all this BS about "powerful people exacting cruelty on the weak" being wrong, somehow it's ok for powerfully educated people on this board to pick on UB under the presumption that he's some bumpkin strictly because he has some libertarian views. It's hypocritical and I'm pointing that out, not offering to purchase your Nigerian Royal fortune for 80 cents on the dollar. I equate it to birther BS.[/QUOTE]
I'm simply saying that his views don't mesh with what one would most likely be taught at a "liberal" college. So unless he went to a place like the one I mentioned, I'm curious how he was able to reconcile what he was taught in school with his current beliefs. Or, as I'm willing to bet, he rolled his eyes at most of the stuff he was taught in school.