Poll: Left or right?

[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ...better on average? For who? And in what ways?[/QUOTE]

Better for society as a whole. More personal freedom, a more solid economy, a stronger sense of morality.

[quote name='dohdough']And here you go again expecting people to put in more work than you. How about you do your own homework you little pissant.[/QUOTE]

I'm using the links to start debate. I personally prefer it if someone else elaborates first, then I take my turn to disprove them, like I did with cindersphere on 9/11.

Call me whatever the heck you want after you read this, but that "pissant" remark puts you on my list of troublemakers. I won't be replying to you anymore during the course of this thread.

[quote name='Msut77']His healthcare link was the shit.[/QUOTE]

Do you have a problem with speaking to me directly? And telling me why the link is shit?

[quote name='mykevermin']Yeah, yeah, it's nice to link to some crazy-ass shit from outer space and then say "refute this, don't call me names, or that makes me right." You don't get to determine the rules to the game. The game is played with or without you.[/QUOTE]

I started this thread. If you don't like the way that I set things out at the start, you're free to explain why you don't, and then NOT get in the way of those who do.

It's main intent (beyond the poll) is to explain the experiences that I've had with left-wing individuals on the internet, then debate right-wing views with them. cindersphere's the only one that's done this in the orderly fashion that I asked for. That debate ended with me tentatively getting disproved, so I wouldn't say the format that I laid out is slanted in my favour.

IMO, asking for a proper debate on political views without attacking the messenger or excessively attacking the method of delivery isn't at all too much to ask. But it hasn't really happened yet... -_-
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Better for society as a whole.[/quote]

The post FDR era was better for more people in some ways (such as income distribution) than the post Reagan era.

Somehow I don't think this is the point you think you are making.

More personal freedom
Click to expand...

Even if you had a * and meant only white males, straight or closeted you have no point.

a more solid economy
Click to expand...

The post FDR era was better for more people in some ways (such as regulation of the financial industry) than the post Reagan era.

Somehow I don't think this is the point you think you are making.

I'm using the links to start debate.
Click to expand...

No you aren't.

I personally prefer it if someone else elaborates first, then I take my turn to disprove them, like I did with cindersphere on 9/11.
Click to expand...

You are very generous in your descriptions of your own actions.

Do you have a problem with speaking to me directly?
Click to expand...

I will see your response to the rest of this post and then elaborate on this part later.

And telling me why the link is shit?
Click to expand...

You posted a half-assed attack on the Canadian healthcare system and seem to think it is an "argument" universal healthcare and all other systems of universal healthcare out there.

That particular John Goodman is a snakeoil salesman, his career is pushing free market bullshit. His only links are to himself and to another free market right wing "think" tank.

Of the "arguments" the man makes, one is that the Canadian Healthcare costs has higher administrative costs than advertised due to tax collection. Any first year business student will tell you what is wrong with that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']IMO, asking for a proper debate on political views without attacking the messenger or excessively attacking the method of delivery isn't at all too much to ask. But it hasn't really happened yet... -_-[/QUOTE]

IMOooooooo, if we're going that route, asking for a proper debate on political views where people speak and don't merely link to their views isn't at all too much to ask. Particularly when the views they link to as a substitute for ideas of their own, like "The goal of communism in america is to merge with communist russia," are batshit fuckin' insane. Like 9/11 truther-fucked an Obama birther, and that kid had a kid out of wedlock with someone who thought "They Live" was based on a true story fuckin' insane.

This is a debate? Then let's use the rules of debate. Speak your ideas. Go get into an actual, live debate and see how far you get with "here's a URL for an article at Free Republic that speaks to my views; read it and refute it, but don't make fun of me or say anything else until you do."

You don't understand rules of debate. Which isn't that shocking. You start with rules built for you to win this farce of a debate by default (so much for the sweat of your brow, eh, Mr Galt?), enter with the false premise that you were ever truly in the middle on anything, gave due diligence to two sets of ideologies, and used empirical evidence to refute one and support the other.

FFS, man, you say you're an empiricist and yet you're a truther. That's all the empirical evidence I need to see that you're Daffy fuckin' Duck, hombre.
 
My favorite part of They Live is when Piper shows up, guns drawn, says the immortal line, and then shoots a fucker ONE SPLIT SECOND later.

And I'm all outta gumBLAM

I finally got up off the floor several minutes later, unable to see, stomach aching, and that instance in life significantly happier than most before, after, and around it.
 
Oh, "They Live". It's like a mad scientist devised a method of bringing Bruce Springsteen songs to life, and then also making them action movies. I know hippies who think think it's "too corny".

Also, Strell is wrong. The best part is clearly the billionty-minute-long fight between Piper and the black guy in the parking lot.
 
They Live is an alright film. I do like some of things that it says, but anyone with half a brain couldn't possibly believe that mind control is THAT widepsread.

For political purposes, Network is more my style.

I'll get back to Msut & myke tomorrow.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Prove to me that Obama was not born in Hawaii. I have a long form birth certificate that proves that he was born in Hawaii. Prove to me that he was born somewhere else.

Prove to me that 9/11 was an inside job. Show me absolute proof, not circumstantial evidence. I saw 2 planes hit the WTC. Show me that my eyes are lying to me and it was something else entirely.[/QUOTE]
Its been proven that the birth certificate he released was edited and manipulated like some one copy and pasted areas of text to make it look legit.
It has multiple layers i adobe after effects.
i dont doubt he was born in hawai its just everything he says and the admin and govt say and do turn out to be lies
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='solid snake']ITs been proven that hat birth certificate he released was edited and manipulated like some one copy and pasted areas of text to make it look legit.
[/QUOTE]

The future of our country.
 
[quote name='Strell']The future of our country.[/QUOTE]
Ever consider living in British Crotchumbia? I'm thinking about a move to Vancouver, and rent's way too god damn high there to go without a roommate.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']I'm thinking about a move to Vancouver, and rent's way too god damn high there to go without a roommate.[/QUOTE]

If only someone could build an entire party platform off this sentiment.
 
Labeling people or yourself left or right is one of the stupidest things you could do.
This thread is beyond stupid.
 
[quote name='Mr. 420']Labeling people or yourself left or right is one of the stupidest things you could do.
This thread is beyond stupid.[/QUOTE]
It's super stoopid.
 
[quote name='Msut77']Still waiting.[/QUOTE]
LOLZ..for what? For him to drop a one-liner about how FDR overreached and that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression?:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
[quote name='dohdough']LOLZ..for what? For him to drop a one-liner about how FDR overreached and that the New Deal actually prolonged the Great Depression?:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:[/QUOTE]

I wasn't expecting much but his lack of response means he is more than just a dim bulb he is shamelessly dishonest.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I wasn't expecting much but his lack of response means he is more than just a dim bulb he is shamelessly dishonest.[/QUOTE]
I don't think there's any feelings of shame on his part.:lol:
 
I simply didn't feel like replying until now.

I'd first like to state that I see nothing wrong with posting links that I agree with instead of arguing using my own words. I am not a professional writer, and most others can explain the issues much better than I can. Call it lazy, call it a crutch, call it proof of "mental junk food", I don't really care. It's how I work.

And having said that, I give you this:

http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/

I want YOU to give a direct counterpoint to THAT before I attempt any further defense of my views. I justify this request as being a way for you to make up for your heavy usage of the following:

[quote name='TurboChickenMan']1. With a strong sense of superiority

2. Dismissal without disproval

3. Cherry-picking and/or twisting my words

4. Mild to severe hatred, depending on the topic

5. Snide remarks, often combined with stereotyping

6. tl;dr[/QUOTE]

Don't try and make me the enemy any more. I have NOT used personal insults. I HAVE read everything you've said AND responded to all points that weren't snotty and/or rambling and/or baseless opinion. I have NOT dismissed ANYTHING out of hand - I try to debunk using hard evidence whenever I can, and when I can't, I ask perfectly valid questions. Other than my 9/11 debate with cindersphere and a few isolated remarks, all I've seen from your side is attacking the speaker & the method of speaking, then disguising opinion as fact using vague and/or cherry-picking laden links.

Any replies that contain the same old ignorance, superiority, & profiling instead of following the original intent of this thread, which was to argue political viewpoints through an evidence-based point/counterpoint system, will be ignored.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I simply didn't feel like replying until now.

I'd first like to state that I see nothing wrong with posting links that I agree with instead of arguing using my own words. I am not a professional writer, and most others can explain the issues much better than I can. Call it lazy, call it a crutch, call it proof of "mental junk food", I don't really care. It's how I work.

And having said that, I give you this:

http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/

I want YOU to give a direct counterpoint to THAT before I attempt any further defense of my views. I justify this request as being a way for you to make up for your heavy usage of the following:



Don't try and make me the enemy any more. I have NOT used personal insults. I HAVE read everything you've said AND responded to all points that weren't snotty and/or rambling and/or baseless opinion. I have NOT dismissed ANYTHING out of hand - I try to debunk using hard evidence whenever I can, and when I can't, I ask perfectly valid questions. Other than my 9/11 debate with cindersphere and a few isolated remarks, all I've seen from your side is attacking the speaker & the method of speaking, then disguising opinion as fact using vague and/or cherry-picking laden links.

Any replies that contain the same old ignorance, superiority, & profiling instead of following the original intent of this thread, which was to argue political viewpoints through an evidence-based point/counterpoint system, will be ignored.[/QUOTE]

Okay I take your challenge, in so far as I believe what you are arguing against, and will argue for wealth redistribution. I will refute you in the way you argue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland
All these countries had wealth redistribution and are doing/were doing fine (UK had high inflation which allowed MT to dismantle it, well that and the left went kind of looney. But the overall economy was doing okay and the dismantling of it was more of MT's TINA policies than an overall public disapproval of the PWS).

BTW your link was not evidence based at all but rather talking points hashed together to sound decent. There was no actual analysis on why socialism does not work (Such as actual case studies on socialist countries or economic data showing the effects of redistribution policies, which honestly isn't even all that hard to find. Just look at Yugoslavia, which admittedly was more a collusion of interests rather than a decent form of market based socialism that people like John Rhoemer argue for, but still standards man get some for your view points).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']I simply didn't feel like replying until now.

I'd first like to state that I see nothing wrong with posting links that I agree with instead of arguing using my own words. I am not a professional writer, and most others can explain the issues much better than I can. Call it lazy, call it a crutch, call it proof of "mental junk food", I don't really care. It's how I work.

And having said that, I give you this:

http://socialismdoesntwork.com/why-socialism-doesnt-work/

I want YOU to give a direct counterpoint to THAT before I attempt any further defense of my views. I justify this request as being a way for you to make up for your heavy usage of the following:



Don't try and make me the enemy any more. I have NOT used personal insults. I HAVE read everything you've said AND responded to all points that weren't snotty and/or rambling and/or baseless opinion. I have NOT dismissed ANYTHING out of hand - I try to debunk using hard evidence whenever I can, and when I can't, I ask perfectly valid questions. Other than my 9/11 debate with cindersphere and a few isolated remarks, all I've seen from your side is attacking the speaker & the method of speaking, then disguising opinion as fact using vague and/or cherry-picking laden links.

Any replies that contain the same old ignorance, superiority, & profiling instead of following the original intent of this thread, which was to argue political viewpoints through an evidence-based point/counterpoint system, will be ignored.[/QUOTE]
Looks like some has an entitlement complex. The irony!!

The fact of the matter is that you simply don't have the intellectual rigor to defend your views. All you have are feel-good soundbites because you're an emotionally stunted social outcast.

You set yourself up in this thread to show how smart you are and instead, you're getting pwned left and right...by yourself. You opened yourself up for aggressive debate and put yourself in the defensive. And when people attack, you say "no fair!" because you're too ignorant to come up with something on your own. Hell, you don't even play by your own rules.

You talk about how smart an logical you are and it's a clear sign of narcissism. Its unfounded. The only person here that thinks you're smart is yourself. Even our fellow conservative CAG's haven't even chimed in to back your side up in this clusterfuck of a thread.

That said, I could easily refute every single one of those points in that link and I have facts and history on my side...instead I'm just going to reply to you with internet memes because I find it entertaining to make fun of you.

tl;dr: u r a big bag of FAILZ

failboat-arrived3.jpg
 
[quote name='dohdough']Looks like some has an entitlement complex. The irony!!

The fact of the matter is that you simply don't have the intellectual rigor to defend your views. All you have are feel-good soundbites because you're an emotionally stunted social outcast.

You set yourself up in this thread to show how smart you are and instead, you're getting pwned left and right...by yourself. You opened yourself up for aggressive debate and put yourself in the defensive. And when people attack, you say "no fair!" because you're too ignorant to come up with something on your own. Hell, you don't even play by your own rules.

You talk about how smart an logical you are and it's a clear sign of narcissism. Its unfounded. The only person here that thinks you're smart is yourself. Even our fellow conservative CAG's haven't even chimed in to back your side up in this clusterfuck of a thread.

That said, I could easily refute every single one of those points in that link and I have the side of facts and history on my side...instead I'm just going to reply to you with internet memes because I find it entertaining to make fun of you.

tl;dr: u r a big bag of FAILZ

failboat-arrived3.jpg
[/QUOTE]
Harsh.
 
[quote name='cindersphere']Okay I take your challenge, in so far as I believe what you are arguing against, and will argue for wealth redistribution. I will refute you in the way you argue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netherlands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switzerland
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_of_Great_Britain_and_Northern_Ireland
All these countries had wealth redistribution and are doing/were doing fine (UK had high inflation which allowed MT to dismantle it, well that and the left went kind of looney. But the overall economy was doing okay and the dismantling of it was more of MT's TINA policies than an overall public disapproval of the PWS).

BTW your link was not evidence based at all but rather talking points hashed together to sound decent. There was no actual analysis on why socialism does not work (Such as actual case studies on socialist countries or economic data showing the effects of redistribution policies, which honestly isn't even all that hard to find. Just look at Yugoslavia, which admittedly was more a collusion of interests rather than a decent form of market based socialism that people like John Rhoemer argue for, but still standards man get some for your view points).[/QUOTE]

You make some good points.

Quite honestly, I'm out of steam. I said in my first post that I come to my conclusions by viewing the world around me. All that does is create a gut feeling. I can explain what I know, but it's hard for me to show exactly how I came to know it.

I'm just left with this article, which explains that a careful balance between socialism & capitalism akin to the Social Credit system I advocate gives the best results:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,366944,00.html

I'm done with politics. I really should get back into gaming... :wall:

blazeofgloryt.jpg
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']Quite honestly, I'm out of steam. I said in my first post that I come to my conclusions by viewing the world around me. All that does is create a gut feeling.[/quote]
Did you know there are more nerve endings in your gut than in your brain?

Look it up.

[quote name='TurboChickenMan'] I'm done with politics. I really should get back into gaming... :wall:

blazeofgloryt.jpg
[/QUOTE]
Well, TCM. You may be an arrogant prick.

But between Notpron and the Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, you've got decent taste.
 
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']You make some good points.

Quite honestly, I'm out of steam. I said in my first post that I come to my conclusions by viewing the world around me. All that does is create a gut feeling. I can explain what I know, but it's hard for me to show exactly how I came to know it.

I'm just left with this article, which explains that a careful balance between socialism & capitalism akin to the Social Credit system I advocate gives the best results:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,366944,00.html

I'm done with politics. I really should get back into gaming... :wall:

blazeofgloryt.jpg
[/QUOTE]

Just saying.
[quote name='Voltaire']Common sense isn't so common.[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='TurboChickenMan']You make some good points.[/QUOTE]
SUCH AS....

Quite honestly, I'm out of steam. I said in my first post that I come to my conclusions by viewing the world around me. All that does is create a gut feeling. I can explain what I know, but it's hard for me to show exactly how I came to know it.
Click to expand...
That's because you're fucking confused. What you see doesn't jive with what you think. The fact of the matter is that you don't know jackshit. You haven't responded to half the goddamn posts in this thread and you're out of steam? WHat a fucking joke.

I'm just left with this article, which explains that a careful balance between socialism & capitalism akin to the Social Credit system I advocate gives the best results:

http://www.spiegel.de/international/0,1518,366944,00.html
Click to expand...
Which is the exact opposite of what you've been promoting in this thread. WTF.

I'm done with politics. I really should get back into gaming...
Click to expand...
Promise?
 
Bump for hilarity.

This is how we used to treat dishonest LIEbertarians in this forum. Looks like we've softened up a bit. Anyone notice and similarities between Spokker and TurboChickenMan?
 
I still maintain that my brother-from-another-provincemother had good taste in media. Y'all should check out Freak Brothers (the comic he took that image from).
 
[quote name='dohdough']Bump for hilarity.

This is how we used to treat dishonest LIEbertarians in this forum. Looks like we've softened up a bit. Anyone notice and similarities between Spokker and TurboChickenMan?[/QUOTE]

Hahahaha :3ds:
 
I'm really a mixed bag.

I believe in the right to choose. A woman's body is her own, and the "rights" of an unborn child do not trump the rights of an actual member of our society. I strongly support stem cell research of all sorts. There are too many potential answers there to ignore. I'm definitely not an adamant supporter of gay marriage, but I'm not against it, either. Just doesn't really affect me.

I believe strongly in the death penalty. I did a lot of research on it in college, and I still feel like when implemented properly, it is an effective deterrent. I'm not a gun nut, but I do have an issue with assaults on the 2nd Amendment. To me, it's just a dangerous, slippery slope whenever you try to put too many restrictions on the Bill of Rights. I support profiling of all sorts, especially in the war on terror. We are fighting an enemy that knows no boundaries and fights by no rules.

Fiscally, I do believe our country needs to be more responsible, but I do continue to support most assistance programs (welfare, unemployment, food stamps, etc). They just need to be monitored more efficiently to reduce abuse. I am beyond opposed to the make-shift ideology represented by these "Occupy" individuals, who seem to believe that the rich do not contribute to society. They pay the majority of the taxes, many of them make grand contributions to charity, and most importantly, many of them are the ones who create jobs and promote innovation. Greed, for the lack of a better word, is good.

When it comes to religious issues, I have no problem with people bringing their religion into public life and arenas. This nation has a strong Christian tradition, and that cannot simply be ignored. At the same time, your religious conviction is not a justification for trying to dictate how others should live their life.
 
[quote name='The Crotch']Ever consider living in British Crotchumbia? I'm thinking about a move to Vancouver, and rent's way too god damn high there to go without a roommate.[/QUOTE]

Is this offer still open?
 
[quote name='Strell']Is this offer still open?[/QUOTE]
Ask me again in August. Spring is the beginning of nomad season for me. Pack up my possessions, live in a tent for a couple of months, spend time with hippie chicks, etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top