NinSheetMusic Forums

Off-Topic => Off-Topic => Topic started by: spitllama on September 06, 2012, 03:15:02 AM

Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on September 06, 2012, 03:15:02 AM
Well if a religion topic is allowed... then why not a politics thread? Most people don't care for it in the main "Post Your Thoughts of the Moment" thread anyhow.

How about the RNC and DNC?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 06, 2012, 03:21:10 AM
Michelle Obama is a good speaker.

RNC was just.... lmao
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on September 06, 2012, 04:24:21 AM
Regarding my political standing

[11:21:14 PM] Jub: THE GOVERNMENT IS GOING TO TAKE AWAY OUR RIGHTS AS FREE PEOPLE
[11:21:20 PM] Jub: THEY'VE ALREADY MADE THE LAW
[11:21:39 PM] Jub: THAT WHEN ENOUGH STATES DECLARE STATE OF EMERGENCY, THEY CAN DECLARE MARTIAL LAW AND DO MEAN THINGS TO US! :(

again, conspiracy theorist.  ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DrP on September 06, 2012, 08:51:59 AM
The RNC was a pretty fantastic event... all the energy there really was inspiring.

The DNC has had some pretty great speeches and Obama is ready to go with Romney. I can't wait to see the debates!

This is going to be a fantastic election (and pretty close, if I might add!)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: EFitTrainr on September 07, 2012, 05:15:55 AM
I'm a member of the elite shadowkirby party.
And lock this and religon, gogogo
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DrP on September 07, 2012, 08:59:38 AM
And lock this and religon, gogogo
Quote
Calm debates on politics, religion, etc will be tolerated, but if things get out of hand then consequences will follow
There is no need.

This is an election year however. I encourage all those here who are above the legal age (18) to get involved and get registered to vote. It's important that you get informed (visit your State's Secretary of State Website for more details) and make an informed decision of which party platform you would like to support.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Roz~ on September 07, 2012, 01:55:27 PM
Election year here as well. Well we've already voted and we know who our new Prime minister is, but still. I hate how it always become a shitfest and everyone just insults the other political parties u_u
Also the comments after the new Prime minister won were disgusting... Politics are really interesting, I wish people would read stuff about the political parties instead of just saying that they all suck.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 07, 2012, 05:35:52 PM
Yea but isn't your PM this crazy lady that wants Quebec to be a separate nation
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on September 07, 2012, 05:52:18 PM
So Clint Eastwood's speech. Was it beautiful OR WAS IT FREAKING BEAUTIFUL?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 10, 2012, 10:22:25 PM

I think that should sum things up pretty accurately.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on September 10, 2012, 11:51:15 PM
Which political party do you associate yourselves with (if any)? Will you be voting for that candidate in November or making some rebellious one-of-a-kind switcheroo just to screw everybody?

I am Mashi-ist in both religion and party. Screw separation of church and state.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Roz~ on September 11, 2012, 01:08:35 AM
Yea but isn't your PM this crazy lady that wants Quebec to be a separate nation

If you knew a little bit of stuff about politics here, you'd know this important fact
The only left party we have is that one. So the people who didn't want to vote for the Liberal party had to vote for that one. Also I am not a separatist by any means, but I know that becoming a country wouldn't be that bad. And the Parti Québécois knows the referendum is not an option so it's not gonna happen anyways.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on September 11, 2012, 01:28:03 AM
If you knew a little bit of stuff about politics here, you'd know this important fact
The only left party we have is that one. So the people who didn't want to vote for the Liberal party had to vote for that one. Also I am not a separatist by any means, but I know that becoming a country wouldn't be that bad. And the Parti Québécois knows the referendum is not an option so it's not gonna happen anyways.

lol Kefka was owned

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 11, 2012, 02:15:45 AM
lol Kefka was owned
No. Stop that. Stop that this instant.

Don't make me get that spray bottle with water in it. ಠ_ಠ
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on September 11, 2012, 04:28:27 AM
I might vote for Theodore Roosevelt. Even being 90 years dead he could do a better job than the two clowns we have running.

Progressive Party ftw
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 11, 2012, 04:29:26 AM
lol Kefka was owned
Quote from: Rules
-No attacks on other users in the form of trolling, flaming, etc.
dont break rules kids

Huzzah for the canadian politick lesson from da roz though o:
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Roz~ on September 11, 2012, 05:04:33 AM
Ya
Basically all of the Left parties in Quebec are separatists parties, and the Right parties are federalists parties. So if you don't want to become a country but you don't want to vote for the Liberals you're pretty much screwed. We need a Left Federalist party to balance things out I think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobraroll on September 11, 2012, 12:31:02 PM
Last time I checked, I associated myself the most with Venstre (meaning "left", but they're a right-centrist party). That, or Arbeiderpartiet (workers' party, slightly left). Would have been more centrist if I could, but the only true centrist party we have mostly caters to farmers ("let's subsidize the farmers even more, and rise the toll on all foreign food, so all the farmers can continue being farmers even though they hardly produce anything!").

I agree with Høyre ("Right") in some cases, but disagree with them too much otherwise to vote for them. They're supposed to be the moderate right-wing party (in other words, slightly to the left of the US Democrats).
We also have Fremskrittspartiet ("the Progress Party"), our resident populist party which sits slightly to the left of the US Republicans (Imagine Republicants without religion). Those are the guys who propose to lower taxes on alcohol, petrol and cars, make tobacco ads legal again and spend the entire Oil Fund on building motorways and subsidize roads, as well as closing the borders for immigrants. For some reason, they have got a relatively strong backing in the population (currently at about 15%, according to polls, they peaked at about 30% a couple years ago). The stereotypical idiot in Norwegian culture votes FrP. To their credit, they've never been in a position of government, so it's hard to tell how their wacky ideas would have worked in practise.

We also have a number of smaller parties, from communists to fundamental Christians and the Coastal Party (all three polling in at about 1.5%). And remarkably less poop-flinging than we see in the US. Such a level of lies and bashing as we see from both sides of the debate in the US, would probably lead to expulsion from the party in Norway, and the guy would probably plunge on the polls and forever be remembered as a grumpy whiner.


I think a two-party system allows for too much polarization of the debates. Everything boils down to "Us vs. Them", and if you're politically engaged, you're either for or against one of the big parties. No political alliances, no third voice to calm the debate, and too much dogmatically voting against everything (especially in Congress, where practically everybody vote according to either the Democrats or the Republicans based on which party they belong to themselves).

Though, with more parties, expect to see poop flying in more directions than ever. But at least there are smaller quantities of the stuff around, especially around election time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: wariopiano on September 11, 2012, 04:45:10 PM
Obama I hate that name!!!!! >:( >:(
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on September 11, 2012, 05:21:07 PM
I think a two-party system allows for too much polarization of the debates. Everything boils down to "Us vs. Them", and if you're politically engaged, you're either for or against one of the big parties. No political alliances, no third voice to calm the debate, and too much dogmatically voting against everything.

Yes to everything in this paragraph. Yes yes yes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 11, 2012, 05:27:02 PM
The problem is that we have too many politicians that strictly align to one portion of their parties beliefs.  There is barely any malleability and almost no desire for compromise.  It's almost always an ALL OR NOTHING sort of attitude, which is why we have so many instances of things taking fucking forever and/or just not happening in Congress.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 11, 2012, 06:01:50 PM
Can't find a lot of clips for that Simpsons THOH episode, Citizen Kang...thanks a lot, FOX -.- But I think everyone should watch it because it never gets old. Except Clinton and Dole aren't running for president.

Obama I hate that name!!!!! >:( >:(

Yeah, that's one way to turn this thread into a flame war... >__>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on September 11, 2012, 10:51:46 PM
If politicians figured out that the majority of voters are not radical morons, maybe their idea of compromise would actually change.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on September 11, 2012, 11:42:36 PM
Something I've noticed in politics is that most Democrats strongly favour Democratic principles and Republicans strongly favour Republican principles.  I know that sounds ridiculously obvious, but I don't think that there are many Democrats or Republicans that are only slightly aligned with their respective parties; it's often, as been stated before, a devoted and sometimes even passionate alignment.  So whenever a Republican or Democratic candidate go up for a caucus or primary, he/she always seems more supportive of extreme and party-favoured ideas and actions, but when they finally win the caucus or primary, the candidates both race to appearing to be moderates.  They don't do so in a manner to appear as if they're completely changing face (doing so would alienate their respective party members, after all), but to an extent in which a good deal of their policies are only slightly Democratic or slightly Republican to appeal to the Independents (which, if I'm correct, is 40% of the US population nowadays?  Not sure).  This is the only real explanation I have for why candidates always offer such extreme ideas (and also makes sense out of certain views on issues that certain candidates have, such as Willard Mitt Romney's (also, am I the only one who finds that his being referred to as Mitt, rather than Willard, is hilarious because of how rich Willard sounds?) opposition to gay marriage, to appeal to the religious voters in the Republican party.  Of course, I don't keep up with politics anymore (and when I did, I had no clue what was going on!), so I'm probably completely wrong in my observations of all this, but oh well!

But anyhow, I concur with a lot that's been said in this thread involving the problems with a two party system.  But with the Independents being on the rise, maybe we'll soon see a dominant 3rd party!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 11, 2012, 11:53:00 PM
Nah, a lot of the candidates now are not only advocating for radical views, but they actually pursue them when appointed to office.  They aren't always that successful, but many of them have been such as all the awful voting regulations meant to stifle low income and minority groups in certain states like Texas and Florida.  Luckily the courts actually look at them and are like "rofl this is unconstitutional" as they should, but the amount of nuts in power is just frightening :|
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Roz~ on September 12, 2012, 12:41:23 AM
Something I've noticed in politics is that most Democrats strongly favour Democratic principles and Republicans strongly favour Republican principles.  I know that sounds ridiculously obvious, but I don't think that there are many Democrats or Republicans that are only slightly aligned with their respective parties; it's often, as been stated before, a devoted and sometimes even passionate alignment.  So whenever a Republican or Democratic candidate go up for a caucus or primary, he/she always seems more supportive of extreme and party-favoured ideas and actions, but when they finally win the caucus or primary, the candidates both race to appearing to be moderates.  They don't do so in a manner to appear as if they're completely changing face (doing so would alienate their respective party members, after all), but to an extent in which a good deal of their policies are only slightly Democratic or slightly Republican to appeal to the Independents (which, if I'm correct, is 40% of the US population nowadays?  Not sure).  This is the only real explanation I have for why candidates always offer such extreme ideas (and also makes sense out of certain views on issues that certain candidates have, such as Willard Mitt Romney's (also, am I the only one who finds that his being referred to as Mitt, rather than Willard, is hilarious because of how rich Willard sounds?) opposition to gay marriage, to appeal to the religious voters in the Republican party.  Of course, I don't keep up with politics anymore (and when I did, I had no clue what was going on!), so I'm probably completely wrong in my observations of all this, but oh well!

But anyhow, I concur with a lot that's been said in this thread involving the problems with a two party system.  But with the Independents being on the rise, maybe we'll soon see a dominant 3rd party!

Yes, a two-party system sucks. It's basically vote against the party you hate and not vote for the party you like.

And yes, I think you are somewhat right. Every politician as to follow their Party Line, so they have to agree with everything, even the most extreme ideas, their party offers. That's why you see some politicians strongly agree with certain ideas; but since they know that the public might not agree, they have to change their stance on said ideas a little bit, to make it look "less extreme" I guess.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on September 12, 2012, 04:11:29 PM
So, Slow was banned for this?
lol Kefka was owned
I don't see this "repeted warning" he supposedly had.

Hmmm...
Looks like someone was just looking for a reason to ban him...
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on September 12, 2012, 04:16:04 PM
Wait he was actually banned? :O I thought that was a joke... or a warning at the very worst. He didn't say anything insulting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on September 12, 2012, 04:17:49 PM
Wait he was actually banned? :O I thought that was a joke... or a warning at the very worst. He didn't say anything insulting.
Exactly.
What's up, Kefka?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 12, 2012, 05:37:36 PM
He's done it multiple times.

Where have you people been.

He also constantly talks about disliking Kefka in the skype room, along with derp.

...There's a strike through the e, in case you can't tell.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on September 12, 2012, 05:42:30 PM
He's done it multiple times.

Where have you people been.
I can only think of one other time...

...but aside from that-this instance doesn't seem ban-worthy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 12, 2012, 05:44:15 PM
He also constantly talks about disliking Kefka in the skype room, along with derp.
ok actually maybe not constantly, but whenever the topic of Kef comes up he gets all pissy for some reason.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 12, 2012, 05:47:14 PM
So, Slow was banned for this?I don't see this "repeted warning" he supposedly had.

Hmmm...
Looks like someone was just looking for a reason to ban him...

Most warnings are done through PM as they should be.  He got more warnings than the standard rules would normally allow.  No further discussion will be allowed as such things should be private matters.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on September 12, 2012, 05:48:39 PM
:O Is he banned for how long?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 12, 2012, 05:49:25 PM
:O Is he banned for how long?
No further discussion will be allowed as such things should be private matters.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on September 12, 2012, 05:52:57 PM
Sorry. I always do that. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on September 12, 2012, 05:57:09 PM
Anyways.... back to politics. I think we all agree two-party systems are rubbish. Well then,I think it's time for a good 'ol resurrection of the BULL MOOSE PARTY! AWWWWW YEEEEAAAAAAHHHHHH LET'S BUST SOME TRUSTS
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 12, 2012, 05:58:50 PM
Technically we did get a bunch of a 3rd party into positions from the TEA PARTY but as they're just the nuttiest of nuts branching off from the radical side of Republicans we'll just ignore them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on September 12, 2012, 06:04:49 PM
I thought those people were still considered Republicans. Just far more stupid.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 12, 2012, 06:07:07 PM
I think some of them actually ran against some of the republican candidates in their elections ._.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 12, 2012, 06:09:03 PM
(Kang and Kodos on Capitol Hill, after their disguises as Clinton and Dole are ripped off)

Kang: It's a two party system! You have to vote for one of us!
Man: Well I believe I'll vote for a third party candidate!
Kodos: Go ahead, throw your vote away! (evil laughter)
Man: (Takes off boater and punches through it)

Time skip to Inauguration Day: Kang is the president of the United States and the human race is enslaved, building a laser.

Pfft Tea Party...I'd vote for Kang.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on September 12, 2012, 06:30:53 PM
Libya...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 09, 2012, 10:09:15 AM
I think I'm going to vote for Romney.
I know I'll feel slightly bad about myself if I do though. ._.

wat do?
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on October 09, 2012, 02:01:10 PM
Well what state are you from? If you're in a blue state you could probably vote for Romney and not feel all that bad about it :P Are you voting for him for new fiscal policies?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on October 09, 2012, 02:13:52 PM
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 09, 2012, 02:28:04 PM
I think I'm going to vote for Romney.
I know I'll feel slightly bad about myself if I do though. ._.

wat do?

What about voting for some other guy? Hahaha...don't get me started on Romney -.- Don't you live in Ohio?

@FSM

I saw that in another thread not too long ago lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 09, 2012, 02:43:31 PM
Maybe it was on facebook...I don't actually remember, but I saw it XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 09, 2012, 05:38:08 PM
Don't you live in Ohio?
Rural Ohio, so Republicans galore.

Probably doesn't matter who I vote for anyway, there's about an 80% chance Romney will win in my county.
Are you voting for him for new fiscal policies?
Yes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on October 09, 2012, 06:32:02 PM
So.... what are Romney's fiscal policies? Because I literally haven't anything concerning what Romney actually plans on DOING if he becomes president. He just says stuff like "We're America and we need to get back on track by working hard and being free and cupcakes!". Sure, that's nice, but what the hell does this "get back on track" plan entail? He refuses to give details.

Oh, except for nice little part about how he doesn't give a shit about 47% of Americans. There was PLENTY of detail in that plan.

But seriously, I would actually consider voting for him if I had any idea of what the fuck he would do.
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on October 09, 2012, 07:46:02 PM
The 47% comment was referring to voters. He wasn't saying he didn't care about them as individuals, but that they're set on voting for Obama so he shouldn't try to sway their opinion. Granted he was very harsh about their opinions, but meh, it was red meat for potential donors.

Romney's plan is pretty typical actually- lower welfare, deny funding for new gov. programs, reduce federal workforce, reduce foreign aid, privatize gov. programs, repeal Obamacare, repeal Davis-Bacon act, etc. which he hopes will lower the budget by $500 billion.

While I like a lot of this, I'm honestly considering voting Gary Johnson just to make a statement. Not like Oregon's becoming red anytime soon anyhow. And Romney's still for taxes and foreign involvement... to which I say nay.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DrP on October 10, 2012, 09:11:56 AM
^and starting with the next tax year, the medical deduction will go from 7.5% to 10% floor, the inability to deduct state and local income taxes/sales taxes and the Long Term Capital Gains tax (currently at 0 and 15% depending on your tax bracket) will be taxed like ordinary income (wages)

So all this stuff that Romney says about reducing deductions and not raising taxes... it's already going to happen.

I just say, throw out the Internal Revenue Code and create a standard, flat 20% consumption tax with special "credits" to those who make less than $30,000 a year so that they can recapture the amount for purchasing food and stuff (hahaha Parks and Rec...)

And Gary Johnson... he's got New Mexico's vote...

But I'm still going Romney. It's hard to live in this dumb two party system... it's basically choosing the lesser of two evils.

We need another 1990s with a less sleazy Bill Clinton who is like Ayn Rand and Adam Smith combined... yeah, that'll fix out country...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: fabbemannen on October 10, 2012, 04:24:56 PM
Seeing a politics-topic on a forum with mostly Americans, this is the only opinion I got
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 10, 2012, 05:41:45 PM
Omg I've tried looking for that clip :(

I mentioned it before several times too xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on October 14, 2012, 04:55:01 PM
Obama has recruited God to narrate his commercials. Mitt Romney has lost the election.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on October 15, 2012, 12:59:53 AM
Link plz
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on October 15, 2012, 04:12:52 AM
Title: Just some random stuff I came up =P
Post by: FSM-Reapr on October 21, 2012, 08:05:42 PM
Oh my gosh.

What if Romney is the reason why the world will end? After he's the president, he goes psycho and nukes the whole planet!!!
The mayas knew it.
Title: Re: Just some random stuff I came up =P
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on October 21, 2012, 09:02:38 PM
Oh my gosh.

What if Romney is the reason why the world will end? After he's the president, he goes psycho and nukes the whole planet!!!
The mayas knew it.
...and what if Romney isn't elected president? Who then will end the world? :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on October 21, 2012, 09:09:14 PM
justin bieber/a meteor

i'd prefer the meteor
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on October 21, 2012, 10:19:38 PM
FSM, YOU'RE SO STUPID. EVERYONE KNOWS THAT OBAMA IS THE ANTI-CHRIST/HITLER AND GOING TO END THE WORLD. GOSH.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on October 21, 2012, 10:25:33 PM
:O totes didn't see that coming

*insert racist comment here*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on October 22, 2012, 12:34:22 AM
-_- someone disliking Obama isn't racist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on October 22, 2012, 12:42:27 AM
Yes but saying that of course black people are the reason why the world ends is racist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on October 22, 2012, 12:59:55 AM
Putin, Chavez, and Castro have all endorsed Obama.

Excellent

Edit: I should probably clarify-- by Castro I mean Raul Castro's daughter, who is a proponent of the status quo in Cuba.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on October 22, 2012, 02:05:49 AM
Well, if anyone this SEXY has endorsed Obama, I guess I'm kind of forced to vote for him.
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01456/horse_1456083i.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on October 22, 2012, 02:25:47 AM
I think I'm going to start trying to be an extreme moderate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 22, 2012, 02:31:50 AM
Well, if anyone this SEXY has endorsed Obama, I guess I'm kind of forced to vote for him.
[pictograph]

AHHHH my eyes are bleeding
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on October 22, 2012, 09:01:10 AM
AHHHH my eyes are bleeding
(http://theroast.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/putin-man-boobs-fishing.jpg)
(http://www.psmag.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/mmw_putin_081809_article.jpg)
(http://putinistheman.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/happy-fisher1.jpg)

putin manliest of mans
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on October 22, 2012, 04:52:11 PM

putin manliest of mans
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/norris_flag.jpg)
Chuck Norris objects.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 22, 2012, 05:06:16 PM
[pictographs]
putin manliest of mans

DDDD: eyebleach, plz

(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/norris_flag.jpg)
Chuck Norris objects.

This guy objects!

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/chucknorris.png)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on October 22, 2012, 05:58:49 PM
This guy objects!

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/chucknorris.png)
(http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s271/Chadillac5000/He-manGif1.gif)
The most powerful man in the universe objects. Your arguement is invalid.
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on October 22, 2012, 06:07:29 PM

Definitely a manly man.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 02, 2012, 05:17:49 AM
This is just another reason I'm confused about why people don't like Michael Moore. This is just so beautiful.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 03, 2012, 08:16:58 AM
DRP better vote yes on Prop. 37 or I will throat punch him so hard.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DrP on November 04, 2012, 02:54:10 AM
Maybe I did, maybe I didn't... yeah, I did

On another note, I realize how more culturally liberal I am becoming... it's a departure from what I used to be for sure. That basically is a component of libertarianism.

And living in a blue state where I really don't like Obama or Romney, I can vote for whoever I want because the state will STILL go to Obama. It was quite nice.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 05, 2012, 05:11:05 AM
According to that silly quiz thingy, my views are fairly libertarian as well, which is fun because I always regard libertarians as crazy people.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on November 05, 2012, 05:12:57 AM
^^ same. I got like 96% Gary Johnson :o
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on November 05, 2012, 06:08:10 AM
i think everyone should vote for whomever taylor swift is voting for
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on November 06, 2012, 09:47:39 AM
According to that silly quiz thingy, my views are fairly libertarian as well, which is fun because I always regard libertarians as crazy people.
if by regard you mean correctly identify then ok
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 06, 2012, 03:33:29 PM
Yes.
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on November 06, 2012, 04:50:28 PM
Why are libertarian's crazy people?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 06, 2012, 06:37:00 PM
I'm not sure how many of these of factual in any way, but I sure got a kick out of it:
http://progressiveslogans.blogspot.com/2011/08/50-reasons-libertarians-are-crazy.html
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on November 07, 2012, 01:06:47 AM
There are so many splinters of libertarianism (anywhere from anarchy to constitutionalism) that that stuff hardly applies to the majority of libertarians imo.

In other news, I am getting so excited/nervous about the results. Today marks the end!! (or tomorrow for a recount)...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on November 07, 2012, 01:39:45 AM
I'm still waiting to even get a chance to vote here. It's so disorganized here that even the police are getting involved o_O
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 07, 2012, 01:46:20 AM
Voted for Gary Johnson to give some more power to the third parties.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on November 07, 2012, 01:50:42 AM
I told my mom to vote for Snoopy the Dog, but she said she couldn't find his name on the poll. :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on November 07, 2012, 01:55:06 AM
Write-in!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on November 07, 2012, 02:35:31 AM
I voted for Taylor Swift.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on November 07, 2012, 02:41:59 AM
I voted for FDR.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on November 07, 2012, 03:20:50 AM
I voted for FDR.
Zombie FDR? :S
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on November 07, 2012, 03:21:31 AM
The best kind.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 07, 2012, 04:24:37 AM
Y U NO VOTE FOR BEST ROOSEVELT?!?!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 07, 2012, 05:22:49 AM
Welcome back Obama. Let's see f you can change things a bit more this time around.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: EFitTrainr on November 07, 2012, 05:24:41 AM
does this mean people on FB are going to go back to relatively normal?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on November 07, 2012, 05:26:04 AM
No, they'll be talking about this until Christmas.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: EFitTrainr on November 07, 2012, 05:26:57 AM
Goddammit.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 07, 2012, 05:37:24 AM
inorite. GARY JOHNSON 2016!!!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on November 07, 2012, 06:16:47 AM
Paul Ryan 2016 memes are already popping up.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DrP on November 07, 2012, 08:55:34 PM
Lots of my friends were hoping for a 270 tie so that it'd be Romney/Biden... just for the hell of it.

It was awesome voting for Gary Johnson. I guess this wasn't like 1992 with Ross Perot (or 1996 with Bob Dole).

Some other friends said that they should let Obama have 2 years of no gridlock to get his shit done, and if it works, then so be it, but if it doesn't, kick his ass out of dat house.

In California, Prop 30 passed. So we now have 8% sales tax and those making over $200,000 are being taxed more. But the bright side for me is that I get a tuition reimbursement check in the mail! (Even though i voted no).
Prop 34 didn't pass, to the death penalty remains.
And for SFK, Prop 37 did not pass.

What's kinda cool, Puerto Rico voted for US Statehood, so it's up to Congress now on when to admit Puerto Rico to the Union and add the 51st state (crazy, huh) -- they might leave it up to us to vote or not.

And with Colorado... have fun getting stoned.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on November 07, 2012, 10:02:13 PM
Everyone should have voted for Vermin Supreme
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on November 07, 2012, 10:17:14 PM
Everyone should have voted for Vermin Supreme
I wonder what would have happened if he DID become president. :o
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on November 07, 2012, 10:27:54 PM
omg omg omg
Puerto Rico can be a state if Congress approves and omggg.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on November 07, 2012, 10:34:49 PM
omg omg omg
Puerto Rico can be a state if Congress approves and omggg.
Then we'd have to have a 52nd state to make it an even number. :P Some people might even want to bring it to 60... but what will we do about the stars on the flag? :P

EDIT: Solution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_(Pacific_state))
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on November 07, 2012, 10:59:02 PM
God damnit California, Colorado can get pot legalized but you couldn't even get your food labeled properly? Even fuckin China has that!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Zunawe on November 08, 2012, 12:46:30 AM
Yay Colorado. As if people are really going to go out and buy more because it's legalized. Nobody who doesn't do drugs is that way because it's illegal.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DrP on November 08, 2012, 08:59:15 AM
^It's still against Federal law.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Zunawe on November 08, 2012, 03:00:33 PM
I know, I just don't think it's going to end up being as big of a deal as people are making it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on November 08, 2012, 03:09:49 PM
Someone said drugs so here I am

I think USA's voting system sucks. It should be that all votes would count in the total amount, no state chose this president.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on November 08, 2012, 11:48:36 PM
There were more than 100 million voters in the last election, couldn't really blame them if they want to simplify things a bit.

Obama still won the popular vote though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on November 08, 2012, 11:50:19 PM
I don't see how it would simplify things. ???
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on November 09, 2012, 12:00:26 AM
FSM, the purpose of the electoral college is exactly for the states to elect the President though.  I prefer the electoral college systems and my reasons are as follows:
[5:55:47 PM] Daniel: I think it's better that way, for the most part.
[5:55:58 PM] Daniel: When popular vote is nearly always 50-50
[5:56:23 PM] Daniel: It's probably better to let the states decide, since no matter who's elected, 50% of the US will be mad.
And the reason that the states' opinions matter is because of federalism and state governments and stuff.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on November 09, 2012, 06:10:38 AM
But the thing is, it would encourage people to vote meaning it could affect the results. Also if it's a close race like this one, the votes that didn't count should have because they effect in the final results.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobraroll on November 09, 2012, 02:01:25 PM
Indeed. If 30% of the voters in every state voted for the same third party, that party still wouldn't get any electoral votes*. How silly is that?

*except from those two states which split the electoral vote. I forgot which, I should have better things to do than studying the electoral policy practised in four percent of a country half a world away.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on November 11, 2012, 04:26:49 AM
Implicit political efficacy isn't generally the primary reason for low voter turnout (only among younger voters, who generally aren't as effected by politics as others.  Though, this has changed somewhat with Obama's rallying them up); most voters don't vote either because they're lazy or due to scheduling conflicts.

Maine and Nebraska are the two states that base their electoral votes on proportional representation (I'm impressed that you were aware that we even had two states like that, so A+!).  The example is an ideal argument, but chances are that it would never occur in that way.  And even if it did, the minor party in question would receive federal funding for the following election and have an even stronger chance of winning most likely with the extra money.  Not to mention that if a minor party could win 30% of the popular vote for a national election, it would have much easier time making local reform in district and state governments by earning positions there.  National reform is often inevitable by both major parties once enough states have adopted a few views of particular minor parties or interest groups.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on November 11, 2012, 04:31:56 AM
I feel like a lot of time would be saved if we just got rid of the Electoral College! I mean seriously, it had a purpose back then, but now it's a little outdated. If Congress would just be a little less afraid to make changes...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on November 11, 2012, 04:45:55 AM
My sis watched C-Span because there was nothing else to do at work and she said these guys spend the whole time arguing about renaming post offices. Then they have crazy vacation times in the middle of politically important issues...they're just lazy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on November 11, 2012, 04:48:50 AM
It's sad, but that is the truth a lot of the time. Plus, in the last four years Congress barely did anything since most of them were republicans and rejected everything Obama tried to put out.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on December 09, 2012, 08:51:58 AM
I have a question. I've been exploring it for a while now and can't seem to come to a conclusion. This is not USA specific either:

Since birth I have been an avid supporter of our troops and their sacrifices in other nations. They go above and beyond the call of any individual and place themselves in harms way. They give so much in protecting our security and freedom.

But that's just it. How is war, outside of that which directly protects our borders, protecting our security and freedom? I've only recently realized (~6 months ago) how silly it sounds to talk about how soldiers in Iraq are protecting American freedoms. They're fighting to establish an unwelcome democracy there, and the resistance is Iraqis who don't want foreigners invading in the first place.

I don't want to make this specific to the Iraqi war though. Pick any war a nation has engaged themselves in which was like a "monster to destroy." If the government endorses the killing of thousands of civilians (however inadvertent), I feel like I simply can't support the troops that were sent to do something like that!

To this I've heard people say "support the troops that have to do the work but don't support the government for sending them there in the first place." That seems silly though. Would I excuse a Nazi from killing Jews at camps simply because he was following orders?


I don't know. I've been wanting to talk with someone about this but I know I'd be choked out if I said anything of the sort at this college. A forum is enough anonymity for me :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on December 09, 2012, 09:00:32 AM
Would I excuse a Nazi from killing Jews at camps simply because he was following orders?
That's... a bit... different...

I don't want to respond to the rest of your post, lest I spark another widespread debate. :P Like I've done before. O_O
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on December 09, 2012, 09:11:42 AM
War is almost always pointless. Vietnam, we killed a bunch of people, gave a bunch of people cancer and did nothing. WWI(aka one of the most pointless wars in history) happened because of a shitload of stupid alliances and one guy getting shot.

I can't actually answer most of your questions, except troops who have volunteered are 100% responsible for their actions. They chose to join up, they get the responsibility that comes with that decision, no matter whose orders or what they are fighting for, it is ultimately their choice. The reason we fight, for preventative causes. Because of what "may" happen if we don't intervene. We basically go in there, make a wreck of a country so no authority there can have the power to threaten us. Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan. Turned into full-scale warzones so they'll be too busy trying to rebuild their country that they can't even think about screwing with us.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobraroll on December 10, 2012, 09:06:31 AM
Well, Afghanistan was pretty much Al-Qaeda's playground before 2001. There was extreme oppression of civilians, human rights were completely overlooked, and the Taliban government supported and funded training for the 9/11 terrorists, among others. Extremists from all over the region went to Afghanistan to learn to make and use bombs, then went to some foreign place to "fight for the cause" (which usually involved blowing somebody up in Israel). I don't know how many refugees from Afghanistan and Somalia ever make it to America, but over here we've had them coming for some years, and the stories they tell are never pretty. There's a reason why NATO spent billions to remove them from power.

On the other hand, Afghanistan isn't exactly easy to govern. There has never been a proper national identity, and much of the population is illiterate. It took NATO several years of trying and failing before a basic structure was built.

As for Iraq, well, it was a mess. They didn't have nuclear weapons, it turned out, but there was quite a bit of biological and chemical nastiness in Saddam's storages. And the biggest mistake the US did was apparently to dissolve the Iraqi armed forces after the invasion. Suddenly you have thousands of unemployed young men with weapons training, and with a deep hate for the Americans who took away their jobs and some of their friends (war isn't pretty in that regard). The militias that were formed have troubled the troops in the country ever since. Meanwhile, the Iraqi had to build a new army from the ground up, establish a new command structure, and trying to keep down all the disgruntled factions that were held in check when Saddam ruled.
The war in Iraq ended up breaking the country, removing one of Israel's enemies, which by the way also was one of Iran's enemies (the two Ira-countries have a history of fighting each other for some reason). And a lot of oil ended up in American hands. Among other things.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 10, 2012, 09:13:18 AM
War is pointless but unfortuantely it eventually becomes unavoidable, it should just be the absolute last option when all diplomacy fails. That said, war should be as fast and effective as possible, to minimize needless casualties and keep expenses down to a minimum. The longer a war drags on (like Iraq), the more it becomes pointless, with the price tag increasing exponentially with every passing day.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on December 10, 2012, 07:40:27 PM
I can't tell if these are responses to my post or just generic discussions on war.

I was mainly trying to figure out why we boast about how our soldiers are protecting our freedom and security... in other nations. I don't see how that's appropriate justification. Pursuing our nation's self-interest is of course another point, but you also don't hear anyone saying that. It's always "they're our knights in shining armor and they protect my freedoms and yah!"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on December 11, 2012, 01:19:33 AM
I find that normally, in the middle of a war, America drops out, leaving other countries stuck in the middle of the battlefield, and the death toll rises.
Just some food for thought.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on December 11, 2012, 01:35:38 AM
Nah man, it's usually the other way around. We join the war half-way into it and fuck everyone's shit up until the end.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on December 11, 2012, 01:41:14 AM
Thats exactly what I thought when I went through basic US History XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 11, 2012, 01:47:10 AM
It's because we are the rich, successful younger brother that thinks his success gives him the right to get in everybody's business to try and "improve" their lives.

Nevermind that we've been cheating on our wife and embezzling money like a cheap crack addict trying to pay for our next fix, and have shot ourselves in the foot with this last war and are bleeding out like a french whore on Bastille Day.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on December 11, 2012, 01:48:57 AM
I wouldn't necessarily say "rich"

But good metaphor :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 11, 2012, 01:50:06 AM
Oh we have money, we just spend it very poorly.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on December 11, 2012, 01:56:20 AM
It's because we are the rich, successful younger brother that thinks his success gives him the right to get in everybody's business to try and "improve" their lives.

Nevermind that we've been cheating on our wife and embezzling money like a cheap crack addict trying to pay for our next fix, and have shot ourselves in the foot with this last war and a bleeding out like a french whore on Bastille Day.
You have won. But God, how I wish what you're saying wasn't true.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on December 11, 2012, 01:57:00 AM
Oh we have money, we just spend it very poorly.

I was thinking about that today. If the government just took one single day and collected $3 or so from everyone in the country and tried not to spend any money at all just on that one day, that would give them almost a billion dollars. I just dont get how they could possibly spend that much money a day, since Im sure they take more than $3 a person for whatever they do
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 11, 2012, 02:00:30 AM
Well war is expensive, and we've been at war for 10 years now. That's why whenever war breaks out, you should try to move fast and hard to bring the conflict to a speedy close.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on December 11, 2012, 03:32:21 AM
Or just not get involved in the first place
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 11, 2012, 04:26:28 AM
That's ideal, but let's face it, human nature won't be changing any time soon.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on December 13, 2012, 06:18:33 AM
Anarchists scare the crap out of me. How can anyone believe that human nature is well and good enough to respect others' rights?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on December 30, 2012, 02:34:08 AM
Anarchists scare the crap out of me. How can anyone believe that human nature is well and good enough to respect others' rights?
It may very well be because of the people's hatred for the government. Anarchists, in my opinion, really don't think about what life would be like with no government, and their views aren't based on respecting each others' rights, so much as being independent. The government, as, what's the word...wrong in their choices they are sometimes, keeps society from breaking down. Without the government, civilized order would no longer exist (or be drastically diminished). Then war would really be inevitable. It's either that, or I have no idea what I'm talking about and I'm just ranting blindly like an idiot.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on December 30, 2012, 07:18:23 AM
If humanity wasn't filled with so many terrible people, a lack of government would be fine. But unfortunately, humans are greedy pigs who will do as they please unless a giant looms over them ready to crush them if they step out of line. Scratch that, I'm insulting pigs by comparing us to them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on December 31, 2012, 06:54:55 PM
If humanity wasn't filled with so many terrible people, a lack of government would be fine. But unfortunately, humans are greedy pigs who will do as they please unless a giant looms over them ready to crush them if they step out of line. Scratch that, I'm insulting pigs by comparing us to them.
I completely agree. At least pigs don't betray their fellow companions for their own personal gain, unless there's some big pig rebellion that I haven't heard of.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on December 31, 2012, 08:02:40 PM
(http://www.writeawriting.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/writing-why-write-george-orwell-animal-farm.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on December 31, 2012, 08:52:37 PM
Mashi, you just made my day. :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 31, 2012, 09:33:18 PM
All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on December 31, 2012, 09:35:30 PM
commies, commies errwhere
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Zunawe on December 31, 2012, 11:58:14 PM
I completely agree. At least pigs don't betray their fellow companions for their own personal gain, unless there's some big pig rebellion that I haven't heard of.
This could not have been set up better.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on December 31, 2012, 11:59:10 PM
unless there's some big pig rebellion that I haven't heard of.
Reminds me of a certain game  ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: EFitTrainr on January 01, 2013, 01:33:36 AM
Oh hey me too
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 01, 2013, 02:10:40 AM
Has anyone read Nathaniel Hawthorne's "Earth's Holocaust (https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CDcQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gutenberg.org%2Ffiles%2F9231%2F9231-h%2F9231-h.htm&ei=qTbiUJzqH-TwigLqpYDACg&usg=AFQjCNHL2UWEDUi82akP4ST28MXAMwJC3w&sig2=ROVt1rOdYhTBVUQ22DATsQ&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.cGE)?" It's a really interesting read, and it's really short (~15 pages of a regular book). I love the story.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on January 01, 2013, 03:25:17 AM
Reminds me of a certain game  ::)
I know what you're talking about, there :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on January 12, 2013, 05:54:03 AM
Did they actually just have a meeting on the dangers of violent video games

"Wayne LaPierre, president of the NRA, criticized the media for ignoring 'a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people'"

I cant even anymore
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on January 12, 2013, 06:10:36 AM
What.

I'm pretty sure murder and rape predates the video game industry, by millenia. In fact, I'm also pretty sure that those were the first things man did after we figured out how to walk upright.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on January 12, 2013, 06:18:17 AM
And it's not videogame violence that makes people violent, it's apparantly the compeditive nature of videogames, according to a study.

I don't even know anymore.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on January 12, 2013, 06:19:09 AM
I don't think it's either.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on January 12, 2013, 06:20:06 AM
'a callous, corrupt and corrupting shadow industry that sells, and sows, violence against its own people'

whyyyyy
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 12, 2013, 06:52:15 AM
I think Cobraroll brought up something similar to this when he was talking about a culture that treats violence as a source of entertainment (please correct me if I'm wrong).

What I think is hilarious is the recent "Demand a Plan" campaign video where Hollywood stars talk about how there needs to be changes etc. And yet, 75% of the individuals in the video make millions off of the use of guns in their movies. They are the vessels for the perpetuity of this "violent culture." How hypocritical.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on January 12, 2013, 07:10:25 AM
Fun fact: The Dutch play a shit ton of more video games, including the violent ones, than us. Their violent crime rate is far lower than the US. Japan allows much more violent games to be sold there than the USA, they have a much lower violent crime rate than the US.

How the fuck this is even an issue, I don't even know.

So how can we lower our violent crime rate?

1. Certain gun laws need to be stricter. Such as there should be stricter penalties for buying someone a gun that is then used for violent crime.

2. Ban assault weapons. Civilians have ABSOLUTELY no fucking need for that shit.

3. Control that media. The media fucking exploits tragedy like no ones business, but that's not the problem. They focus so much attention on the killer and turn them into someone who people will remember. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT APPEALS TO PSYCHOPATHS. We need to stop focusing on the god damn killer and pay way more attention to the victims.

4. Mental health. Ours sucks. There are people dealing with terrible mental illnesses, some of which can be violent and lead to murder or worse. We need to provide these people with the help they need before these terrible things happen. Reopen the institutions.

5. Ask some other countries how they've managed to keep their violent crime rates so low. Seriously, America is the guy who is completely lost but still refuses to ask for fucking directions, no matter how much all the passengers complain. Just call up ol' Britain, whose murder rate is only 35 versus over 11,000. I'm sure he'd be happy to help. Or she. Britain COULD be a woman after all.

There.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on January 12, 2013, 07:26:17 AM
Literally every videogame has some form of violence in it, so idk where they're even trying to go with this. Even Pong. How would you like to be the ball that constantly gets hit back and forth? You are one of three beings in your entire universe and all the other two do is smack you around endlessly

Also all this stuff about a task force makes me think of Tarrlok and his task force, purely because I like Avatar. We all know what happened with that (go watch When Extremes Meet :P [/promoting])
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on January 12, 2013, 07:35:23 AM
And it's not videogame violence that makes people violent, it's apparantly the compeditive nature of videogames, according to a study.

I don't even know anymore.
it's apparantly the compeditive nature of videogames, according to a study.
Compeditive nature

COMPEDATIVE NATURE

WHY DOES NOBODY LISTEN TO ME
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on January 12, 2013, 07:37:29 AM
Literally every videogame has some form of violence in it, so idk where they're even trying to go with this. Even Pong. How would you like to be the ball that constantly gets hit back and forth? You are one of three beings in your entire universe and all the other two do is smack you around endlessly

Also all this stuff about a task force makes me think of Tarrlok and his task force, purely because I like Avatar. We all know what happened with that (go watch When Extremes Meet :P [/promoting])
XD This is awesthum.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 12, 2013, 07:39:59 AM
WHY DOES NOBODY LISTEN TO ME

I'm sorry. I realize English isn't your first language so I'm going to sound like a dick when I say this--

Usually when people spell competitive as "compedative," I instinctively stop reading and discount their argument entirely.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on January 12, 2013, 07:41:50 AM
You've got to appreciate the fact that the guy brought so much attention to his spelling mistake.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on January 12, 2013, 07:42:53 AM
It's not compeditive, either, he spelled it multiple ways....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 12, 2013, 10:30:37 AM
I'm sorry. I realize English isn't your first language so I'm going to sound like a dick when I say this--
Isn't he from Australia? ???
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on January 12, 2013, 10:36:19 AM
Isn't he from Australia? ???
I am.

My First thought was, How does being Australian instantly mean I'm speaking a different language.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on January 12, 2013, 05:20:22 PM
So then you admit you have no excuse. I mean really, if you want to say something important, it's not hard to make sure it's spelled correctly.
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 12, 2013, 05:23:44 PM
Haha sorry. I could have sworn you were from the Netherlands. But regardless, Maestro rests my case :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobraroll on January 16, 2013, 06:22:52 PM
I think Cobraroll brought up something similar to this when he was talking about a culture that treats violence as a source of entertainment (please correct me if I'm wrong).

The point I was trying to make, penned beautifully by Robert Brockway of Cracked.com (http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-truth-about-guns-video-games/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on January 16, 2013, 07:36:21 PM
Why the fuck are all these gun enthusiasts comparing assault weapons to hammers? Seriously, this is turning into complete bullshit.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 10:01:06 PM
Let's imitate Homer Simpson and use a gun to open a can of beer, turn on the TV and turn off the lights...no way. Guns are gun and they're meant to kill.

I'm not convinced a lot of gun nuts are sane. The same gun nut that posts on my Facebook comes across to me as a pot smoking, misogynist pig that is barely able to converse in English (grammar/capitalization errors) but tries to sound sophisticated and says things like liberals are idiots and that everyone who wants gun control should be deported. I'd like to see how they can run a country >__>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 16, 2013, 10:25:46 PM
Let's imitate Homer Simpson and use a gun to open a can of beer, turn on the TV and turn off the lights...no way. Guns are gun and they're meant to kill.

I'm not convinced a lot of gun nuts are sane. The same gun nut that posts on my Facebook comes across to me as a pot smoking, misogynist pig that is barely able to converse in English (grammar/capitalization errors) but tries to sound sophisticated and says things like liberals are idiots and that everyone who wants gun control should be deported. I'd like to see how they can run a country >__>
You seem to be on the whole other end of the spectrum. It depends what you define "gun nut" as.

Owning a gun does not make a person insane; it depends on who you are already and how you use it (for example, keeping a gun in the car just in case somebody tries to attack; taking a gun on a hiking trip just in case we encounter any mountain lions or coyotes). Those people are not pot smokers, misogynists, or non-sophisticated because they own a gun; often, it is the other way around.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobraroll on January 16, 2013, 10:49:40 PM
(for example, keeping a gun in the car just in case somebody tries to attack

I'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 16, 2013, 10:53:36 PM
I'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
Nowadays, no, it's not that weird or "paranoid" at all. Muggers, people who kill "just to see what it feels like," serial killers... there are too many of those people just roaming the streets.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 16, 2013, 10:54:43 PM
I'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
Yeah.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on January 16, 2013, 10:59:13 PM
Idk. My mom listens to this crazy lady on siruis radio who thinks that every school, even day cares or whatever should have armed security guards like in airports. Thats ridiculous, I dont think little kids should be growing up thinking its normal to constantly be surrounded by armed officials. Apparently murders are alot more common in America than everywhere else, but what Americans care about any other country? cmon guise srsly
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 16, 2013, 11:02:55 PM
Gun nuts like Alex Jones or Kent Hovind and how they say they have a right to do that to stand up to the government. Alex Jones was the guy trying to get the White House to deport Piers Morgan for insulting the Second Amendment. There was a video of the two *debating* somewhere. It's really an embarrassment. Kent Hovind is this religious nutcase that finally got arrested for cheating his taxes despite all the other crap he should have been arrested for. His house got raided and they found rifles/etc there too. That, with his anti-government statements doesn't convince me he's sane.

These people aren't keeping weapons to hunt deer or protect themselves while camping, they really do take the Second Amendment to mean "arming themselves against the government." There are sane people who own guns, but it doesn't stop an insane person from getting them either. Most of these weapons in the shooting sprees were acquired legally and that's a problem. The other problem is that this culture lets people think it's okay to solve problems with violence.

@BDS

Exactly what do you mean by "it is the other way around"?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 16, 2013, 11:22:39 PM
Gun nuts like Alex Jones or Kent Hovind and how they say they have a right to do that to stand up to the government. Alex Jones was the guy trying to get the White House to deport Piers Morgan for insulting the Second Amendment. There was a video of the two *debating* somewhere. It's really an embarrassment. Kent Hovind is this religious nutcase that finally got arrested for cheating his taxes despite all the other crap he should have been arrested for. His house got raided and they found rifles/etc there too. That, with his anti-government statements doesn't convince me he's sane.

These people aren't keeping weapons to hunt deer or protect themselves while camping, they really do take the Second Amendment to mean "arming themselves against the government." There are sane people who own guns, but it doesn't stop an insane person from getting them either. Most of these weapons in the shooting sprees were acquired legally and that's a problem. The other problem is that this culture lets people think it's okay to solve problems with violence.

@BDS

Exactly what do you mean by "it is the other way around"?
"Are there no prisons? And the union workhouses... are they still in operation?" :P
People who are that extreme (like true-anarchists) need mental help... of course, a majority of people I've seen- and known- are not that extreme.
People, obviously, have all rights to defend their constitutional rights, but going beyond them (and using them as a "shield," as in your example) is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

What I mean is that those people aren't insane and violent (etc.) because they own guns; they own guns partly because they are already insane and violent (etc.).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on January 16, 2013, 11:38:27 PM
I'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.
I do carry around a wooden staff around everywhere just in case I need it... XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 17, 2013, 01:39:11 AM
Hahaha that's great for suggesting these people have some kind of mental problem xD Generally convincing them otherwise is useless in that case, but the least we could do is to stop them from hurting others.

A quote from the Simpsons:

Akira: We learn karate, so that we need never use it.
Bart:  Um, excuse me, sir.  I already know how not to hit a guy. Can we break out the nunchucks?
Akira: Ah yes, the impetuousness of youth.  For now, let us read...[The Art of War by Sun Tzu]
Bart:  Akira, my good man, when do we break block of ice with our heads?
Akira: First, you must fill you head with wisdom, then you can hit ice with it.
Bart:  Yo, sensei.  Can I go to the bathroom?
Akira: You can if you believe you can.
Bart:  [leaving]  Pay money to read books, pffft.  The hell with this!

I really think this country should be like Akira when it comes to guns xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on January 17, 2013, 01:44:21 AM
Hahaha that's great for suggesting these people have some kind of mental problem xD Generally convincing them otherwise is useless in that case, but the least we could do is to stop them from hurting others.

A quote from the Simpsons:

Akira: We learn karate, so that we need never use it.
Bart:  Um, excuse me, sir.  I already know how not to hit a guy. Can we break out the nunchucks?
Akira: Ah yes, the impetuousness of youth.  For now, let us read...[The Art of War by Sun Tzu]
Bart:  Akira, my good man, when do we break block of ice with our heads?
Akira: First, you must fill you head with wisdom, then you can hit ice with it.
Bart:  Yo, sensei.  Can I go to the bathroom?
Akira: You can if you believe you can.
Bart:  [leaving]  Pay money to read books, pffft.  The hell with this!

I really think this country should be like Akira when it comes to guns xD

A+++++++++
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on January 17, 2013, 02:45:40 AM
People, obviously, have all rights to defend their constitutional rights, but going beyond them (and using them as a "shield," as in your example) is not what the Founding Fathers intended.

The problem is that people don't realize that the US Constitution is grossly antiquated and much of the intent of amendments such as the 2nd doesn't apply in even close to the same fashion in present times.

Yet they still run around screaming CONSTITUTION SAYS SO U TAKEN AWAY OUR GUNS POLICE STATE etc etc
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 03:09:23 AM
I'd consider a person pretty high on the paranoia scale if this is one of his regular habits.

http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

You can also find these cases on local news sites. These things actually do happen. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be prepared. My dad has his concealed carry license and there are places where carries regularly:

Movies
Malls
Camping
Downtown
Etc.

Actually, he has it on right now while eating at a local restaurant.

The other problem is that this culture lets people think it's okay to solve problems with violence.

So if I have a firearm and a man begins shooting in a mall, is it culture's fault and my belief in violence that I would shoot him immediately? What is the proper solution?



I also think it's funny that everyone mocks at the idea of "arming yourself against the government." Governments have AWFUL track records. Enslavement? Mass murder? War? The only difference between a collection of selfish individuals and the government is that the government can legalize its own plunder. And quite frankly, time hasn't changed this. Government is not an institution of rainbows and morality. It is a method of security that citizens keep their guns.

George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment said: "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 17, 2013, 03:52:55 AM
http://www.nraila.org/gun-laws/armed-citizen.aspx

You can also find these cases on local news sites. These things actually do happen. There's nothing wrong with wanting to be prepared. My dad has his concealed carry license and there are places where carries regularly:

Movies
Malls
Camping
Downtown
Etc.

Actually, he has it on right now while eating at a local restaurant.

Good God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?

Quote
So if I have a firearm and a man begins shooting in a mall, is it culture's fault and my belief in violence that I would shoot him immediately? What is the proper solution?

Try to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.


Quote
I also think it's funny that everyone mocks at the idea of "arming yourself against the government." Governments have AWFUL track records. Enslavement? Mass murder? War? The only difference between a collection of selfish individuals and the government is that the government can legalize its own plunder. And quite frankly, time hasn't changed this. Government is not an institution of rainbows and morality. It is a method of security that citizens keep their guns.

George Mason, co-author of the 2nd amendment said: "Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

If the government could kill us all and put us in a worse state than helots, they would have done so already? There's not a chance in hell some guy or a bunch of guys from a town wielding sticks, rifles or handguns could deal with the US Army and their weapons. There isn't a sinister plot here, like these gun nuts I talk about actually suggest.  Modern society doesn't have much in common with colonial times like you think.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 17, 2013, 04:11:05 AM
Good God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?

Try to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.

1: But the thing is, the threat is real; it isn't just some fear (which, although partially justified during the Cold War, was somewhat blown out of proportion) crawling at our feet. There is a big difference between living in

2: The gunman is a step ahead of you; unless you get OUT of the building, which isn't likely because of his "planning" (blocking off the entrance, positioning himself at a semi-central location), you are likely to get shot.
But really... most likely, not all gunmen are always so prepared; the people you'll often encounter (if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time) are just robbers (although spitllama specifically mentioned a full scale shooting).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 17, 2013, 04:32:07 AM
1: But the thing is, the threat is real; it isn't just some fear (which, although partially justified during the Cold War, was somewhat blown out of proportion) crawling at our feet. There is a big difference between living in

I think I'm missing something here. What's the difference between preparing for the nuclear war (which never happened) and preparing for a situation where someone would shoot you when you're eating a cheeseburger? It's a fear! How many people have been shot at restaurants, and how many people have actually eaten at a restaurant without being shot? There isn't any certainty in the world but if you let something that has a 0.0001% chance of happening get in the way of your life or cheeseburger, then it's not really normal. Like Cobraroll said...paranoia.


Quote
2: The gunman is a step ahead of you; unless you get OUT of the building, which isn't likely because of his "planning" (blocking off the entrance, positioning himself at a semi-central location), you are likely to get shot.
But really... most likely, not all gunmen are always so prepared; the people you'll often encounter (if you're at the wrong place at the wrong time) are just robbers (although spitllama specifically mentioned a full scale shooting).

Right, but you're less likely to get shot if you just get out of the way, hide and not be the hero. It isn't as black and white as you think. Not having been in an armed robbery I couldn't tell you how carefully planned they are. I think they must have planned something if they wanted their plan to be successful.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 17, 2013, 05:21:50 AM
I think I'm missing something here. What's the difference between preparing for the nuclear war (which never happened) and preparing for a situation where someone would shoot you when you're eating a cheeseburger? It's a fear! How many people have been shot at restaurants, and how many people have actually eaten at a restaurant without being shot? There isn't any certainty in the world but if you let something that has a 0.0001% chance of happening get in the way of your life or cheeseburger, then it's not really normal. Like Cobraroll said...paranoia.
Point 1 still remains relevant. There's a difference between a nuclear war, which has never even happened (ever), and a mugging/shooting/stabbing on the street, thing that happen all the time. There is a difference between paranoia and caution; an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 17, 2013, 05:38:44 AM
I can argue that prevention involves stopping these guys from getting guns xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 05:53:05 AM
Good God! We don't live in that kind of world and we shouldn't try to make one. The older folk in America were raised on things like bomb shelter drills and half of Congress would likely remember these when they grew up. But the Russians never invaded America and we had a nuclear war and everyone just lived in a state of fear. How is that better than letting people live without thinking that they could die the next day because of some lunatic?

Actually, we DO live in that kind of world! There are those with aggressive tendencies, there are those who invade others' homes and kill for the most simple things like green paper. These cases SHOW that.

I think you just compared nuclear weapons to handguns o_o Nuclear weapons, chemical weapons, and biological weapons are completely different. It's literally impossible to use them tactically, defensively, or protectively. They are indiscriminate and any use would mean collateral murder or manslaughter. Nobody can make any credible argument that they possess nukes to defend anyone from anything, because they're solely aggressive. You can't engage in sport or protect others with its use.

Quote
Try to avoid getting shot and let the police handle it? Before you complain about a slow response, think about how playing the hero would likely involve more people trying to get out of a second set of bullets. What if you get hurt? The gunman's already a step ahead of you---he's planned the attack and probably prepared more than you are. The gunman will probably have armor, multiple weapons, more ammunition...this isn't a movie.

Check out how many news sources have published this (https://www.google.com/search?q=mall+shooting+stopped+by+armed+citizen&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS430US430&aq=f&oq=mall+shooting+stopped+by+armed+citizen&aqs=chrome.0.57j0j62.4806&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#q=mall+shooting+stopped+by+armed+citizen&hl=en&tbo=d&rlz=1C1CHKZ_enUS430US430&ei=cnz3UL6RF6X02wXagoGYBw&start=0&sa=N&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_cp.r_qf.&fp=dfe86ec64229ab6&biw=1366&bih=643) story. This citizen reportedly caused the shooter to commit suicide. When do shooters stop? Only when they encounter resistance. In fact, this man actually considered the fact that other people may be behind the shooter when making his decision to wait and not fire.
And before you claim that "that's just one person others won't be as responsible," gun-regulation proponents are using that exact argument in claiming that enough irresponsible people have gained access to firearms to make it illegal for everyone else.

Quote
If the government could kill us all and put us in a worse state than helots, they would have done so already?

Obviously the intention of every elected official is not to make the nation worse. I would not accurately say that our state today is currently trying to overtake us. But how did Stalin and Hitler come to power? They entered their places of power legitimately, and slowly solidified a place of power as a dictator. So what is there against this? Other politicians? Both of these men used bribery to silence political opposition. The army? Owned by the state. The populus? Only if they have a method of defending themselves! If there is no resistance or incentive to do otherwise, what reason is there to be fair and just?

"When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny." - Thomas Jefferson

Quote
There's not a chance in hell some guy or a bunch of guys from a town wielding sticks, rifles or handguns could deal with the US Army and their weapons.

Soooo then do nothing, right? That's pretty much what you're saying. You seem to have a very submissive response to offenses.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 17, 2013, 05:59:51 AM
I can argue that prevention involves stopping these guys from getting guns xD
It will only stop the petty "common criminals." And the general public.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on January 17, 2013, 06:03:56 AM
I am heavily enjoying the amount of DA FEDS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS GONNA TAKE OUR FREEDOMS that is actually occurring in this thread and is somehow not a joke, but for srs...

Plz read your own posts before you make even greater fools of yourselves.

Though to be fair I guess this really is the only retort you need
Hitler
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 06:07:29 AM
Because that's exactly how I said it. Thank you Kefka. Just as immature and ignorant as you how you said it.
And I fail to see how referencing historical individuals and events makes my argument WORSE.

But really, I appreciate your sass.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 17, 2013, 06:30:13 AM
I am heavily enjoying the amount of DA FEDS GONNA TAKE OUR GUNS GONNA TAKE OUR FREEDOMS that is actually occurring in this thread and is somehow not a joke, but for srs...

Plz read your own posts before you make even greater fools of yourselves.

Though to be fair I guess this really is the only retort you need
Because that's exactly how I said it. Thank you Kefka. Just as immature and ignorant as you how you said it.
And I fail to see how referencing historical individuals and events makes my argument WORSE.

But really, I appreciate your sass.
As I recall, none of us have actually stated that as our opinion or even suggested that that is our mindless opinion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vermilionvermin on January 17, 2013, 06:33:47 AM
Spit, I find myself disagreeing with you.  While there are certain scenarios in which people who happen to be armed were able to stop an assailant, I think that quite a few of them could have been prevented with stricter gun control, and quite a few of them might have been solvable without using guns.  By making it more difficult to acquire a gun, it ensures that there are much fewer in distribution and decreases the likelihood that someone does something stupid.

Another issue I haven't seen discussed with regard to guns is the potential for false diagnosis of government tyranny.  What if the birthers decided Obama shouldn't be president and marched on the White House armed?  I think insane people declaring war on the government is much more likely than the government becoming so tyrannical that we need to use guns to stop it.

Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, it's pretty clear that government officials fear falling out of favor with us.  If they didn't fear popular opinion of them, then there wouldn't be so much partisan politics.

Personally, I'd prefer strict gun control (as in, no Second Amendment beyond like hunting rifles) but realize that quick and drastic changes aren't the best way to achieve that because there are still people currently with assault rifles and the like.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 17, 2013, 06:56:56 AM
I'll take some time to reply to your other points but first of all...

Hitler

I doubt that guns would have prevented this guy from being Chancellor. There were so many other reasons, such as misinformation, desperation, poverty. More guns would not have solved these problems, it had nothing at all to do with it. If the peasants didn't have guns, they'd use farm equipment and the same thing with less casualties might have happened.The people placed these guys in power, and then they abused their power. That's all. Active resistance to these groups didn't involve guns, did they? Yeah there was a war, but I recall ordinary (unarmed!) citizens smuggling prisoners from camps, college students organizing meetings and distributing information about Hitler's evil regime...no guns at all.

Soooo then do nothing, right? That's pretty much what you're saying. You seem to have a very submissive response to offenses.

I didn't say to do nothing! I said you should do whatever to save yourself, and immediate others if possible. Hide, run, play dead...and let people who are trained in these situations deal with it. Just not play the hero and cover the place with the gunman's shredded remains, and then finish off with a smartass remark. Believe me, these things don't actually happen in real life. The likely scenario is that the gunman notices your movement and shoots you before you can.

(see I didn't bring up submissiveness, that's really the wrong kind of thing to say to women)

Also you should stop it with that fear crap...I mean seriously. It doesn't sound convincing at all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on January 17, 2013, 07:05:33 AM
Hey, ummmmm Spit? Yeahhhhhhh Hitler didn't come to power because he of gun control. Neither did Stalin. Nor is that the primary reason(or even A reason, really) they were able to stay in power(until Hitler "committed suicide" but come on, we all know the Russians probably found him in his compound alive, and wrecked his shit until their was nothing left of him). Read up on some history, getsome sense, or go join the Alex Jones brigade:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=JwRrmH39n00#t=123s
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 17, 2013, 07:11:37 AM
The likely scenario is that the gunman notices your movement and shoots you before you can.
...of course, you're not just going to walk halfway across the plaza and belt out a loud battle cry... :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vermilionvermin on January 17, 2013, 07:44:46 AM
@SFK, I think Spitllama's point is that Hitler didn't rise to power because of gun control but was able to more effectively oppress because of it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on January 17, 2013, 04:46:20 PM
I think gun lowers public safety monstrously. The weapon of choice for an Australian ruffian (e.g someone who hasn't access to a gun) is a knife, which is useless for hurting people in public. The moment they bring it out, people run in all directions and they're in the back of a paddy wagon in minutes.

And don't give me this, "It's to protect myself!" shit. You have legs. USE THEM. And if you haven't the sense to hide, then you're too stupid to live. Get security installed and move to a nicer area. Problem is solved.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on January 17, 2013, 05:15:12 PM
This is fun to watch.

Continue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobraroll on January 17, 2013, 06:42:53 PM
@SFK, I think Spitllama's point is that Hitler didn't rise to power because of gun control but was able to more effectively oppress because of it.

Too bad for that argument that the gun laws in Nazi Germany were more liberal than in any European nation today (http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm). Sure, guns had to be registered, but most citizens were free to own one. It was the Allied troops who disarmed the civilian German population.

As for protecting yourself against an oppressive government with handguns... no chance in hell. Sorry to say, if the government wanted to get you, there's no way you could protect yourself on a household budget. A modern Armoured Personnel Carrier can comfortably kill targets at ranges exceeding two kilometres. The heaviest guns in civilian use (.50 calibre machine guns) would maybe scratch its armour to the point it would need a new paint job.
This, of course, is assuming the oppressive government is generous enough to send a slow-moving, big target into the oppression zone and give the civilians a chance to return fire. If the government really wanted a civilian dead, they could send an artillery shell from some 30 kilometres away. The civilian could have spent millions on the fanciest home protection equipment on the market, but a $500 shell would still ruin his day, and probably take parts of the neighbourhood with it. With a good artillery hunting radar he would learn about the shell about a minute before it hit his house.

In short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.

[ur borked tags, i fixed them]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 17, 2013, 08:47:10 PM
This is fun to watch.

Continue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 17, 2013, 09:10:23 PM
And don't give me this, "It's to protect myself!" shit. You have legs. USE THEM. And if you haven't the sense to hide, then you're too stupid to live. Get security installed and move to a nicer area. Problem is solved.
If it were that easy, don't you think people would be doing that already?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 17, 2013, 09:21:50 PM
Oh hey posts. And a lot of them..

I think that quite a few of them could have been prevented with stricter gun control, and quite a few of them might have been solvable without using guns.  By making it more difficult to acquire a gun, it ensures that there are much fewer in distribution and decreases the likelihood that someone does something stupid.

Currently, in the US, there are over 250 million firearms. Limiting production would hardly touch the fact that disturbed individuals are finding firearms.

Which brings me to another point-- the focus of the current gun arguments is really off the real point. Nancy Lanza, the mother of Adam Lanza, was irresponsible in allowing her mentally disturbed son (which news sources are beginning to report that she knew about ahead of time) to use her firearms. The fact that she makes a bad decision means everyone else has to lose their right? Consider this conversation:

"It's wrong to try to take my guns"
"Why do you need them?"
"In case the government comes after me."
"That's ridiculous, the government isn't going to come after you."
"So you're not going to try to take my guns?"
"Of course we are, you don't need them."
"But I'm innocent."
"Too bad, hand them over or we will come after you."

Quote
Another issue I haven't seen discussed with regard to guns is the potential for false diagnosis of government tyranny.  What if the birthers decided Obama shouldn't be president and marched on the White House armed?  I think insane people declaring war on the government is much more likely than the government becoming so tyrannical that we need to use guns to stop it.

This is absolutely a concern... But it's getting off topic. The Federalist papers claim that the cause must be morally and politically right. Governments which do not protect personal freedoms and securities of its citizens lose their legitimacy in failing to protect them. Getting angry because Obama was reelected would be unjustified, because no rights were invaded upon.
But again, it's getting off topic. The part I'm arguing is the right to do so (which is impossible without allowing the mass population to be armed), not when.

Quote
Regarding the Thomas Jefferson quote, it's pretty clear that government officials fear falling out of favor with us.  If they didn't fear popular opinion of them, then there wouldn't be so much partisan politics.

That's extremely relative, so again I won't spend much time on it. I would argue that businesses buying out votes and logrolling means that politicians are more concerned with bettering themselves and their party than actually remaining in favor with the population or protecting the nation. In fact, the entire argument over the debt ceiling shows their irresponsibility-- give more and more free stuff to more of the population to garner additional votes? Or actually decide that we cannot spend more than we have and bring it down.

Stuff

There have been three break-ins on my home street in the last month, and I live in an effing resort. One of the home-owners was threatened with a knife when the thieves didn't realize he was home. I'm pretty sure we're justified in having a gun in our home or on our person while staying in our neighborhood. Honestly, I think it's absurd to solely leave your life in the hands of other people (i.e. police). They do their jobs better than any of us, but they respond after crises have already started. They are evidently an insufficient preventative in keeping crime down.

This addresses Ruto's comments.

Too bad for that argument that the gun laws in Nazi Germany were more liberal than in any European nation today (http://rense.com/general17/hitlersgermany.htm).

http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/article-nazilaw.pdf

Apparently we need a historian of our own to settle the dispute. This document, of the Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law, describes growing gun restrictions in Nazi Germany from post WWI to his solidified place of power in 1933.

Quote
In short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.

“It is interesting to hear certain kinds of people insist that the citizen cannot fight the government. This would have been news to the Mujahideen in Afghanistan. The citizen most certainly can fight the government, and usually wins when he tries. Organized national armies are useful primarily for fighting against other organized national armies. When they try to fight against the people, they find themselves at a very serious disadvantage. If you will just look around at the state of the world today, you will see that the Guerrilla has the upper hand. Irregulars usually defeat regulars, providing they have the will. Such fighting is horrible to contemplate, but will continue to dominate brute strength.”

- Col. Jeff Cooper

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2012/12/17/syrian-army/1775669/


Beyond these points of argument though, I'm surprised that your argument would not be to give citizens more weapons. If there's no chance, then we're on our knees and at our feet right? What's the solution then?

EDIT: Agh formatting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 17, 2013, 10:04:46 PM
We should also listen to Cobraroll, he was actually in the military.

In short, if a tyrannical government really wanted to kill you, a gun or two wouldn't make much of a difference. If anything, it would sway eventual soldiers on the "Maybe we shouldn't do this..." side of things, over to "Okay, he's got a gun. Take him out before he becomes a threat to us". No matter how much the soldiers symphatize with you, you become their enemy the moment you start pointing guns at them.

Yahhh.

@Spit

Hate to say this, but what you're saying about the government worries quite a few of us here.  I think you can remove the fear aspect altogether and still have liberty and all that stuff. The last thing we need is for everyone to live in a state of fear, citizens or politicians...Cobraroll talked about Hitler already so I don't really need to say any more, other than guns don't prevent Hitler.  The other moral issue you mentioned is discussed in intro philosophy, so that's slightly off topic and would lead to another boring discussion on why people should be just.  The real issue here is how to prevent potentially dangerous people from getting weapons to kill other innocent people. BDS said before that one of the gun nuts (such as Kent Hovind) might need counseling, yet the police had found a SKS semiautomatic rifle and a bunch of other guns in his house. This is the same guy who was so anti-government, anti-taxation that he actually prepared for something. I'm sure that he isn't the only one.

For the responsibility thing, you really have to think that having guns around, it's just a disaster waiting to happen. She could have been the most responsible gun owner ever and her son could still have beaten the crap out of her with a chair and taken them by force. There are even cases where kids find guns in the house and it accidentally goes off and hurts someone.

I think people have made an excuse to use any sort of weapon if they wanted to. Definitely for defense or protection. Nevermind if someone gets hurt killed? >__>

I think you really need to move somewhere else...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on January 17, 2013, 11:24:57 PM
I feel that a few of you are being a bit harsh on gun ownership (or a bit too adamant in support of it!).  I also believe that it's a problem that must be combatted, however, through stricter regulation.  A straight out gun ban probably wouldn't be so effective; the black market still exists and more vigilante/bad cops would most likely emerge.  Furthermore, the psychological effect would probably create more gun violence in consideration to gangs, mob lords, or what have you who would feel that they need to fear nothing when committing felons.

Guns aren't the problem, people are.  So there are two main remedies, excluding the gun ban:
Educate People - People who commit crimes through gun violence often fall into two categories; criminals of low intelligence and (very rarely) slightly above adequate (or even significantly) intelligence, sociopathic masterminds.  The criminals of low intelligence don't often commit crimes out of evil or greed or anything (if my memory of Criminal Justice serves me correct, I don't remember for sure).
Gun Restrictions + Gun Down the Black Market (that was totes punintentional) - I would recommend following the stringent European Model gun restrictions, but alas, America is significantly different from Europe.  One solution there won't necessarily work here for complicated reasons.  I have no knowledge of how the black market works (as far as you all know!!! ;) ), but I would imagine the government to be more than capable to deal with it or start dealing with it more effectively. 

I wrote the above yesterday and am too lazy to continue that train of thought, so I'll make a different one instead!!!

In regard to the Second Amendment and gun ownership being a right, here it is for reference: "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Now, let me give some background on the Second Amendment.  During the time of the French and Indian/Seven Years' War
and American Revolution, there was no legitimate national militia.  Under Washington's Continental Army, he was merely leading a pack of inexperienced men.  Even under the Articles had we no national militia (ergo, the disaster of Shays' Rebellion).  The Second Amendment hoped to amend that problem by instilling the right to own guns to the people to act as a military.  The people had the right to bear arms because they were the military; they're not the general public, they're soldiers who are, more often than not, drafted with no other options.  During the Whiskey Rebellion, Washington was able to organise the national army quickly and efficiently to deal with the insurgents because that's what the Second Amendment facilitated.  The Second Amendment protects the government from mob rule, not the other way around.  During the War of 1812, the government wasn't the primary source of soldiers and training, it was privateers and (mostly) fervent Westerners.  We had a militia of the people for the national government.

In regard to the quote by George Mason, if the quote is dissected correctly, America (the government) is the object in regard to the British foreign rule.  It clearly states that the militia (the American military of the people who support and constituents of the American government) is being weakened through the American people.  The reason the British did so was to be rid of American resistance against colonial rule, not of government rule.  That quote in particular is against colonialism, not a corrupt America government.  A better quote could probably have been found for that purpose!

Anyhow, many Framers were paranoid and proponents (Mason especially) of gun ownership to protect the people, but only as an extreme precaution.  The point of bearing arms is to give people the right to revolt against the government if the representatives of the people betray them and the government begins to act as Great Britain did under colonial rule.  In fact, however, the ability to bear arms is even more complicated than that; the idea is that if the state government becomes corrupt, the federal government will take action.  And if the federal government becomes corrupt, the state governments will take action (hence the existence of state militias that most closely relate to the people).  The idea of both becoming corrupt was never feared, since the state and federal governments are rivals, so we don't need to worry about that.  Of course, in a modern time, gun ownership would probably be useless, but in that same regard, I highly doubt a tyranny of the government will occur any time soon or ever, for that matter.  The government has infringed on people's rights all the time through history anyhow, so I don't see why so much passion is maintained in keeping the Second Amendment.  I'm lecturing now, but all of you shouldn't be controlled by the party.  You shape your own rights, not the Republican or Democratic Party.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 17, 2013, 11:46:05 PM
Guns aren't the problem, people are.  So there are two main remedies, excluding the gun ban:
Educate People
- People who commit crimes through gun violence often fall into two categories; criminals of low intelligence and (very rarely) slightly above adequate (or even significantly) intelligence, sociopathic masterminds.  The criminals of low intelligence don't often commit crimes out of evil or greed or anything (if my memory of Criminal Justice serves me correct, I don't remember for sure).
Is that not what I have said in the times previous to this one? :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on January 17, 2013, 11:50:28 PM
This is fun to watch.

Continue.
[/bandwagon]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on January 18, 2013, 12:20:51 AM
The problem is how to educate them.  Recidivism is quite bad in America.  Americans hardly understand the political system, so will they have the patience to learn of proper gun usage?
And that doesn't defeat the purpose of gun regulation.  A combination of both methods I mentioned would be most effective.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 18, 2013, 12:51:02 AM
Quote from: Akira
We learn karate, so that we need never use it.

Quote from: Akira
First you must fill your head with wisdom, then you can hit ice with it.

Doesn't seem like a lot of people can do either. It's a shame that most people are like Bart and would rather have the nunchucks already. Just an accident waiting to happen -.-
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 18, 2013, 02:12:07 AM
I like a lot of what you said Mashi. Your facts are in order. Don't necessarily agree with your analysis, given Mason's quotes just days apart and 10 USC Sec. 311, but regardless--

Yes to education. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
"Well-regulated" entails proper discipline and training. So until the "militia" is adequately trained (meaning potential gun owners are taught safe techniques and investigated with background checks), their right to keep and bear arms must be infringed.

And for clarification's sake @ Ruto, Nancy Lanza actually taught her son how to shoot (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/16/nancy-lanza-adam-lanza-taught-to-shoot_n_2311539.html). She was evidently handling the situation and the fact that she owned firearms very ignorantly.



I'm sorry if I'm worrying "quite a few" of the members here. I do want to clarify that I am not a conspiracy theorist or right-wing nutjob :P The government is a necessary institution and secures the ability, when structured correctly, for a nation to be successful. However, I don't think that worrying about what big government means for America should be reason enough to call me a fool or suggest joining "the Alex Jones brigade." It's pretty disrespectful (not to mention immature).

Anyhow, I'm done unless anyone really wants to continue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on January 18, 2013, 10:54:49 AM
There have been three break-ins on my home street in the last month, and I live in an effing resort. One of the home-owners was threatened with a knife when the thieves didn't realize he was home.
Umm... I'd be packed and out of there straight after the first break in.
Honestly, I think it's absurd to solely leave your life in the hands of other people (i.e. police).
But it's OK to take matters that you have no training in, into your own hands and kill someone?
They do their jobs better than any of us, but they respond after crises have already started.
Well of course. If there was a police person present in ever crisis that ever happened, we'd have to many police!
They are evidently an insufficient preventative in keeping crime down.
Now that's just wrong. They are the only preventative we have of keeping crime down. There isn't a magical machine that can lock someone away the moment they think of killing someone. Another way of keeping crime down is to make guns illegal. This will greatly reduce the number of murders, and will make society a safer place. Trust me, in Australia, it just doesn't happen.

I am also finished, I cannot be bothered arguing any more. (lol I made 2 posts :P) I respectfully disagree with your opinions, Spitllama and Black Dragon Slayer, but I do not think ill of you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 09:15:12 PM
Umm... I'd be packed and out of there straight after the first break in.
That's the thing:
1: Not everybody can afford to move.
2: Not everybody WANTS to move.
3: Now THAT is paranoid. :P You can't just jump up and leave at the slightest sign of trouble... if you did that, you'd have a new home every week.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 18, 2013, 10:23:08 PM
I think some of you aren't reading all the arguments so I'm not going to bother with super long posts again -.- I think Clanker really brought up some good points too.

That's the thing:
1: Not everybody can afford to move.
2: Not everybody WANTS to move.
3: Now THAT is paranoid. :P You can't just jump up and leave at the slightest sign of trouble... if you did that, you'd have a new home every week.

I don't see how you'd risk your family by staying in a place like that, or want to move when your house has been broken into multiple times. How can you think of money being an issue when you move, if by staying, you'd get robbed or someone gets hurt in a burglary? It's not being paranoid at all to think about safety and it's not what you'd call "a slightest bit of trouble."

Having your house broken into doesn't justify carrying a gun in public. It is paranoia to think you'd always need one...and just delusional to think you'd be able to play a hero and stop a crime with it someday.

As for the Sandy Hook shooter (no names please), it's another example of a careless gun owner. You might not be one, but the fact is there are many more careless gun owners like that, selling their guns to some stranger on eBay, not securing them, or are just plain crazy. Politicians are trying to prevent another tragedy from happening and you're crying about them taking your guns away? That's really selfish.

Another thing is that you should cite recent sources. Quotes from 200-300 years ago don't necessarily reflect the modern views. Does anyone remember what the 3/5 compromise was? Is that a little racist by today's standards or what?

*repeats Clanker* I don't have anything against Spit or BDS personally but I don't agree with your views on guns.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 18, 2013, 10:31:00 PM
Here's my opinion, short and strong:

Guns should not have been invented, no one should even have them. Guns bring NOTHING but harm.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Shadoninja on January 18, 2013, 10:33:49 PM
Here's my opinion, short and strong:

Guns should not have been invented, no one should even have them. Guns bring NOTHING but harm.
Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 10:43:13 PM
I don't see how you'd risk your family by staying in a place like that, or want to move when your house has been broken into multiple times. How can you think of money being an issue when you move, if by staying, you'd get robbed or someone gets hurt in a burglary? It's not being paranoid at all to think about safety and it's not what you'd call "a slightest bit of trouble."

Having your house broken into doesn't justify carrying a gun in public. It is paranoia to think you'd always need one...and just delusional to think you'd be able to play a hero and stop a crime with it someday.
Hmmm... let's take an example from my own life...

The neighborhood we used to live (when I was really young) in was rather violent (e.g. we found bullets lodged in our walls, as my father has said several times), although the neighbors were friendly. Although we were somewhat-eager to leave, we couldn't at the time.
However, now, the neighborhood we live in is peaceful, except for a few break-ins that have been happening in the past year (when people aren't at home, though; even in the gated communities around here).

To sum it all up, the reason we are still here is because there's no reason to move; it isn't paranoia to carry a gun: it's paranoia to constantly be hopping around just because of some little threat, which could be easily handled some other way. Unless there was a mass invasion of robbers (a dozen people breaking in through the roof, windows, and doors :P), there is more than one way to take care of them (whether it be guns or fists >:D).

If you think of stopping crime as a delusion, then there is no way you can: you must take action whenever it is needed, and within your boundaries. Doubt and inaction are, obviously, worse solutions, in most cases, unless justified.

Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
Exactly; you might as well amputate people's hands and feet and replace them with mechanical ones that resist when you try to use them for violence. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 18, 2013, 10:46:16 PM
Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
So you disagree with me, eh?

YOU MUST DIE
Title: Re: Re: Politics
Post by: Shadoninja on January 18, 2013, 10:49:35 PM
So you disagree with me, eh?

YOU MUST DIE
I didn't say I disagreed with you but it would be pointless to magically unexist guns because we humans will just find some other way to kill each other.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 18, 2013, 11:00:32 PM
Don't be pessimistic. You'll make Mikuru cry. :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 18, 2013, 11:07:25 PM
Don't be pessimistic. You'll make Mikuru cry. :(
Being pessimistic is different from being honest, though in some cases honesty can hurt (like Mikuru :P).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on January 18, 2013, 11:35:24 PM
Say that again when the aliens attack.

Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.
For instance, when I get a fairly long paint brush and a springy clothes-hanger from backstage theater and go around shooting people. XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Cobraroll on January 19, 2013, 12:14:59 AM
Besides if guns didn't exist, we'd use crossbows. if not crossbows, the bow and arrow. if not the bow and arrow, swords and lances and axes, etc.

That's true. But handguns make it a lot easier to kill a bunch of people at one time.
 - They are easily concealable, without a specific security check you can get one with you almost everywhere.
 - They are extremely mobile. A pistol and ammunition to kill dozens of people can easily be carried in pockets. Neither do they weigh you down while running, for instance.
 - They can be used at range, not requiring you to expose yourself to the victim or get into close combat in order to hurt him.
 - They require very little preparation to use. Acquire gun and ammo, put ammo in gun, pull trigger, that's it.
 - They can be used repeatedly very fast. If you miss a shot or two, you can just pull the trigger again.
 - You can ready one, shoot, scramble around for a time interval of your choice and still be ready to shoot again at a moment's notice.
 - The amount of force required to operate the weapon is minuscule compared to the amount of force it transfers to the target.
 - The amount of skill required to kill somebody with them is laughably small. As long as your victim is in the path of the bullet, he will get severely injured.
 - They can be used (somewhat less reliably) whilst drunk, drugged, half-asleep, child or in panic and still be incredibly lethal.
 - They (currently) don't require much effort or money to acquire and operate.
 - The probability of collateral damage is high. The bullet will keep going until it hits something.
 - They are just as dangerous to accidental victims as to intentional. A speeding bullet does not care if the person it hits is your target or an innocent bystander.
 - You can (legally or illegally) acquire all the components (gun and ammo) and practising with the weapon without raising too much suspicion. Not before you kill somebody with it.

Had killing people been a competitive metagame ruled by somebody, guns would have been banned to Ubers. No other items can claim the same efficiency when it comes to homicide. They are either unwieldy, cumbersome, expensive or unreliable, put the user in a risky situation, or require a great amount of power and skill to kill with.

Tl;dr: Guns don't necessarily kill people. People kill people. But guns make it a hell of a lot easier.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on January 19, 2013, 01:07:37 AM
You'll make Mikuru cry. :(
(like Mikuru :P).
And all of the sudden, I want to uncontrollably punch you both and I have no idea why.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: fingerz on January 19, 2013, 01:11:59 AM
Here in Australia, we don't see why you would have the need to use guns. I don't know why Americans see having a gun as a right. Phht! :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 19, 2013, 01:38:12 AM
Here in Australia, we don't see why you would have the need to use guns. I don't know why Americans see having a gun as a right. Phht! :P
Population of Australia: 22,620,600
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 1.0

Population of US: 311,591,917
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 4.8

The United States alone (don't make me find the statistics of the whole continent of North America) has about 13 times the population of Australia, yet the murder rate is only (a bit ironic to say "only", I should add...) 4.8 times it.

"The study (undertaken by the Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development) estimated that the global rate was 7.6 intentional homicides per 100,000 inhabitants for 2004."
"For the year 2010 UNODC made a similar study. It presumed a number of 468,000 intentional homicides for this year. That would correspond to a worldwide rate of 6.9."

Honduras has the highest rate:
Population: 8,249,574
Homicide per 100,000 people: 91.6



Now, for a minute, let's look at Spain:
Population: 47,265,321
Homicide per 100,000 people: 0.8

Gun laws in Spain, according to this (http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/03/gun-laws-in-spain.html):
"Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun."
"Firearms must be registered and inspected annually."
"Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols."

According to this (http://belegal.com/questions/showQuestion/70-What-are-the-gun-laws-like-in-Spain-), gun laws are more restrictive.
Also somewhat relevant, but providing less information (and thus, probably not the best source): this (http://www.ehow.com/how_6589552_gun-license-spain.html)

I'm not sure if this (and Spain :P) has been mentioned before in this thread, but a balance of strict and "right-to-bear-arms" would help reduce homicide rate in a country as large as the United States.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: fingerz on January 19, 2013, 01:40:24 AM
If that is the only alternative that people will agee on, I'll go with that at least.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vermilionvermin on January 19, 2013, 01:47:36 AM
Population of Australia: 22,620,600
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 1.0

Population of US: 311,591,917
Homicide rate per 100,000 people: 4.8

The United States alone (don't make me find the statistics of the whole continent of North America) has about 13 times the population of Australia, yet the murder rate is only (a bit ironic to say "only", I should add...) 4.8 times it.

I don't think you're interpreting those statistics right.  If it's per 100,000 people, the population should be irrelevant, which means that we're doing something wrong.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 19, 2013, 02:21:52 AM
I don't think you're interpreting those statistics right.  If it's per 100,000 people, the population should be irrelevant, which means that we're doing something wrong.
The larger a population, the greater number, one would assume, of individuals that are likely to commit a crime of any degree (including homicides). I not not merely interpreting numbers, but also putting other points in conjunction with them.
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 19, 2013, 03:14:09 AM
Whoa whoa let me get this straight:

Moving every time there's a break-in on your street is not paranoia.

Having a concealed firearm is.

wat
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 19, 2013, 03:15:11 AM
Whoa whoa let me get this straight:

Moving every time there's a break-in on your street is not paranoia.

Having a concealed firearm is.

wat
That's exactly what I mentioned previously, more than once. Easier solutions to problems are (obviously) a lot more sensible.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on January 19, 2013, 07:52:02 AM
Gun laws in Spain, according to this (http://www.commongunsense.com/2011/03/gun-laws-in-spain.html):
"Gun owners must be licensed and undergo strict medical and psychological tests. No one is permitted to own more than six hunting rifles and one handgun."
"Firearms must be registered and inspected annually."
"Machine guns and submachine guns are banned, as are imitation pistols."
Australia has similar laws. In fact I think you have to pay tax to own a gun. And every time Labor's in Parliament it goes up :P

Whoa whoa let me get this straight:

Moving every time there's a break-in on your street is not paranoia.

Having a concealed firearm is.

wat
OK, so I over exaggerated a bit. Of course I wouldn't move out every time there was a break in. But, if there was a significant amount or an event which was severe enough I would move out. If there was a person which put me or my family at risk, I would be out of there like a jack rabbit.

It maybe different in the US, but in Australia (Well, Perth at least) you have very defined areas where certain people hang out. If you're poor and rowdy (AKA a bogan) you live in Rockingham or Armadale. If you're part of the middle class, you live in say Claremont or East Victoria Park. If you're rich and high class, Subiaco or Cottesloe. I doubt anyone knows or cares about what I just said, but I don't care. :P It makes my point clear to Perth people.

Anyways, so I lied. But I'm not going to argue with you guys any more! It makes me sad and I don't know why :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 19, 2013, 08:30:51 AM
Australia has similar laws. In fact I think you have to pay tax to own a gun. And every time Labor's in Parliament it goes up :P
Wikipedia: "State laws govern the possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned under the 1996 National Agreement on Firearms. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a Firearms Licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.
 
Before someone can buy a firearm, he or she must obtain a Permit To Acquire. The first permit has a mandatory 28-day delay before it is first issued. In some states (e.g., Queensland, Victoria, and New South Wales), this is waived for second and subsequent firearms of the same class. For each firearm a "Genuine Reason" must be given, relating to pest control, hunting, target shooting, or collecting. Self-defense is not accepted as a reason for issuing a license, even though it may be legal under certain circumstances to use a legally held firearm for self-defense.
 
Each firearm in Australia must be registered to the owner by serial number. Some states allow an owner to store or borrow another person's registered firearm of the same category."

Pest control is a worse reason than self-defense... unless you have a history of giant snakes (a shovel might do for smaller ones) or really really big... raccoons... :P Or have a garden/are a farmer...

But I'm not going to argue with you guys any more! It makes me sad and I don't know why :(
As long as it doesn't get out of control, arguing (or "discussion") can be a rather good brain exercise. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 19, 2013, 09:24:04 AM
Australia has similar laws. In fact I think you have to pay tax to own a gun. And every time Labor's in Parliament it goes up :P
OK, so I over exaggerated a bit. Of course I wouldn't move out every time there was a break in. But, if there was a significant amount or an event which was severe enough I would move out. If there was a person which put me or my family at risk, I would be out of there like a jack rabbit.
;D My thoughts exactly^^

But I'm not going to argue with you guys any more! It makes me sad and I don't know why :(
Hahaha same. And a bit like playing chess with a pigeon sorta.

Pest control is a worse reason than self-defense... unless you have a history of giant snakes (a shovel might do for smaller ones) or really really big... raccoons... :P Or have a garden/are a farmer...

Have you seen the fauna in Australia? They have those giant tarantulas in their backyards that can jump and burrow. Deadly ones. There are also more deadly snakes, platypuses...in summary, a lot of weird animals live in Australia. Since humans sometimes can't outrun, outsmart or hide from animals...yeah.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 19, 2013, 11:45:33 AM
Have you seen the fauna in Australia? They have those giant tarantulas in their backyards that can jump and burrow. Deadly ones. There are also more deadly snakes, platypuses...in summary, a lot of weird animals live in Australia. Since humans sometimes can't outrun, outsmart or hide from animals...yeah.
Here, we only have scorpions, snakes, and spiders (as well as more common household pests; nothing should be a problem unless you're near the hiking areas :P)... but I would assume, unless you were trigger happy (I don't think you'd want to use a gun on a Redback Spider... (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redback_spider)) out of those you listed, you might only need to shoot the platypuses... (also cane toads, if you encounter them; some invasive species are listed here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasive_species_in_Australia))
Also, as seen here (http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20100831120423AARN02S), are (I assume) other Australians talking about pests in cities. To quote one person: "We do have some hurtful and deadly animals and spiders but most of us never see them. The snakes I have seen wanted to run away from me, as fast as I ran from them. You will get some which are aggressive." (when we were hiking once, we literally walked past a snake without even knowing it until we were really close...)
Although, since I have never been to Australia, I can tell that that certainly does not represent the entire country. However, I can't find much more about common pests (and other animals) in Australia, aside from the above/below.

Platypus (http://www.australianfauna.com/platypus.php)
I hate spiders (http://www.australianfauna.com/huntsmanspider.php)
Snakes (http://www.australianfauna.com/australiansnakes.php)
Wolf spiders, but I think we have these in California too... (http://www.australianfauna.com/wolfspider.php)
Jellyfish, but if you're close enough to shoot it, it might be too late... (http://www.australianfauna.com/boxjellyfish.php)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on January 19, 2013, 05:01:16 PM
As long as it doesn't get out of control, arguing (or "discussion") can be a rather good brain exercise. :P
Going on this basis:
Pest control is a worse reason than self-defense... unless you have a history of giant snakes (a shovel might do for smaller ones) or really really big... raccoons... :P Or have a garden/are a farmer...
The only reason that anyone has a gun in Australia is because they're a farmer and have to keep kangaroos, cats and foxes from attacking their flocks and harvests. It's actually a legitimate reason, imo. Also, we have to many kangaroos so we need to cull them. Anyone else who asks gets rejected.
Have you seen the fauna in Australia? They have those giant tarantulas in their backyards that can jump and burrow. Deadly ones. There are also more deadly snakes, platypuses...in summary, a lot of weird animals live in Australia. Since humans sometimes can't outrun, outsmart or hide from animals...yeah.
This is kinda wrong as well. Platypuses are herbivores and if you're attacked by one it's probably retarded or you're standing on it's nest. Snakes will escape from anyone who stomps and they just don't appear in Winter. Just don't touch the spiders. If there's a messy web it means that the spider is venomous. Neat, circular webs are that of nice spiders, but it's easier just to stay away. Plus they keep the flies and mozzies down  :) You're more likely to be killed if you're in between a bogan and his Jack Daniel's.
 
I think we've gone a bit off topic. But I like edumacating you guys on Australia. :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on January 19, 2013, 07:13:58 PM
That is also the only legitimate reason people still have a gun in the US.  There are still people that live out in the middle of nowhere and need some way to deal with a bear or cougar etc etc.  I suppose you could call hunting legitimate, but that's really the extent of it.

It simply boils down to the fact that there is no good reason for gun ownership to be as widespread as it is.  Most of the rest of the world has moved past such primitive behavior.

Also, don't make bigger fools of yourselves by throwing around statistics like the nut of the day on whatever radio show... they prove nothing at all.  There are far more variables to those than just gun ownership among other serious problems that any researcher would laugh at...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on January 19, 2013, 07:31:51 PM
Most people have guns simply because they like collecting them. I hate to pan collectors of anything but I think there are safer hobbies they could have.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on January 19, 2013, 07:56:15 PM
Platypuses are herbivores and if you're attacked by one it's probably retarded or you're standing on it's nest. Snakes will escape from anyone who stomps and they just don't appear in Winter. Just don't touch the spiders. If there's a messy web it means that the spider is venomous. Neat, circular webs are that of nice spiders, but it's easier just to stay away. Plus they keep the flies and mozzies down  :) You're more likely to be killed if you're in between a bogan and his Jack Daniel's.
 
I think we've gone a bit off topic. But I like edumacating you guys on Australia. :D

Haha xD The platypus example was to show how weird the animals are in Australia compared to the ones we see here. IIRC British scientists had a field day when they first saw one. Some thought it was a joke and the beak was sewn on, etc. That's some good advice about spiders xD Unless you live in the Southwest you won't even see anything but household ones here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on January 20, 2013, 01:03:23 AM
how weird the animals are in Australia
have you ever seen a cassowary

i was killed by one once
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on January 20, 2013, 04:20:44 AM
Haha xD The platypus example was to show how weird the animals are in Australia compared to the ones we see here. IIRC British scientists had a field day when they first saw one. Some thought it was a joke and the beak was sewn on, etc. That's some good advice about spiders xD Unless you live in the Southwest you won't even see anything but household ones here.
xD Sorry! I knew you weren't that stupid! And the spider advice doesn't always apply. But it usually does :D
have you ever seen a cassowary

i was killed by one once
I haven't, but those drop bears... They'll rip your arms off!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on January 20, 2013, 05:37:20 AM
drop bears, not even once

also, everything in australia will kill you I will never go there mah gawd
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on January 27, 2013, 05:38:11 PM
Currently trying to convince a group of redneck Facebook friends that the Confederate flag does not represent a love for cornbread and Nascar -.-

mahgawd
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on January 27, 2013, 06:19:00 PM
I live in the South, so I can't say that guns should be banned entirely. :P


A background check is required to purchase a gun from a store, but when you are buying it from anywhere else (garage sell, etc.), the need for a background check suddenly disappears.
Rifle shooting and shot gun shooting at clay pigeons make for good sport, and it'd be kind of sad if I was suddenly not allowed to do that anymore.

Yes, a little bit more gun control, but nothing too strict.

I'd argue that I need them for the zombie apocalypse but they're only helpful if you have a silencer, otherwise you just attract more zombies!!!!
This is why I prefer close range weapons like my quarter staff that I carry around everywhere and yeah
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on January 28, 2013, 12:07:38 AM
if life became like highschool of the dead would that really be so bad

Zombies are attacking the world but BOOBS. BOOBS EVERYWHERE.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on January 31, 2013, 03:46:33 AM
And in conclusion...politics. Good night, everybody.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on February 13, 2013, 10:27:20 PM
Don't raise that minimum wage Congress -_-
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on February 13, 2013, 10:48:40 PM
They're actually trying to? >.<
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on February 13, 2013, 10:54:37 PM
Obama said last night that he wants to up it to $9/hr :-\
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on February 13, 2013, 11:11:47 PM
yay no summer job for me
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on February 14, 2013, 07:34:27 AM
Sorry Obama, but I'd like to keep my job.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on February 16, 2013, 08:07:52 AM
also my aunt raised the price of everything and now i don't know the price of anything

and speaking of guns

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/535435_464898503565521_1831910966_n.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on February 16, 2013, 09:06:06 AM
also my aunt raised the price of everything and now i don't know the price of anything

and speaking of guns

(http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/535435_464898503565521_1831910966_n.jpg)
LOL; that's so true... I guess you can't really use that signpost to defend yourself... :o
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on February 19, 2013, 09:51:00 PM
LOL; that's so true... I guess you can't really use that signpost to defend yourself... :o
Well, a signpost could take a bullet or two, but you're right, it'll snap fairly quickly. In a hypothetical way.
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on April 04, 2013, 03:30:12 AM
California Congresswoman Rep. Jackie Speier CA is trying to get a bill passed that prohibits counseling to change someone's sexual orientation.
Problem? She's including pedophilia as an orientation. And Democrats defeated a proposed amendment that would say that pedophilia isn't included.

Ummmm...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on April 04, 2013, 03:36:11 AM
California Congresswoman Rep. Jackie Speier CA is trying to get a bill passed that prohibits counseling to change someone's sexual orientation.
Problem? She's including pedophilia as an orientation. And Democrats defeated a proposed amendment that would say that pedophilia isn't included.

Ummmm...
Oh...that's not what I was expecting to hear.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on April 04, 2013, 03:47:22 AM
Well, a signpost could take a bullet or two, but you're right, it'll snap fairly quickly. In a hypothetical way.
No, the bullets would go through the signpost. It couldn't stop even one.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on April 04, 2013, 03:48:23 AM
IN A HYPOTHETICAL WAY YOU MEAN PERSON
Thank you for correcting me, friend.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on April 04, 2013, 03:50:04 AM
By "defend yourself" I meant attacking the person with the signpost... :P But I guess both meanings could apply (self-defense or just defense).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on April 04, 2013, 04:01:54 AM
Attacking with a signpost is like attacking with a blanket. Take the stick from the signpost and beat them to death with it. Works much better.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on April 04, 2013, 04:12:23 AM
Attacking with a signpost is like attacking with a blanket. Take the stick from the signpost and beat them to death with it. Works much better.
Yes, the stick is part of the signpost...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: vermilionvermin on April 04, 2013, 04:15:31 AM
California Congresswoman Rep. Jackie Speier CA is trying to get a bill passed that prohibits counseling to change someone's sexual orientation.
Problem? She's including pedophilia as an orientation. And Democrats defeated a proposed amendment that would say that pedophilia isn't included.

Is there another bill or is it SB 1172?  That one was introduced by Jackie Speier but it's talking specifically about children, at which point pedophilia shouldn't be an issue.  I did about 10 minutes of research and couldn't find anything conclusive.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FSM-Reapr on April 04, 2013, 04:16:03 AM
Yes, the stick is part of the signpost...
That's why I said to take it off from one...
Title: Politics
Post by: spitllama on April 04, 2013, 04:32:09 AM
Nah I'm referring to the same bill. My interpretation is that a teenager can very well be a pedophile and need psychiatric help. The term "pedophilia" doesn't have anything to do with the age of consent since it's a medical and not a legal term.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on April 04, 2013, 05:03:05 AM
You can't fix someone's sexual fetishes -.- you just need to make sure they don't act on them if they're of that nature.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on April 23, 2013, 04:09:44 PM
A couple students from my college apparently entered a contest, in which they created a video regarding GPA redistribution. The proposal would take points from the top 10% of students, and distribute them to seniors who weren't going to meet the grade requirements for graduation. I'd be interested to hear opinions/rebuttals!

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on April 24, 2013, 12:55:32 AM
I would disagree with the proposed notion.  GPA isn't something like a tax that the government takes for utilising resources in the country.  Not to mention that GPA isn't like money to be spent; it's a marker of academic success that's important for analysis in college/graduate school applications; a failing doctor can't be allowed to pass simply to be nice.  If we wanted to help those failing, it's probably better to give equal opportunity (eg. review sessions, extra credit assignments, and other things that would be open to everyone) to pass than an easy pass.

In school, for the most part, the playing field is mostly equal; although inequality of opportunity is always present (some parents may be able to afford tutors, some students may be able to afford better study supplies, etc.), such things can't be helped (like how an affluent engineer is much ahead of a new immigrant despite social efforts to create equality of opportunity) and academic intelligence, I feel, is something that mostly requires independent hard work than through social interactions and dependency on circumstances that may be beyond us.  Chances are, if someone has a low GPA, it's not out of inequality of education; people have the same teachers and materials in school, so equality of opportunity certainly at least exists within the parameters of a public school.

Of course, if we were to include other institutions such as private schools and the like, the notion of equal opportunity becomes a bit skewed, but I don't think such things can really be helped.  Not to mention that I feel that intelligence is something worth most when learnt independently, anyhow.  Quite a number of geniuses in the past have come from poor backgrounds, after all (such as Tesla and Faraday, for example).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on April 24, 2013, 01:22:01 AM
I agree, and so do the creators of the video :D

It's surprising how many people at MSU were all for the idea. What, in someone's head, says it's okay to just take from those who have worked for their GPA to give it to others?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on April 24, 2013, 08:10:11 AM
Like Mashi said, tax isn't really the same as a GPA.

There's always going to be complaints about taxes but the fact is, without taxes, everything will be more expensive for everyone. If you go to Switzerland, you'd get the idea. Lowest sales taxes in the European Union but expect to pay at least double for groceries (Friend said half a dozen eggs cost $3?!! Even a basket of basic grocery items cost $50. She ended buying groceries in France to save money and actually be able to afford fish and meat). In Austria, sales tax is nearly double but on average, food costs less than half as much.

It's just wrong to assume taxes go into welfare/useless social programs/disability and then blame people for being lazy. I'm sure a lot of other things wouldn't exist without taxes.

...I'm also using sales tax rates because I can't seem to find the average tax rate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on April 25, 2013, 01:07:01 AM
I'm not even referring to taxes. We could argue about that for days. Just consider the mindset of these students-- that this is okay. It seems like an extremely perverted interpretation of what equality means.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on April 25, 2013, 12:37:07 PM
Well, equality is a matter of perspetive. Different people are on different extremes of the spectrum.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on September 07, 2013, 12:18:07 PM
So Abott is our new prime minister.

Fuck.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on September 07, 2013, 04:59:35 PM
So Abott is our new prime minister.

Fuck.
Hurray! I missed being in the shithole! :D
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on September 13, 2013, 04:51:30 PM
In politics, there are sides to take, but Politicians just choose the one that sounds best to the public.
Actual stated policies and opinions are usually fabricated to appeal to people. Whether or not they actually agree with the policy or even have those opinions is an entirely different matter.

The government needs reform. And the only way that is going to happen is if we destroy the status quo...
(http://jub3r7.appspot.com/25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m1nnrffEvJ1r6zob3o1_500.gif)

*insert dr. horrible song here*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on December 01, 2013, 08:23:36 PM
So the Finnish government has been overspending by 7 billion euros, and they had to make budget cuts.

One of those cuts will make me work 2,5 years more before I retire. It's so easy to let the future generation save us, until they realise they were screw'd over.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on December 01, 2013, 11:04:17 PM
Hahaha things aren't that great here either. Hmm...what can I say but get a job that would make you so useful, everyone would just call you for advice while you just sit at an office chair all day?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on December 02, 2013, 12:08:15 AM
Ruto, when you make your company of tutoring services worth billions of dollars, I want in, okay???
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 08:30:48 AM
Australia's trying not to go to war with Indonesia, so we might need your help on this one, America...

Again...


Oh and apparently my generation will move out at 25 -30's and work till we're 80. >_>
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 02, 2013, 08:35:00 AM
You're not getting my help, America has enough problems to be engaging in another conflict.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 08:41:45 AM
Oh! But we may have accidentally, unintentionally spied on the Indonesian president, by mistake! But we didn't mean too! And he won't stop saying things at us! He called us a bunch of silly sausages and made my mummy cry! Please, America! We promise we won't do it again!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on December 02, 2013, 08:46:10 AM
Ruto, when you make your company of tutoring services worth billions of dollars, I want in, okay???

Yeah! And if this science thing doesn't work out, we'll run that restaurant, right???

Oh! But we may have accidentally, unintentionally spied on the Indonesian president, by mistake! But we didn't mean too! And he won't stop saying things at us! He called us a bunch of silly sausages and made my mummy cry! Please, America! We promise we won't do it again!

America got away with more crap than that and didn't go to war for it (yet).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 02, 2013, 08:46:26 AM
Oh! But we may have accidentally, unintentionally spied on the Indonesian president, by mistake! But we didn't mean too! And he won't stop saying things at us! He called us a bunch of silly sausages and made my mummy cry! Please, America! We promise we won't do it again!
Look, at of you not-Americas need to get your s*** together; it's our job to get in everybody's businness and f*** everything up 10x worse than it was, but it's also our right to just let you f*** up on your own.

'Mericuh.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 08:53:46 AM
But the Prime Minister hasn't apologized! He's not being politically correct! What shall we do? The Indonesian's have cows! We only have kangaroos! Powerless against their cows! Particularly if they've been trained in Indonesia! Please protect us from their cows! They're smelly and look funny!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 02, 2013, 08:56:58 AM
Oh no, we're not dealing with cows ever again, not since The Great Moo-vasion of 1897, where our beloved Secretary of Dairy-tary Bessie McCow-Pun betrayed us to the evil Benito Moosolini.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on December 02, 2013, 08:59:42 AM
Oh no, we're not dealing with cows ever again, not since The Great Moo-vasion of 1897, where our beloved Secretary of Dairy-tary Bessie McCow-Pun betrayed us to the evil Benito Moosolini.

Moorica
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 09:04:40 AM
We'll just have to ask New Zealand for some sheep then. They have very ewenique war strategies. One involves a sheep-shape lamborgini. I just hope they're wooling

We'd use koalas, but we don't have the koalafictions.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MasterProX on December 02, 2013, 09:07:06 AM
We'd use koalas, but we don't have the koalafictions.

That animal joke was unbearably bad. I just got dumber for reading it.

...shit, this one's even worse.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 02, 2013, 09:10:43 AM
Man, that is some criminally bad punning you two have there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on December 02, 2013, 09:16:18 AM
That animal joke was unbearably bad. I just got dumber for reading it.

...shit, this one's even worse.
(http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/hurricane_of_bears.PNG)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on December 02, 2013, 09:21:43 AM
Leave bears out of your bad jokes D:
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 09:26:27 AM
It's OK. I'm under a rest.

(http://img19.imageshack.us/img19/1104/o9cd.jpg)

I'm in real treble now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on December 02, 2013, 09:27:17 AM
Do I need to repeat any of that?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 09:28:32 AM
Pun's aren't your forte, are they?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on December 02, 2013, 09:29:27 AM
I'm kinda flat when it comes to jokes in general actually.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 02, 2013, 09:30:49 AM
Perhaps you should get sharper, then? I'm sure you can be quite clef-er
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MasterProX on December 02, 2013, 09:37:13 AM
It's kinda hard to be clefer when you're still A minor.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on December 02, 2013, 05:09:50 PM
I'm oboe to lose it with you guys. Music puns are the root and fifth of all things evil. I expect no more of this, as it always leads to sax and violins, and members tend to get band for that kind of staff. Do I make mezzo-f clear?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 02, 2013, 09:04:10 PM
No, I don't, the bad puns are too loud to understand you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on December 02, 2013, 11:10:17 PM
This conversation has struck a chord with me for some reason.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on December 02, 2013, 11:17:02 PM
I honestly don't like the tone of this whole conversation. I mean, everyone knows I'm the dominant pun maker on NSM. So y'all need to get in the rhythm or just give it a rest.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on December 03, 2013, 12:30:22 AM
you guys are terrible at this politics thing
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 03, 2013, 12:43:40 AM
Yeah, well the politicians set that bar pretty low.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on December 03, 2013, 12:58:07 AM
Ugh.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on December 03, 2013, 02:20:21 AM
oh no maestro not you too
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on December 03, 2013, 02:21:30 AM
99% sure Maestro started this whole thing
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on December 03, 2013, 02:23:04 AM
Not the puns (which I'm pretty sure were all taken off a tumblr post that I'm too lazy to find)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 03, 2013, 02:25:09 AM
I didn't start with the puns, besides these people aren't even clever with them. Amatuer rank punning going on here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on December 03, 2013, 04:01:45 AM
Lol maestro I thought your bar one was the laziest/lamest one. Almost no effort went into it. :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 03, 2013, 04:07:24 AM
Yes, but it was actually relevant to the conversation at hand, because lawyers, who often become politicians, have to pass the Bar exam before they are allowed to practiced.

See, a good pun has layers.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on December 03, 2013, 04:51:15 AM
You remain unexcused.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on December 03, 2013, 07:11:35 AM
Yes, but it was actually relevant to the conversation at hand, because lawyers, who often become politicians, have to pass the Bar exam before they are allowed to practiced.

See, a good pun has layers.
I think u mean a good pun has lawyers
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on December 03, 2013, 07:46:02 AM
And the award for worst pun of the century goes to...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MasterProX on December 03, 2013, 08:08:35 AM
Wait, I thought we were purposely making bad puns that were so stupid they were funny again.

Yes, that is what the politics topic is for now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on December 03, 2013, 08:16:32 AM
Well, that's only fitting, considering politics is something of a joke these days.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 03, 2013, 02:32:19 PM
(http://kidzshowz.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/tumblr_lw5pcgcane1qahbsb.jpg?w=640)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on December 18, 2013, 08:43:27 AM
So I was watching CNN and they had this guy named Larry Klayman.

He's so annoying it's not even funny.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 08:43:08 PM
So I was reading this article today about how MSNBC sacked a staff member for tweeting/strongly implying the right wing will be offended by a Cheerios ad. The article was okay but the comments were funny. Yes, the person shouldn't have used an MSNBC company account for that but then I notice that they tend to take action for this kind of offensive crap unlike the other side and defend themselves by the First Amendment. Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty, anyone?

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/rightwing_asshats_zpsaa1a9c91.png)

I think if the right wants to make sense to everyone, they should really work on their image. First, know whether something is offensive.

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/offensiveerikson_zps9c66266b.png)

Second, name calling is the lowest in any form of argument.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/s526x395/644519_313277398799009_1831031695_n.jpg)

Third, work on bad logic and bad science.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NcDCU4ZWAB8/UJ0wHVAfK0I/AAAAAAAADR8/uUedSBGap60/s1600/ToddAkin-rape.jpeg)

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/pwned_zps98db5ae0.png)

Fourth, don't use science to back up your unscientific comments or things that have nothing to do with science whatsover. Biology is soooo cruel from anyone who's ever studied biology. Didn't 98+% percent of everything that once lived on Earth become extinct?

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/p480x480/1533929_648368708555918_848763371_n.jpg)

Fifth, fact check. Always fact check. (This one also has snark to it! As expected from a misguided and misinformed champion of teh righteous Bristol Palin)

(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1546360_653627538030035_978587031_n.jpg)

There's more but I can't loaf around all day.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 09:50:47 PM
Ohh I'm still loafing but while looking for something else I found this.

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/fundieteacher_zps813af630.png)

From: http://gawker.com/bible-thumping-bumpkins-make-buddhists-life-hell-at-la-1510067222
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 01, 2014, 09:55:00 PM
Ohh I'm still loafing but while looking for something else I found this.

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/fundieteacher_zps813af630.png)

From: http://gawker.com/bible-thumping-bumpkins-make-buddhists-life-hell-at-la-1510067222
So I was reading this article today about how MSNBC sacked a staff member for tweeting/strongly implying the right wing will be offended by a Cheerios ad. The article was okay but the comments were funny. Yes, the person shouldn't have used an MSNBC company account for that but then I notice that they tend to take action for this kind of offensive crap unlike the other side and defend themselves by the First Amendment. Chick-Fil-A and Duck Dynasty, anyone?

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/rightwing_asshats_zpsaa1a9c91.png)

I think if the right wants to make sense to everyone, they should really work on their image. First, know whether something is offensive.

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/offensiveerikson_zps9c66266b.png)

Second, name calling is the lowest in any form of argument.

(https://fbcdn-sphotos-c-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc1/t1/s526x395/644519_313277398799009_1831031695_n.jpg)

Third, work on bad logic and bad science.

(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-NcDCU4ZWAB8/UJ0wHVAfK0I/AAAAAAAADR8/uUedSBGap60/s1600/ToddAkin-rape.jpeg)

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/pwned_zps98db5ae0.png)

Fourth, don't use science to back up your unscientific comments or things that have nothing to do with science whatsover. Biology is soooo cruel from anyone who's ever studied biology. Didn't 98+% percent of everything that once lived on Earth become extinct?

(https://scontent-a-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/p480x480/1533929_648368708555918_848763371_n.jpg)

Fifth, fact check. Always fact check. (This one also has snark to it! As expected from a misguided and misinformed champion of teh righteous Bristol Palin)

(https://scontent-b-iad.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t1/1546360_653627538030035_978587031_n.jpg)

There's more but I can't loaf around all day.
Do you agree with this stuff?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 10:15:55 PM
I'm not stupid and I usually follow my advice.  It's not so much a set of beliefs as it is a set of observations.

Also next time don't quote pictures from the previous post.

(It's not obvious?)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 01, 2014, 10:16:51 PM
So....you do?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 01, 2014, 10:20:06 PM
First of all look at the difference between my comments and the picture.

Second, the pictures don't express all the same views. (Especially the article screencap)

THIRD IT IS OBVIOUS I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT THE RIGHT WING. SO NO I DON'T.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on February 01, 2014, 10:22:06 PM
Also next time don't quote pictures from the previous post.
Or, use spoiler tags if you're going to quote posts with large images.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on February 01, 2014, 10:26:57 PM
oh boy ruto shittalking someone
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 01, 2014, 10:30:25 PM
First of all look at the difference between my comments and the picture.

Second, the pictures don't express all the same views. (Especially the article screencap)

THIRD IT IS OBVIOUS I'M COMPLAINING ABOUT THE RIGHT WING. SO NO I DON'T.
Ok



oh boy ruto shittalking someone
Dont mean to snap....but you dont need to butt in on things like that all the time
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on February 01, 2014, 10:33:14 PM
Dont mean to snap....but you dont need to butt in on things like that all the time
Well excuse me if I want to speak what's on my mind.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 01, 2014, 10:39:54 PM
Well, it does get a little old
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on February 01, 2014, 11:04:59 PM
Well, it does get a little old
Psst...you know what else gets old? Pointless bickering.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 01, 2014, 11:09:31 PM
Psst...you know what else gets old? Pointless bickering.
Your right :)
That is a weakness of mine.


How are you doing? Havent seen you in a while :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BonusPwnage on February 01, 2014, 11:14:23 PM
How are you doing? Havent seen you in a while :)
Good. Just busy with school, family stuff, music.
Btw we should take this somewhere else (unless we're talking about politics).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on February 02, 2014, 03:26:05 AM
oh boy ruto shittalking spitllama

Fixed. Hehe.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on February 02, 2014, 03:35:12 AM
heh. That was an intense facebook debate. I decided to stay out of it.

Since no one is going to change their opinion on the matter, I suggest we leave it here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 02, 2014, 03:56:22 AM
If I learned anything from speech class, other than how to make speeches, it was that you can't convince anyone who's already taken a side on an argument. You can only convince people who are on the fence. Note: one side is usually better at their argument than another. Particularly if one has statistics and scientific, not anecdotal, examples to match up. Here's why:

(http://statistslayers.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/Argument_Pyramid.jpg)

I pulled most of those from Bristol Palin's facebook page. She should also stop trashing Wendy Davis for being a teenage mom and a success. Not a boring TV personality.

Fixed. Hehe.

Not the right term but more like pointing out fallacies and bad logic of an entire group.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on February 02, 2014, 04:49:31 AM
Honestly it seemed pretty tepid to me. There was no name-calling like in a lot of FB discussions. I actually really appreciated that. Granted Ruto and I were getting snippy with our tone, but conflicting opinions do that.

As of winter last year I actually left the Republican Party, for many of the reasons that Ruto illustrated. My conservative college has ironically been a catalyst for that switch. Figured that was worth noting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: DrP on February 02, 2014, 05:14:42 AM
So many young people are leaving the norm of being a part of one of the big parties and remaining unaffiliated or choosing a third party.

One of the many reasons that I voted for Ron Johnson and the fact that I am no longer a Republican allows me to not adhere to a party's beliefs if not all of them are mine own.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on February 02, 2014, 05:49:18 AM
Honestly it seemed pretty tepid to me. There was no name-calling like in a lot of FB discussions. I actually really appreciated that. Granted Ruto and I were getting snippy with our tone, but conflicting opinions do that.

Oh no, it was really tame compared to most political debates on facebook. I just meant it's a touchy issue.

Opinions about abortion are like nipples. Everyone has them, but womens' are significantly more relevant. It's easy for men to say abortion is right or wrong when they don't have to deal with the consequences of it. So I'm not saying I agree or disagree with either side. I just try to stay out of arguments about the subject.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 02, 2014, 05:58:37 AM
Oh no, it was really tame compared to most political debates on facebook. I just meant it's a touchy issue.

Opinions about abortion are like nipples. Everyone has them, but womens' are significantly more relevant.

Except if you're James.

(http://i.imgur.com/YpOCyv3.jpg)

And omg Slow cannot unread.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 17, 2014, 05:26:57 AM
Anyone realize this existed?  (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/16/watch-live-operation-american-spring-warns-of-fema-roundup-civil-war-chemtrails/) More info here (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/05/13/operation-american-spring-promises-to-drive-obama-from-office-this-friday/#.U3JS6Mxm1V0.twitter).

It seems like those angry trolls online are really the minority, most likely using multiple accounts...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FierceDeity on July 22, 2014, 09:09:17 PM
Are there any conservatives on here who can explain how suing the president isn't the most childish thing in existence? Because, like, I get it if you disagree with his policies and all, but what the actual fuck
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on July 22, 2014, 10:12:09 PM
It's another check on separate powers, something progressives have hated since the Wilson Era (or at least, when it's against their own party). Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were all sued by members of Congress during their time in office. If anything, it's much less childish than threats of impeachment.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on July 22, 2014, 10:16:46 PM
So can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FierceDeity on July 22, 2014, 10:42:33 PM
It's another check on separate powers, something progressives have hated since the Wilson Era (or at least, when it's against their own party). Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were all sued by members of Congress during their time in office. If anything, it's much less childish than threats of impeachment.

Yeah, but what does it actually accomplish? I won't defend members of my own party who've done it in the past, it still seems rather silly to me. If a president is actually breaking the law or willingly acting against the better interest of the country (not that I think any president has ever done the latter), wouldn't impeachment be the more reasonable venue to deal with it? Like, at least impeachment actually got Nixon to resign (albeit under an absurdly more clear-cut scenario). What has suing a president accomplished in the past?

So can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?

Go right ahead
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Roz~ on July 22, 2014, 10:57:04 PM
Guys. You have motherfuckin' Barack Obama. We're stuck with Stephen Harper. We can trade any day
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Zunawe on July 22, 2014, 11:52:16 PM
Motherfuckin' Barack Obama.
I vote official title change from "President" to this.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on July 23, 2014, 03:53:24 AM
If that happened, I would actually be excited for the 2016 Motherfuckin' election
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on July 23, 2014, 04:26:04 AM
So can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?

I have a friend who's really vocal about Australian politics. She agrees. She thinks he's the most backwards guy ever and thinks he's the Australian equivalent of the (American) Tea Party. I feel bad for Aussies but at the same time, at least they've had some sane policies before.

Guys. You have motherfuckin' Barack Obama. We're stuck with Stephen Harper. We can trade any day

The Aussie friend also said this but used the PM's name instead of Stephen Harper.

It's another check on separate powers, something progressives have hated since the Wilson Era (or at least, when it's against their own party). Bush, Clinton, and Reagan were all sued by members of Congress during their time in office. If anything, it's much less childish than threats of impeachment.

You must have phrased that badly. After all, you don't actually think that things were better if nothing changed right? I think environmental protection and food safety is a good thing, for starters. And a safety net. Tactics could always be better, but in some cases, you really need to order things. There's no problem with that. What the problem is, is that there are people that know better but are purposely hindering progress or improvements. Also Bush declared a war (some people call him and Cheney war criminals, can you imagine?) and it's cost so much money and Iraq is not really much better off today, with the useless army and militants running things.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on July 23, 2014, 06:51:24 AM
10 fucking years in Iraq, 100,000 civilian casualties, god knows how much money and they're as close as ever to an all-out civil war as ever. 'Murica

Also Obama isn't all that bad for America(except for the whole "complete invasion of privacy" thing. And the whole "can use drone strikes on our own citizens" thing. And the whole "our health system wasn't really all that well planned despite the 3 years it took to pass the goddamn bill that we totally could have used to make sure it was functioning correctly"...thing)

But he seems to be doing an excellent job at pissing off Germany's prime minister.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on July 23, 2014, 09:57:53 AM
So can I tell you how much our prime minister sucks?
Ugh... Fucking Tony...

But I like Julie Bishop. Particularly after how she handled the MH17 thing. A politician that actually did something for a change.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on July 23, 2014, 03:12:24 PM
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS AND MAKE A STUPID JOKE
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: braixen1264 on July 23, 2014, 06:33:21 PM
^^^
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on July 23, 2014, 06:40:19 PM
Lol why are you asking for jokes in a politics thread?

That makes no sense to me.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on July 23, 2014, 06:50:32 PM
Well, that's only fitting, considering politics is something of a joke these days.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on July 23, 2014, 06:57:22 PM
How about 3 1/2 minutes of Kim Jong-Un dancing and kung-fu fighting?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on July 23, 2014, 08:40:44 PM
I like how his face keeps changing color
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on July 23, 2014, 09:27:29 PM
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS AND MAKE A STUPID JOKE

(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/merkeltweet_zps3b4de0ce.png)

The other caption was "Angela Merkel did Nazi this coming"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on July 23, 2014, 09:37:51 PM
Spoiler
(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/merkeltweet_zps3b4de0ce.png)
[close]

The other caption was "Angela Merkel did Nazi this coming"
Now I can use this
(http://kidzshowz.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/tumblr_lw5pcgcane1qahbsb.jpg?w=640)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: spitllama on July 24, 2014, 12:22:24 AM
You must have phrased that badly. After all, you don't actually think that things were better if nothing changed right? I think environmental protection and food safety is a good thing, for starters. And a safety net. Tactics could always be better, but in some cases, you really need to order things. There's no problem with that. What the problem is, is that there are people that know better but are purposely hindering progress or improvements. Also Bush declared a war (some people call him and Cheney war criminals, can you imagine?) and it's cost so much money and Iraq is not really much better off today, with the useless army and militants running things.

He asked "how suing the president isn't the most childish thing in existence," and that's what I'm addressing. If anything, the lawsuit is a broad statement about the need to rein in presidential power rather than about the employer mandate (which Republicans really don't want implemented anyhow, and will probably already be implemented by the time a decision is reached on the lawsuit).
I'm definitely not going to argue that this lawsuit is a wise decision, because it isn't. It's a waste of time. However, the ability to sue the president retains its value-- to challenge the Constitutionality of an act and draw public attention. @Fierce, the lawsuits against Clinton and Reagan were actually both successful.

But to open the can of worms that you're talking about Ruto, executive orders are 100% unconstitutional. All legislative powers reside in Congress, and the most the executive branch can do is enforce and order the enforcement of preexisting laws. The President's "We Can't Wait" policy initiative is read literally as an intent to bypass Congress. Have past presidents used executive orders? Absolutely. Have some of them been helpful in the end? I would say so. But there are currently no limits on what can be ordered, because the law allowing for it doesn't exist. The necessary steps to make executive orders Constitutional have been ignored, and presidents have taken creative liberties in reading Article II.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 09, 2015, 12:50:01 AM
I think I'm going to bump this thread because we need someplace to discuss the 2016 election (and our leading Republican friend) without spamming the other thread with political posts.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on August 09, 2015, 01:39:58 AM
Let's all move to Canada
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FierceDeity on August 09, 2015, 01:47:31 AM
My friend had a good theory

Donald Trump is actually rooting for the democrats, and is appealing exclusively to the most vocal Republican base in order to win the nomination but not the general election

I really want to believe that tbh
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 09, 2015, 01:50:17 AM
Either that or he's going to run as a 3rd party, split the vote, guarantee a Democratic win, and then receive "compensation" from the party as a result. Or maybe he'll ask the Republican party to pay him off not to run as a 3rd party.

No matter what, I don't see this situation ending well.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FierceDeity on August 09, 2015, 01:57:30 AM
Just to be clear I was joking about my conspiracy theory

And kinda really hope you are as well
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on August 09, 2015, 02:24:39 AM
From Gawker:
Spoiler
(http://i662.photobucket.com/albums/uu347/deku_nut/Untitled-1_zpsgtiw0wir.jpg)
[close]

From Dude's article:
Spoiler
"The real estate mogul elaborated in a statement later Saturday morning, claiming he said "'blood coming out of her eyes and whatever,' meaning nose."

He added: "Only a deviant would think anything else.""

See, he's blaming everyone else for being deviants!
[close]

I can't find the comment with the guy saying he wants Trump to hire him for a job as a Mexican rapist/drug dealer.

Knowing Trump, he might even sue if he doesn't win the presidency xD What's disturbing are all the people still sticking up for this guy. Women are really humorless about those sort of comments...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 09, 2015, 03:40:03 AM
It's probably good to have a republican in office so that they don't mess with the economy and just let it fix itself
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on August 09, 2015, 03:52:27 AM
The problem with that is Trump, but we'll see what happens.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 09, 2015, 06:02:08 AM
It's probably good to have a republican in office so that they don't mess with the economy and just let it fix itself
The economy that the Republicans largely crashed by repealing Glass Steagle.....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on August 09, 2015, 06:32:18 AM
I'm just going to assume Nocturne's comment was sarcastic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: AwesomeYears on August 09, 2015, 01:22:15 PM
Guys, how do I stop this topic from showing up on my Recent Unread Topics? I'm not American and I already have to deal with Tony Abbott.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on August 09, 2015, 02:31:23 PM
I'm just going to assume Nocturne's comment was sarcastic.
I don't think he was being sarcastic :p
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on August 09, 2015, 04:51:00 PM
I watched the republican debate and man was it hard to watch
i hear shit like "we need to build a wall" but nothing concerning the actual problems in your society .-.

I'm just going to assume Nocturne's comment was sarcastic.
though that's the exact view of the right-liberitarianistic folk that tend to appear in the US

It's probably good to have a republican in office so that they don't mess with the economy and just let it fix itself
[/Swanson]
Some major parts of the goverment's job include(besides providing services such as national security) balancing the difference in income, protecting the environment and creating peace within the society. In general, creating well-being. These do not go hand to hand with the mindset of classic liberalism!! The rightists would argue with me about how balancing the difference in income is the government's duty.
But let me explain, as the difference in income becomes larger, it essentially results in more people suffering from poverty. And as long as the people who suffer from poverty remain a minority, they can't do anything about it, they can't make a change. The social mobility would pretty much be at a standstill, meaning in general the lower class wouldn't have a chance to rise to a higher class, as they are struggling to even be able to support themselves. In general, those people are more likely to be desperate enough to break the law in order to try to make their lives and situation better. And as you might deduce from all that, the difference in income is also in correlation with the severity of the criminal law. "The more severe the criminal law is, the less crime is likely to occur." It's also notable how corrupted your justice system could become (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/30/baltimore-rioters-parents-500000-bail-allen-bullock), for example in this case favouring the upper class(instead of whites).
I would agree that relying on creative destruction would work flawlessly in theory, but the thing is that it could take generations for injustice(=like monopolies that'd break the law) to be corrected, and the higher class could easily corrupt the public sector with their wealth. Exactly what Donald Trump has been doing, "donating" to certain people's campaigns and such and getting political favours in return. Free-market and individualism is exactly like socialism, good on paper but not irl.

It's a matter of perspective. The rightist perspective is incredibly egoistic and just shows how you care about yourself. And the leftist perspective is altruistic and utilitarianistic in the sense that it wants what is best for the most amount of people. I'm no saint, but I personally would much rather have everyone have a chance to be on the same level and the social status would only be ultimately defined by how hard they are willing to work for it, instead of being born rich and then rewarded for it. You can't say that either socialism or capitalism is "wrong", but neither of them works when taken to the extreme.
Not to show you anything like "we have the best system look at us you all suck", but to show you why I'm really satisfied and think that the Nordic model works well. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordic_model) Like read the wiki article, and I found a great Reddit page while trying to find flaws in our system (https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/2k6r90/cmv_i_consider_the_nordic_model_the_best/). I don't really agree with all of that criticism with my moral views, and I find that the pros outweigh the cons. Again, not doing this to "rub it in your face", but to show you how things could be.
How things could be, since my homie my bro Bernie Sanders (https://twitter.com/sensanders) is running for president and I'm completely behind him, and I've promoted him as much as I could have so far!! Bernie Sanders is trying to bring the Nordic model to US, and I think he could very well make United States the land of opportunities it once was!! I also came across this article which is my homie Bernie talkin about what you could learn from Denmark (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html).

All you 18+, remember to register in order to vote in the preliminaries!!! Also check out Bernie Sanders, imo the best candidate :]
also I'm interested if anyone here is more willing to vote for Clinton instead of Sanders, like I don't get it why?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 09, 2015, 06:50:14 PM
I'm going to a Bernie Sanders Rally today in Portland!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on August 09, 2015, 10:21:15 PM
Hahaha Waddle makes such a good point :P

All you 18+, remember to register in order to vote in the preliminaries!!! Also check out Bernie Sanders, imo the best candidate :]
also I'm interested if anyone here is more willing to vote for Clinton instead of Sanders, like I don't get it why?

I would vote for Sanders over Clinton, but from what I've heard, people want her because they think she has a better chance against the Republican candidate and that Sanders was too radical (which turns off some people). Clinton also has more experience with the government since she's been First Lady, a senator, Secretary of State...Right now the Republicans are really expecting her to be nominated, so you won't believe the slander they're dishing out against a single person.

I think the people that happily eat up any sort of garbage posted by these sites have a lot of personal problems. These same people are more willing to blame some Mexicans for their misery, rather than realize the person they voted for, is screwing them over. I saw someone defend George Bush with "he's not perfect, but at least he believes in God." Someone is too senile to remember what he did in office!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 04:20:51 AM
So, I ended up having to go back from the Bernie rally- because it was full before the show nearly an hour before the rally started.
Nearly 20K people attended.
If anyone still thinks he's a fringe candidate, consider the poll out today that shows he's only 5% or so behind Hillary, even accounting for margin of error.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 10, 2015, 04:32:39 AM
my friends call him a socialist xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on August 10, 2015, 06:29:49 AM
my friends call him a socialist xD
i call you a libertarian xDDD

He even calls himself a democratic socialist. It's not an insult or dirty, if you'd know what democratic socialism means. We have the Scandinavian countries and other European countries which have had social-democratic governments and labour goverments, and we have free healthcare and education and they are basic civil rights. Childcare, strong retirement benefits, we're often pro-environment, just in general our countries the government works for the middle class instead of the billionaire and rich industrialists. (x (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFAq-4Vv5c0))
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 10, 2015, 07:05:37 AM
my friends call him a socialist xD
He calls himself a socialist- and more specifically, a democratic socialist.
Same form of government that Canada, the UK, France, Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Spain have.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on August 11, 2015, 09:38:19 AM
Oh yeah politics are so much fun. I really enjoy discussing the trade-off between equality and equity. Or is that economics?

Hm, all these issues that they argue over. Are they issues? Are they non issues? Didn't they already decide that some time ago? Are they going to make radical changes that affect your personal life or minor changes that don't personally affect you so you secretly don't care?

Well the important thing is family and friendship, honesty values, and no one got arrested. *spoken guitar riff*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Mashi on August 11, 2015, 10:12:53 AM
Would be very interesting if Sanders won the primary.  I feel some of his stances are a bit radical, but I think most of his stances have the right idea for a progressive nation.  Haven't really been keeping up too much with the political sphere, however, so I'm a bit ignorant on specifics.

srsly tho, when will the usa enter a socialist states like its european buddies so that i can win election of president and slowly aggrandize power on my path to world dictator

ill hire jub3r7 and ruto as assistant dictators.  applications for assistant assistant dictators are also on file.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 06:49:46 PM
He seems radical, but in all actuality, his stances reside with the majority of americans.
Getting money out of politics- American people support.
Heavier taxes on the rich- American people support
Minimum wage to 15 an hour- American people HUGELY support (in fact, most republicans also support this- around 60% or so in the last poll I saw)
The list goes on. Probably the most dubious on his thing is a single payer healthcare system, which many ignorant kool-aid drinkers will hate because it's an extension of the Affordable Care act.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 11, 2015, 07:24:30 PM
a higher minimum wage seems like it might be a problem
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on August 11, 2015, 07:27:51 PM
Random thoughts, but I feel like saying them:
Heavier taxes on the rich- American people support
But it won't change anything. Anyone making over 1mil a year can just pay to exploit loopholes and this would have little effect on them
Quote
Minimum wage to 15 an hour- American people HUGELY support (in fact, most republicans also support this- around 60% or so in the last poll I saw)
Raising the minimum wage is one of the worst things that could happen, imo. People just think it would mean more money for those working minimum wage jobs. But, all it would do is drive up the cost of living proportionately, as everyone making above minimum wage would demand a proportionate increase in wages, and, after a year or two, those making minimum wage are no better off than before the wage rise. It may even be worse off, in fact. As soon as the wage increase is announced, every place that employs minimum wage people is going to invest heavily in automated systems. Granted, this may not benefit the companies that much after the market fully shifts, but, by that time, many minimum wage jobs will have been replaced by robots with a single person hired to maintain them. I see no benefit in the long term for this in the least.

edit: Ninja'd by a tl;dr
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 11, 2015, 07:28:48 PM
heh
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on August 11, 2015, 08:18:14 PM
If you look at how much inflation has occurred, the minimum wage is awful.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 09:11:46 PM
Tell your talking points to NYC, Seattle, and several other places that already have.
If you're concerned about businesses losing money, take a look at how much the CEO's make- thousands of dollars an hour.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on August 11, 2015, 09:27:25 PM
Wait, I said that wrong.
If you look at how much inflation has occurred, the current minimum wage amount needs to go up.
there we go. The wording was bad.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 11, 2015, 09:28:41 PM
I'm more worried about unemployment going up because of companies refusing to pay more than x amount
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 09:39:19 PM
If the federal minimum wage is $15, a living wage, as it should be, and companies start protesting and hiring less, the CEO's should also realize they're giving themselves thousands of dollars an hour and complaining about an 8 dollar increase.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on August 11, 2015, 09:46:30 PM
Random thoughts, but I feel like saying them:But it won't change anything. Anyone making over 1mil a year can just pay to exploit loopholes and this would have little effect on them
Close the loopholes.

Raising the minimum wage is one of the worst things that could happen, imo. People just think it would mean more money for those working minimum wage jobs. But, all it would do is drive up the cost of living proportionately, as everyone making above minimum wage would demand a proportionate increase in wages, and, after a year or two, those making minimum wage are no better off than before the wage rise. It may even be worse off, in fact. As soon as the wage increase is announced, every place that employs minimum wage people is going to invest heavily in automated systems. Granted, this may not benefit the companies that much after the market fully shifts, but, by that time, many minimum wage jobs will have been replaced by robots with a single person hired to maintain them. I see no benefit in the long term for this in the least.

I've heard these arguments before, but a lot of them don't actually hold. I see you're using a slippery slope argument (if wages go up, EVERYTHING else will go up). It's possible that a burger might cost more but it won't double if McDonald's wants to stay in business. Don't forget the fight for the wage increase is to give workers a living wage. Otherwise, they'd all apply for welfare and suck up tax money that everyone else has to pay.

I can tell you that unless robots can cook as well, McDonald's and Subways can't be fully automated. Most of the time, people are just pissed off because they don't want to be the bottom rung of society. What also doesn't make sense is why you're complaining about a lowly fast food worker's wage and not the CEO's, which is about 400x the worker's.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 11, 2015, 10:00:25 PM
If the federal minimum wage is $15, a living wage, as it should be, and companies start protesting and hiring less, the CEO's should also realize they're giving themselves thousands of dollars an hour and complaining about an 8 dollar increase.
A company's goal is to maximize profit.  If they have to spend more money on workers then they have to decrease the number of workers until it reaches equilibrium.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on August 11, 2015, 10:02:49 PM
Or cut the the higher up's salaries
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 10:16:18 PM
^ Which would make much more sense, considering they make absurd amounts of money. Say a CEO makes 2,000 dollars an hour (which isn't that high for a CEO), and he works a normal day (we'll say 8 hours), he makes 16,000 dollars that day.
If a minimum wage worker wants to make that much in a year (which is hardly anything for a yearly salary) with the current federal minimum wage (7.25 an hour), he/she has to work 2206.9 hours that year.
Consider that there are a maximum of 251 work days a year. Say you get sick for two weeks throughout the entire year (10 days), and take 6 days off. You have to work about 9.5 hours a day for 235 days to make a living wage with the current federal income.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 11, 2015, 10:47:09 PM
I love the philosophy of punishing those who get rich with extremely high tax rates when they already pay a much larger percentage of government revenue than they should proportionate to their income.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 11, 2015, 10:51:41 PM
You are aware that the top 400 in the US last year paid 18% in income tax, right?
Some of this can be accounted by investments being taxed at a lower rate, but there are still plenty of other factors that come into play.
Read about it more here (http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/11/24/its-good-to-be-rich-you-get-a-lower-tax-rate/?_r=0).
I'm more concerned about taxing huge corporations, 20% of which aren't paying anything in taxes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ZeldaFan on August 12, 2015, 12:08:31 AM
Minimum wage SHOULD be raised, maybe not necessarily to $15 an hour. I read this article that explained how Seattle (one of the states that made minimum wage $15 an hour) is seeing a trend in their minimum wage employees: they are requesting to work fewer hours so they can keep their government subsidies for food, child care, and rent. So even switching to $15 an hour (which is more than I've EVER made, at age 24) still hasn't actually helped people get out of poverty and their reliance on the government.

Plus, wouldn't small businesses pretty much HAVE to close down? No way they could afford to pay employees that high of a wage and still keep all of them.

Minimum wage in Utah is $7.25. That's bullshit. NO ONE can live off of that wage, even working full time. And don't even THINK about going to school to get a higher-paying job without accruing thousands in debt:
Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/sY0IG5u.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 12, 2015, 12:13:14 AM
the solution is simple
lower the minimum wage in 1970
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on August 12, 2015, 12:32:43 AM
You're assuming they actually report their income and assets like everyone else. They don't (always).

The money stashed overseas don't get taxed. Some forms of income aren't taxed or they do at a much lower rate, and people put their money in things like property rather than let it sit in a bank. I'm saying that if you want to live in a country with an army, coast guard and highways, you should really pay for it. It's not a punishment. Otherwise, spend your billions on a private army, plane, roads, defense/intelligence and see if you're better off paying it yourself or pooling your money together with 300 million other people for it.

In NY, the $15/hour wage is actually only for fast food workers because they fought for it. One of the reasons was so they don't have to be dependent on welfare to live. I guess we'll have to wait to see how that works. Personally I don't think $15 is even enough for childcare (how much is a daycare per hour? I get paid about $10-$12 per hour babysitting ._.) so maybe that's why they still want government assistance for that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on August 12, 2015, 01:13:39 AM
Or cut the the higher up's salaries
This is easier said than done. Do you really think the CEO of a massive company would cut his salary? He'd say, "why should I? I'm the CEO, after all," and nothing would change. Since it's the higher ups who decide their own salaries, there's now way they'd change them.
And, besides, say a company has 500,000 employees, and the CEO cuts his wage by 2 million and gives that two mill to the lower downs. They would only see a wage increase of $4.00 per year. I am against CEOs taking massive portions of the profits. But you have to remember, when it gets spread around, it thins out. This isn't to say that the CEO's wages shouldn't be cut, but that cutting them may not have as big of an impact as you may think. In fact, that extra 2 mill would probably just go toward more R and D, possibly by an outside company, rather than to the employees.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on August 12, 2015, 01:16:36 AM
Then due to the massive amounts of people leaving company "Wedontpayenough" for company "Wepaywell" I'm sure "Wedontpayenough" will probably go out of business, and it serves them right.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on August 12, 2015, 01:37:43 AM
And, besides, say a company has 500,000 employees, and the CEO cuts his wage by 2 million and gives that two mill to the lower downs.

Lmao 500,000 is 1/6E3 of the population of the US. There aren't that many workers! There are 90,000 in the US, and it took a bit of digging but I'm seeing the CEO's salary was $27 million in 2012? This is just the CEO (and 2012), not counting the entire board of executives, each with a salary of tens of millions...and how much did McDonald's profit last year? In the billions? The workers at the bottom would notice an increase.

No one would vote for their own pay cut, but 1) fire half the staff and lose business/productivity/raise prices which would be bad for business 2) move of of the US and do business without labor laws (bad idea, most people probably can't afford to eat at McDonald's often enough in those countries). It's so much easier to stay in the US and pay taxes. People will actually eat fast food here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on August 12, 2015, 03:17:12 AM
I really, truly belive that McDonald's will be fully automated by robots in the next 10-15 years. Even with the minimum wage as it is labor is still one of the biggest costs. Eliminating thst makes number 1 a viable option.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on August 12, 2015, 03:27:08 AM
McDonald's is already beginning to install touchscreens instead of cashiers taking orders (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/12/09/mcdonalds-to-install-touch-screens-in-2015/).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on August 12, 2015, 03:44:16 AM
Lmao 500,000 is 1/6 of the population of the US.
Um...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on August 12, 2015, 04:14:53 AM
McDonald's is already beginning to install touchscreens instead of cashiers taking orders (http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2014/12/09/mcdonalds-to-install-touch-screens-in-2015/).
That's pretty cool. A lot of shops in our downtown area which is really fancy have recently updated to those IPad thingys.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ZeldaFan on August 12, 2015, 04:30:04 AM
Lmao 500,000 is 1/6 of the population of the US. There aren't that many workers! There are 90,000 in the US, and it took a bit of digging but I'm seeing the CEO's salary was $27 million in 2012?
Um...

Yeah sorry, maybe it was a typo... Your point made sense but 500,000 is more like 1/635 of the US
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 12, 2015, 04:42:07 AM
The US is quite populated. Current population is around 320 million IIRC.
Though MLF would have you believe it's underpopulated and that people just want you to get abortions  ::)
jk mlf it was a joke
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 12, 2015, 05:03:19 AM
Plenty of people believe abortion is wrong without it having anything to do with population.  Don't bring it up
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 12, 2015, 05:11:27 AM
I was making a joke, in reference to a joke that MLF made in the debate thread.
I even wrote, albeit in small text,
Quote
jk mlf it was a joke
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on August 12, 2015, 05:26:15 AM
Do you have a sensor or filter for what is acceptable to say or joke about tho
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 12, 2015, 05:32:24 AM
I have one, just not super restrictive.
And I wouldn't normally just attack MLF like that, even though I disagree with him. I was referencing a joke he made.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on August 12, 2015, 07:59:20 PM
Yeah sorry, maybe it was a typo... Your point made sense but 500,000 is more like 1/635 of the US

Um...

Yeah I fixed it, I forgot to type the E2.

Edit: Don't make stuff political, and like I said, you can't really replace people cooking yet. Although I would like a robotic burger flipper to avoid grease burns. One more thing, don't mess with people who make your food. Or BAM! Diarrhea.

Do you have a sensor or filter for what is acceptable to say or joke about tho

Remember back during the time when the now "over 20s" were on the forum and we got along swimmingly? It's not just because dahans is a bear, but because the smart asshat posts and ego trips are out of control.

And I wouldn't normally just attack MLF like that, even though I disagree with him.

He doesn't feel the same way about a lot of us, me in particular. So, I banned him for making those remarks and he has to bombard me with PMs here, expecting me to change my mind or accusing me of XYZ. And can't get over it. I'm over it and once again, my PM box is only for bears.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on August 20, 2015, 06:48:19 PM
ironically Deez Nuts is a better candidate than donald trump
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 20, 2015, 06:49:51 PM
He's the worst candidate in the entire GOP honestly, I just can't get behind how obnoxious and arrogant he is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 20, 2015, 09:32:21 PM
ironically Deez Nuts is a better candidate than donald trump
wasn't that jimmy fallon
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 20, 2015, 10:16:02 PM
If I have to choose one GOP candidate..... I'd shoot myself.
No, I would go out and start supporting Trump so everyone would see how stupid he is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 21, 2015, 03:42:46 AM
Go with John Kasich, I think even a lot of the liberals in Ohio like what he's done. Plus balancing the federal budget sounds nice to me.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 29, 2015, 09:43:25 PM
why do all the internet and news pictures of Donald Trump have him with the most ridiculous faces
they make me ill
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on August 29, 2015, 09:50:14 PM
why do all the internet and news pictures of Donald Trump have him with the most ridiculous faces
they make me ill
Because he's a ridiculous man.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on August 29, 2015, 09:51:12 PM
I just don't get how someone who acts like a petty third grader can get as much support as he does lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on August 29, 2015, 09:54:16 PM
Because people keep talking about him instead of ignoring him.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 29, 2015, 10:06:38 PM
And because as arrogant and annoying as he is, he's ridiculously entertaining. Plus people know that  he's not going to lie to the American people over and over again like the *coughs* current administration does. He's going to speak his mind like he always has.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on August 29, 2015, 10:30:51 PM
At least are current administration is actually trying to come up with legitimate solutions. "Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is just so uneducated and stupid. A sincere idiot is still an idiot. He can go down with Sarah Palin in the hall of "people to use as ammunition against the conservatives."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 29, 2015, 10:39:28 PM
At least are current administration is actually trying to come up with legitimate solutions.
No, not really. They're ignoring the entire immigration problem.

Quote
"Build a wall and make Mexico pay for it" is just so uneducated and stupid. A sincere idiot is still an idiot.
I agree, I didn't say that I liked him.

Quote
He can go down with Sarah Palin in the hall of "people to use as ammunition against the conservatives."
As long as I can still use Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Jonathan Gruber as ammuniation against liberals!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on August 29, 2015, 10:40:25 PM
Don't worry, I'm still planning to run in 2028.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 29, 2015, 10:41:55 PM
Seeing as how you actually went through with your plan to become a moderator I'm honestly planning on you actually running.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 29, 2015, 11:55:49 PM
As long as I can still use Al Gore, Joe Biden, and Jonathan Gruber as ammuniation against liberals!
And I'll use your spelling against you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on August 29, 2015, 11:59:00 PM
Don't worry, I'm still planning to run in 2028.

What will your platform be?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on August 30, 2015, 12:01:50 AM
"Don't vote for stupid. Interpret that however you wish."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on August 30, 2015, 12:41:28 AM
And I'll use your spelling against you.
Seeing as how you had to edit your post I'm going to guess that I'm not the only one  ;)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on August 30, 2015, 12:46:17 AM
Seeing as how you had to edit your post I'm going to guess that I'm not the only one  ;)
All I did was remove "all".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on August 30, 2015, 12:46:43 AM
Don't worry, I'm still planning to run in 2028.
*sigh*

Why can't it be 2028 already... why do we have to sit through all these boring elections?!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on August 30, 2015, 12:51:01 AM
Don't worry, I'll be running and campaigning constantly on the web starting next year.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMarioPianist on August 30, 2015, 01:46:02 AM
Don't worry, I'll be running and campaigning constantly on the web starting next year.

Z for president! Oh wait. My story...maybe not Z for president...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on August 30, 2015, 04:31:50 AM
Z for president! Oh wait. My story...maybe not Z for president...
WHAT A TEASER
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 06, 2015, 11:25:27 PM
http://cirno99.tumblr.com/post/128512446116/rebelyeen-a-real-movie-i-held-in-my-real

I don't know whether to laugh at the people who believe this or feel sorry for them
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 06, 2015, 11:27:25 PM
Why can't both parties just agree that neither of them are terrorists or the spawn of Hell and then just go from there
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 06, 2015, 11:28:49 PM
Good question, you tell me.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 06, 2015, 11:31:58 PM
Well yeah I get that negatively attacking your opponents is a way to be successful, but there's pointing out  flaws and there's making baseless and extreme accusations. Obama isn't a demon-spawn, he isn't a terrorist, and he isn't a Muslim.

Similarly George Bush isn't a demon-spawn, terrorist, or the devil. You can like or dislike whatever you want but baseless accusations are just childish.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on September 06, 2015, 11:40:09 PM
I love how it says "copy and share this disc" in the corner instead of some anti-copyright thing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 06, 2015, 11:51:52 PM
While not demonspawn literally, there are certain groups that I would personally deem to hold incredibly dangerous ideologies and whose proliferation is detrimental to not just the US, but global society.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 12:42:09 AM
While not demonspawn literally, there are certain groups that I would personally deem to hold incredibly dangerous ideologies and whose proliferation is detrimental to not just the US, but global society.
Of course. Both sides are going to think that about the other side always and forever. And that's okay.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 07, 2015, 03:25:37 AM
Interesting finds by the Violence Policy Center. See here: http://www.vpc.org/press/1506self.htm
The studies done here show that guns are actually rarely used in self defense. But go ahead and read it for yourself.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 04:11:31 AM
Well yeah I get that negatively attacking your opponents is a way to be successful, but there's pointing out  flaws and there's making baseless and extreme accusations. Obama isn't a demon-spawn, he isn't a terrorist, and he isn't a Muslim.

Similarly George Bush isn't a demon-spawn, terrorist, or the devil. You can like or dislike whatever you want but baseless accusations are just childish.

Why is the word Muslim being used in the same sentence as "demon-spawn" and "terrorist"? Even if Obama was Muslim it should be a non-factor given freedom of religion and and separation of church and state.

Interesting finds by the Violence Policy Center. See here: http://www.vpc.org/press/1506self.htm
The studies done here show that guns are actually rarely used in self defense. But go ahead and read it for yourself.

The real question is:
a) How much would banning guns affect unjustified homicides? Is reducing the number of justified homicides to zero worth the potentially nonexistent drop in unjustified ones.
b) Would criminals be more likely to kill if they can be certain their victims won't be able to defend themselves, thus increasing unjustified homocides.

I agree with outlawing modern guns, but that statistic alone does not address the majority of the pro-gun argument. You'd have to dive into homocide rates in countries without guns, which proves your point and is pretty much checkmate... so yeah.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 07, 2015, 04:40:53 AM
The real question is:
a) How much would banning guns affect unjustified homicides? Is reducing the number of justified homicides to zero worth the potentially nonexistent drop in unjustified ones.
b) Would criminals be more likely to kill if they can be certain their victims won't be able to defend themselves, thus increasing unjustified homocides.

I agree with outlawing modern guns, but that statistic alone does not address the majority of the pro-gun argument. You'd have to dive into homocide rates in countries without guns, which proves your point and is pretty much checkmate... so yeah.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 05:22:32 AM
Why is the word Muslim being used in the same sentence as "demon-spawn" and "terrorist"? Even if Obama was Muslim it should be a non-factor given freedom of religion and and separation of church and state.
It's just another spurious accusation that I often hear regarding him. Sorry, didn't mean to equate the three in that sense.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 05:27:23 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.

I don't mind people owning muskets and hunting rifles, the more potent modern guns we have though should stay in the military.

EDIT: Basically japan gun control.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 05:36:18 AM
It's just another spurious accusation that I often hear regarding him. Sorry, didn't mean to equate the three in that sense.

I understand, but it still kinda falls into the same line as "I don't hate gays or anything, but don't ever call me gay." Why would you need to defend him from something that shouldn't even be offensive. Sorry, the laws of the FireArrow say I must get butthurt about this.

I still love you blue <3
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 05:42:41 AM
I understand, but it still kinda falls into the same line as "I don't hate gays or anything, but don't ever call me gay." Why would you need to defend him from something that shouldn't even be offensive. Sorry, the laws of the FireArrow say I must get butthurt about this.
Because it is kind of offensive to call someone something that they're clearly not and/or have stated that they're not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 05:53:47 AM
Because it is kind of offensive to call someone something that they're clearly not and/or have stated that they're not.
Bob: "you're so tall"
Short person: "eh not really"

Bob: "you're straight"
Gay person: "nah I'm not"

No, it's because of society subconsciously favoring one over the other.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 07, 2015, 06:03:37 PM
FA you don't know what it's like to have everyone assume you're straight when you aren't and I personally hate it but I can't do anything because nw ohio so don't use that argument
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 07, 2015, 06:05:04 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate
You can tell the countries that have tighter gun regulations (notice I said REGULATION, not outlawing) have lower gun deaths.
Now banning guns would be a bad idea, for the same reason banning most drugs are a bad idea: when you ban something, it's driven underground and cannot be regulated or taxed by the state.

imo there's no legitimate reason for anyone to own lethal weaponry outside of purely recreational hunting, or property defense from like bears and shit when you're way in the wilderness.  The second amendment is an antiquated establishment that served its purpose long, long ago, and should now be put to rest.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 07:56:17 PM
FA you don't know what it's like to have everyone assume you're straight when you aren't and I personally hate it but I can't do anything because nw ohio so don't use that argument

Spoiler
Did you not know I was gay or am I missing something? I'm gay, everyone assumes I'm straight unless I go around wearing pink skinny jeans, the adjective used to denote my sexuality is also a general term for anything undesirable. When talking about someone who was super sensitive about being called gay, my friend said "Well I can't blame him, that would be horrible if anyone thought I was gay... (sees my expression) ...unless you are gay, then it's fine of course." Homecoming freshman year, even though my friend knew I was gay, I was expected to take a girl on a date "as friends" and I was supposed to be perfectly comfortable about it. Hell, I'll be comfortable with that as soon as I see two straight guys take each other on as prom dates "as friends." I know what it's like to live in a redneck community because I went to an entirely Mormon (the bad kind of mormon, for any mormon folks here who aren't like that) private school around the same time they were petitioning prop 8 (ban gay marriage.) It was kind of an odd feeling knowing that if I tried to come out now, everyone would hate me and the staff wouldn't be on my side.
/rant
[close]

For those of you who read that and thought for any of those things "You're just being sensitive" "There's nothing wrong with that" etc., try to respect the fact that these things make it extremely difficult for gay youth and you lose nothing by trying to be less condescending to a minority.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 07, 2015, 08:09:39 PM
Oh.

I was thinking someone else was on that list in place of you. Oops.

Still I'd rather be recognized as what I am than what everyone thinks I should be.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 08:36:12 PM
Oh.

I was thinking someone else was on that list in place of you. Oops.

Still I'd rather be recognized as what I am than what everyone thinks I should be.

But there's a difference between someone thinking you're straight and society assuming and expecting you to be straight. I find it extremely insulting when straight people, whom already are usually assumed to be straight, flip their shits whenever someone suggests they might not be, even in jest or out of curiosity.

In America at least, this "I'm insulted you called me that because I'm not that" is only true of any non-christian religion/lack there of and homosexuality (for some reason if you call someone bi or asexual, they'll just politely correct you and not care). When you take offense to words like that, you're insulting everyone who may belong to that group.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 07, 2015, 08:57:11 PM
I'm not saying I "flip my shit" when someone asks if I have a girlfriend or not, but I'd rather they keep their noses out of it in case I may or may not be gay.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 09:00:37 PM
I'm not saying I "flip my shit" when someone asks if I have a girlfriend or not, but I'd rather they keep their noses out of it in case I may or may not be gay.

I'm saying some straight people flip their shit when someone asks if they have a same sex significant other or not. Yes, I agree with you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 07, 2015, 09:03:32 PM
I thought you were saying it the other way around lol

I mean from that second paragraph it seemed like you were talking about everybody

...what were we arguing about again?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 09:36:13 PM
Are we arguing about gays?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on September 07, 2015, 09:37:40 PM
Are we arguing about gays?
No.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 09:49:49 PM
I thought you were saying it the other way around lol

I mean from that second paragraph it seemed like you were talking about everybody

...what were we arguing about again?

It's insulting to a group of people when you get overly butthurt about being associated with them or really any situation where you give the word a negative connotation. People incorrectly assume that it isn't offensive because they're the ones being "offended."

i.e.
I totally ship you with *insert same gender person here*.
WTF is your problem I'm not gay ship me with a girl or something!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 07, 2015, 09:58:26 PM
By other way around, I meant switch the homosexual person and the heterosexual person.

I.e.
I totally ship you with *insert opposite gender person here*.
WTF is your problem I'm not straight ship me with a guy or something!

I was confused at this (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4829.msg308565#msg308565) point in my posting but I got it after here (http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=4829.msg308570#msg308570) so there's no need to continue telling me your pov when I agree with you
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 10:05:06 PM
Yeah, apologies, I have a lot of problems trying to get my thoughts into comprehensible words.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 10:11:20 PM
Yeah, apologies, I have a lot of problems trying to get my thoughts into comprehensible words.
You'd make a great politician
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 10:13:55 PM
You'd make a great politician

The only politician who clearly states what he wants is Donald Trump. What a sad world we live in.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 10:49:42 PM
I don't really understand...what are we arguing about?...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Latios212 on September 07, 2015, 10:53:33 PM
I don't really understand...what are we arguing about?...
Nothing. Don't worry about it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 10:59:05 PM
Nothing. Don't worry about it.

I wanna be part of the argument though...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 07, 2015, 11:02:26 PM
I wanna be part of the argument though...
In that case, just say something that isn't politically correct and watch the fireworks.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 07, 2015, 11:02:48 PM
That sounds like something Hitler would say...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 11:05:09 PM
In that case, just say something that isn't politically correct and watch the fireworks.

*holds up swastika*

Heil Hitler
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 07, 2015, 11:07:37 PM
Distracting from the anti semite, here's an interesting site and an interesting article.
The site is conservapedia, created because wikipedia "had too much of a liberal bias" (y'know, with all those facts and all that data).
The page on climate change (http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming) is especially interesting.
"The global warming theory is the liberal hoax that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used the theory of man-made global warming to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 07, 2015, 11:32:35 PM
*holds up swastika*

Heil Hitler
fyi, this is bannable, so don't do that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 07, 2015, 11:36:02 PM
fyi, this is bannable, so don't do that.

Well blue's the one that told me to start an argument...

Just out of curiosity, even if I was being serious(which i wasn't), why can't we have our own religions\beliefs? I mean, surely someone here likes hitler...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on September 07, 2015, 11:41:15 PM
Just out of curiosity, even if I was being serious(which i wasn't), why can't we have our own religions\beliefs? I mean, surely someone here likes hitler...
You can. But saying you support a man who caused the murder of innocent millions just because of their race/religious beliefs is not acceptable in any way.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 07, 2015, 11:43:46 PM
You can, but there's no freedom of speech on a private web forum.  We won't be harboring that kind of scum here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 07, 2015, 11:51:05 PM
Distracting from the anti semite, here's an interesting site and an interesting article.
The site is conservapedia, created because wikipedia "had too much of a liberal bias" (y'know, with all those facts and all that data).
The page on climate change (http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming) is especially interesting.
"The global warming theory is the liberal hoax that the world is becoming dangerously warmer due to the emission of greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide. Liberals have used the theory of man-made global warming to seek rationing by government of life-saving energy production and consumption."

If anything uses the word conservative or liberal in its argument, you know it probably isn't legit.

In that case, just say something that isn't politically correct and watch the fireworks.

Political correctness can be taken too far, but it exists for a reason. We don't want to end up like this:
Spoiler
(https://standupforamerica.files.wordpress.com/2011/03/multiculturalism-poster-denigration.jpg?w=420&h=315)
[close]

EDIT: The lovely source. (https://cpnagasaki.wordpress.com/tag/political-correctness/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 08, 2015, 12:02:58 AM
You can, but there's no freedom of speech on a private web forum.  We won't be harboring that kind of scum here.

I see. Well good thing I'm agnostic\protestant and not...Hitlerist? Or whatever the hell it is...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 12:08:47 AM
I see. Well good thing I'm agnostic\protestant and not...Hitlerist? Or whatever the hell it is...

... Hitler is not a religion wtf
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Oasis on September 08, 2015, 12:13:50 AM
@Altissimo and @ThatGamer: Although, Hitler might be Christian. No one is exactly sure, though I highly doubt it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 12:15:24 AM
what does hitler's religion have to do with anything
what does hitler have to do with anything
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 08, 2015, 12:19:16 AM
@Altissimo and @ThatGamer: Although, Hitler might be Christian. No one is exactly sure, though I highly doubt it.

Doubt it. Pretty sure hitler was Satist.

what does hitler's religion have to do with anything
what does hitler have to do with anything

i don't know lolol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 12:19:32 AM
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 12:20:15 AM
Just for the record, Hitler was a Roman Catholic, mentioned God multiples time in Mein Kampf (including saying that he believed "by fighting the jews I'm doing the lord's work"), and had the german phrase of "God be with us" on every Nazi knife and belt. Most of Nazi Germany was Catholic (something like 90% of Nazi officers were), so this isn't surprising, nor does it make Catholicism bad for that reason (I still take issue with Catholicism for other reasons but not because Hitler was catholic).
Also, TG, you're agnostic and Protestant at the same time? How exactly does that work?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 12:20:47 AM
Doubt it. Pretty sure hitler was Satist.

Dafuq is satist
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Oasis on September 08, 2015, 12:21:34 AM
@Altissimo: Pretty sure she meant sadist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 08, 2015, 12:22:15 AM
Dafuq is satist

Believing in Satan...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 12:23:43 AM
Believing in Satan...

Don't all Christians believe in Satan. :/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Oasis on September 08, 2015, 12:24:24 AM
@FireArrow: She means Satanism. Like devoting one's life to Satan.
@ThatGamer: Right?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 12:25:54 AM

commies
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 12:26:37 AM
Satanism, which is what you're thinking of, has two very distinct branches. LaVeyan Satanism actually doesn't believe it Satan but rather idolizes his character of taking what he wants and fulfilling your own desires (which is something opposed by many religions) and stuff. But they don't believe in him as an entity.
Theistic satanism is what you're thinking of, which is the cliche satanic ceremonies involving the use of magic and stuff.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theistic_Satanism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LaVeyan_Satanism
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 12:28:53 AM
this topic went to shit really quick and i don't know why
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Oasis on September 08, 2015, 12:29:02 AM
@Pianist: Would any of them have a direct correlation with the Illuminati or is the Illuminati another topic?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 12:30:35 AM
@Pianist: Would any of them have a direct correlation with the Illuminati or is the Illuminati another topic?

Look it up

@Dude: I feel that
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 12:31:01 AM
doesn't that have to do with the american secrets or some stupid shit like that?

also please don't feel me i'm delicate
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 12:31:40 AM
The Illuminati was just a secret organization to oppose superstition, obscurantism, religious influence over public life and abuses of state power.
You can read about them here. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminati)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 12:32:56 AM
I know I didn't need a link but idk if anyone else did but thanks anyway

an explanation was good enough for me
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Oasis on September 08, 2015, 12:35:48 AM
@Pianist @Dude: I agree. thanks for that information! Cause some people claim it's false and others say it's true. But hey! I don't really give anymore. Thanks again!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 12:38:39 AM
It's not the link was super in your face, it was embedded into a word for christ sake.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 12:39:46 AM
@FireArrow: She means Satanism. Like devoting one's life to Satan.
@ThatGamer: Right?

Satanism isn't really all that bad, they don't actually devote their life to Satan because they want to be evil, infact, they don't even believe he exists. They just use him as a symbol. I'll give it to you that they make it extremely creepy and cultist though.
http://www.churchofsatan.com/ (http://www.churchofsatan.com/)

Ninja'd ignore me
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 12:42:06 AM
doesn't that have to do with the american secrets or some stupid shit like that?

also please don't feel me i'm delicate

:( sorry
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Oasis on September 08, 2015, 12:43:38 AM
@FireArrow: Ninja? Thanks for that information though! It helped and every piece of knowledge (no matter how small) is extremely important.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 12:46:04 AM
@FireArrow: Ninja? Thanks for that information though! It helped and every piece of knowledge (no matter how small) is extremely important.

Ninja'd means someone posted something you were gonna say while you were typing it. In this case, while I was researching it, Pianist already came through and said everything that needed to be said.

I like the way you think. It's always a good idea to be educated about things, even if you disagree with them. :]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 12:49:14 AM
It's not the link was super in your face, it was embedded into a word for christ sake.
I see.
SEARCH MORE ABOUT THINGS HERE (http://www.google.com)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Oasis on September 08, 2015, 12:51:58 AM
@Fire Arrow: Ah. Thanks for clearing that up and thank you for agreeing. In my house, we go by a lot of proverbs so it's kinda embedded in my head.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 01:02:44 AM
I really really want to post the "Heil Hitler" scene from the Captain America movie but I'm not going to.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 01:04:59 AM
Or any episode of south park really. ;3
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 08, 2015, 01:06:18 AM
I really really want to post the "Heil Hitler" scene from the Captain America movie but I'm not going to.

Yup good choice. Past me woulda done that though
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 01:08:47 AM
Honestly TG you're still not past your grace period, you posted "Heil Hitler" less than 2 hours ago and now you're saying "Good job not posting Hitler".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 08, 2015, 01:13:15 AM
Honestly TG you're still not past your grace period, you posted "Heil Hitler" less than 2 hours ago and now you're saying "Good job not posting Hitler".

Yeah.....

Well i'm trying. Not my fault i can't grow up. Just trying hard to fit in...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 01:15:33 AM
Trying to fit in on NSM is like trying to get Maestro to drop his ego; it simply won't happen



jk maestro ily
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 01:19:20 AM
I don't think NSM really has a status quo to fit into.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 01:47:21 AM
Yeah.....

Well i'm trying. Not my fault i can't grow up. Just trying hard to fit in...

The best way is to closely observe the ways other people talk and interact. Like the fact that people have gotten on your case for posting a lot: by observation you will see that others do not post as often and are not bothered for it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ThatGamer on September 08, 2015, 01:49:42 AM
I'm observing very closely and trying to do all i can to fit in!

Am I doing any well?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Latios212 on September 08, 2015, 01:52:52 AM
I wanna be part of the argument though...
not the best way to make friends
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 08, 2015, 02:36:15 AM
Huh I didn't know people younger than 50 used the term "politically correct/incorrect." Most of the time I see people use that term to describe how offended they are when other people tell them that what they said is offensive. Like using queer/retarded to describe people.

The other time I see it is when people can't stomach the idea that people are different.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 02:41:09 AM
Huh I didn't know people younger than 50 used the term "politically correct/incorrect." Most of the time I see people use that term to describe how offended they are when other people tell them that what they said is offensive. Like using queer/retarded to describe people.

The other time I see it is when people can't stomach the idea that people are different.

Well, that's why the term was invented, to criticize anti discrimination movements without looking like a bigot. If you're using it in a way that's reasonable, you're probably using it wrong.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 03:36:58 AM
Political incorrectness just doesn't make sense to me. Why would you take pride in not treating people equally?
I think being too PC can be annoying, for instance even with things like feminism I get a bit pissed when everyone gets all outraged over something a comedian says.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on September 08, 2015, 03:46:12 AM
In other news, I'm assembling my cabinet for my bid for Presidency in 2028.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 03:46:58 AM
Who're your optimal choices?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on September 08, 2015, 06:58:43 AM
I avoid this thread so I had no idea it had accumulated six pages so quickly but I got to read about gays, satanists, and hitler in the span of a few minutes so I'm satisfied

Also Ruto's got a pretty good point, the only time I hear the phrase "politically correct" is people being butthurt that they can't use words like f*g or n****r like they could back in the Good Ole Days
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 07:43:44 AM
The good 'ole days, when Hitler was in power, when blacks had no rights, and when being gay was one of the worst possible things you could come out as.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 08, 2015, 07:46:59 AM
and when being gay was one of the worst possible things you could come out as.
when was that exactly
homosexuality's been around for EVER
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 08, 2015, 10:19:13 AM
Also Ruto's got a pretty good point, the only time I hear the phrase "politically correct" is people being butthurt that they can't use words like f*g or n****r like they could back in the Good Ole Days
Really? I've only heard it used that way (in a genuine situation) rarely... two different types of people, I guess.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 04:01:18 PM
when was that exactly
homosexuality's been around for EVER
It's been around forever, but hasn't been accepted forever.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on September 08, 2015, 05:02:43 PM
Really? I've only heard it used that way (in a genuine situation) rarely... two different types of people, I guess.

The only way people use that word is in a derogatory way. "Blinded by political correctness," etc. When something is offensive, it's not politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 08, 2015, 06:16:37 PM
when was that exactly
homosexuality's been around for EVER
Homosexuality was pretty much nonexistent in western Christian societies until stonewall.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 06:45:14 PM
Homosexuality was pretty much nonexistent in western Christian societies until stonewall.
Much of our western culture came from Greece and Rome, yes?
Because,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
In Rome, you were allowed to have gay sex as long as you took the dominant position  :o Acceptable partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers.
In Greece, instead of sexuality being limited to the sexuality in and of itself, it was assigned to dominant and submissive roles, dominant roles being associated with masculinity and submissive roles being associated with femininity.
inb4 someone says "down with the patriarchy"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 08:58:22 PM
When something is offensive, it's not politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.
I read this line a while ago and it's really been bothering me, but admittedly it does offer a nice transition into one of my countless problems with modern-day leftist thinking.

I'm trying to understand exactly what this line was intended to mean, but it doesn't really hold no matter how I look at it. Labeling something as "offensive" doesn't automatically make it incorrect. That makes absolutely no sense. This notion of "Everyone has to think the same way as I do or else I'm going to get offended!!!" is really silly and is against both pluralism (which is a value that the left holds near and dear!) and all common sense.

Secondly, political correctness is not supposed to be objectively correct or incorrect. If politically correct was synonymous with correct, then why even add the politically in front? I Googled "politically correct" definition, and essentially it means neutral and unoffensive. Not right and not wrong, but intended to not insult anyone. And that's fine. The problem arises when people start calling others "politically incorrect" for holding different viewpoints than them, and then the left becomes the Spanish Inquisition or the lynch mob with torches and pitchforks to burn the heretic.

Speaking of this, it's also interesting to me how the left is all about "rights" this and "rights" that, and yet the rights that are actually in the law of the land (the Constitution) are an inconvenience to them. For instance, I can see why they'd have objections against the Second Amendment, and you could make the argument that it's outdated. Sure. I can't, however, see why we need to restrict freedom of speech. Colleges and Universities now across the country have "speech codes" to prevent "politically incorrectness" from being expressed, essentially teaching students that they have a fundamental right to not hear things that offend them, that they should be challenged in no way by other ways of thinking, and that they don't have a right to freely express their individual ideas, only the ideas that the college deems appropriate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 09:19:46 PM
I'm trying to understand exactly what this line was intended to mean, but it doesn't really hold no matter how I look at it. Labeling something as "offensive" doesn't automatically make it incorrect. That makes absolutely no sense. This notion of "Everyone has to think the same way as I do or else I'm going to get offended!!!" is really silly and is against both pluralism (which is a value that the left holds near and dear!) and all common sense.

Secondly, political correctness is not supposed to be objectively correct or incorrect. If politically correct was synonymous with correct, then why even add the politically in front? I Googled "politically correct" definition, and essentially it means neutral and unoffensive.
You're right here, that objectivity and neutrality are not one and the same, which is a problem I also have with the left, specifically journalism in that regard.
Quote
(Describing political correctness)Not right and not wrong, but intended to not insult anyone. And that's fine. The problem arises when people start calling others "politically incorrect" for holding different viewpoints than them, and then the left becomes the Spanish Inquisition or the lynch mob with torches and pitchforks to burn the heretic
Well it would depend on what exactly the viewpoint is; if it's hate speech then that's where that comes into play. Which I think personally the left should calm down about somewhat but I think the right has a tendency to let anything slide, especially when under the grounds of "religious liberty", but had a Muslim said it it would've been jail time.
Quote
Speaking of this, it's also interesting to me how the left is all about "rights" this and "rights" that, and yet the rights that are actually in the law of the land (the Constitution) are an inconvenience to them. For instance, I can see why they'd have objections against the Second Amendment, and you could make the argument that it's outdated. Sure. I can't, however, see why we need to restrict freedom of speech. Colleges and Universities now across the country have "speech codes" to prevent "politically incorrectness" from being expressed, essentially teaching students that they have a fundamental right to not hear things that offend them, that they should be challenged in no way by other ways of thinking, and that they don't have a right to freely express their individual ideas, only the ideas that the college deems appropriate.
I'm pretty sure the speech codes you're referring to are designed to stop hate speech, not any contrasting ideas.
For instance, in most parts of the US, if you put a swastika on a synagogue (jewish temple) you can get charged with a hate crime. You won't get charged with a hate crime by flying it on your car, though, as that's freedom of expression with your own property.
Also keep in mind that any publicly funded university is taking tax dollars and does have to remain somewhat neutral.
An example of neutrality vs objectivity is Kim Davis. She, under secular law, had to give out marriage licenses to gays, after the Supreme Court ruling, citing religious freedom. Unfortunately for her, religious liberty does not override secular law so she got jail time (IIRC because there was some other offense as well, but don't quote me). There were other people in her position who left their jobs and are free to be homophobic as they wish; but this case is objectively unconstitutional. Person violates updated secular law after a SC ruling, they can't do that.
Hate crime is another issue, one we recently dealt with on this forum with another member, in fact. Here's the definition, and then some things that fall under it; "speech that attacks, threatens, or insults a person or group on the basis of national origin, ethnicity, color, religion, gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, or disability."
Thus, the N word is technically hate speech (but only when used in a derogatory way), just as most other racial slurs.
Technically the term "four-eyes" could be considered hate speech, if you're visually impaired  ::)
Anyways I'll shut up now
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 08, 2015, 09:47:07 PM
pls stop using the word homophobe to describe people who view homosexuality as morally wrong.  Thanks.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:07:00 PM
What do you suggest we call them then? Technically they oppress homosexuals because of that with their "religious freedom" so they can't get married ie that bitch in Kentucky so should we call them sexualitists?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 10:10:19 PM
Should we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:14:22 PM
pls stop using the word homophobe to describe people who view homosexuality as morally wrong.  Thanks.
Alright, what word would you prefer? Because, I apologize in advanced, but the only other word that comes to mind is "bigotry".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:16:20 PM
Should we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
since when are gay people against people getting married?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 10:18:29 PM
Alright, what word would you prefer? Because, I apologize in advanced, but the only other word that comes to mind is "bigotry".
How about "people who prefer homosexuality" and "people who prefer heterosexuality"? Anything wrong with those terms?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:20:14 PM
I was mainly referring to NoS.
But those terms don't fit into a personal attack very well the same way "homophobe!" does ;)
In all seriousness, it's a bit clunky and someone could probably make a latin version of it that flows off the tongue better  ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 10:21:52 PM
But those terms don't fit into a personal attack very well the same way "homophobe!" does ;)
I just find it funny that there isn't an equivalent term from the straight side of things.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:22:23 PM
Should we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
wait I keep reading this and get more and more confused

What possible reasons could there be?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on September 08, 2015, 10:23:17 PM
I'm trying to understand exactly what this line was intended to mean, but it doesn't really hold no matter how I look at it. Labeling something as "offensive" doesn't automatically make it incorrect. That makes absolutely no sense. This notion of "Everyone has to think the same way as I do or else I'm going to get offended!!!" is really silly and is against both pluralism (which is a value that the left holds near and dear!) and all common sense.
Actually considering how the definition of offensive is subjective, so there is no universal definition for what can be defined as offensive. So it's technically perfectly okay for someone to label just things that happens to be incorrect as offensive, meaning it'd be justified for the person to view everything that's offensive as incorrect.
You worded it poorly, but the leftist view sees that everyone has the right to be upset about anything at any time. You shouldn't ever question the person who is offended by anything but rather the thing the person is offended about, when trying to define "should that person be offended by that?".
With all due respect, it's arrogant try to raise your argument's point with "it makes no sense" or "it defies all common sense", especially when your point is questionable. Humble alternatives for it are fe. "it makes no sense to me" or "i just don't get it", instead of speaking as if you'd represent the entire universe.

Secondly, political correctness is not supposed to be objectively correct or incorrect. If politically correct was synonymous with correct, then why even add the politically in front? I Googled "politically correct" definition, and essentially it means neutral and unoffensive. Not right and not wrong, but intended to not insult anyone. And that's fine. The problem arises when people start calling others "politically incorrect" for holding different viewpoints than them, and then the left becomes the Spanish Inquisition or the lynch mob with torches and pitchforks to burn the heretic.
But should you be offended in the first place if someone is correct?
also you are close-mindedly implying that the left becomes a lynch mob only because some one sees things differently, which is against the left message. Just because someone sees things differently, doesn't make the other viewpoint wrong, or justified just because people have a right to have different viewpoints.
which gets me to my next point
The reason the "freedom" of speech is and should be restricted, is because it can be abused to undermine an individual's other rights, like equality. Like people use it to justify racism, which would allow people to be seen unequally. It should be restricted like any other "freedoms" that contradict other rights. like they restricted the "freedom of stabbing people to death".
Though it's still notable how these "human rights" are just there to keep up the society and actually are still questionable. for example, the freedom of taking someone else's life can still be ethically arguable.


ninja'd
pls stop using the word homophobe to describe people who view homosexuality as morally wrong.  Thanks.
except it's the definition of a homophobe, because it discrimination if you see heterosexuality as right and homosexuality as wrong.
Should we call gay people heterophobes for similar reasons?
do you see gay people discriminating straights, because i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:26:40 PM
Quote
i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
You're just talking about sexuality, right?
If not,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 08, 2015, 10:28:01 PM
I promised myself I wouldn't be involved in anything controversial on NSM again but I just wanna answer this question.

do you see gay people discriminating straights, because i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
Yes. My parents know some gay people and they have a cow about heterosexuality all the time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:29:29 PM
Have you see this firsthand or just heard it from your insanely Christian parents?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 08, 2015, 10:34:11 PM
Yes. I've seen this first hand.

You're just talking about sexuality, right?
If not,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia_in_the_United_States
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_against_atheists

You forgot this sooty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Christians are being killed in China for what they believe. Btw, Christians are killed and discriminated against just as much if not more than Atheists.

I don't agree with Islams but I don't kill them either.

(https://africathisday.files.wordpress.com/2015/03/biblqua.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on September 08, 2015, 10:36:53 PM
Yes. My parents know some gay people and they have a cow about heterosexuality all the time.
Yeah I bet those gay people are those same ones that are keeping you from getting married and having children all the time!!!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:37:55 PM

You forgot this sooty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Christians are being killed in China for what they believe. Btw, Christians are killed and discriminated against just as much if not more than Atheists.

I don't agree with Islams but I don't kill them either.
As are atheists in the middle east.
You're also cherry picking verses, and forgetting verses like Psalms 137:9;
"Happy is the one who seizes your infants and dashes them upon the rocks."
And you'd be interested to know that had you kept going, the quote you referenced happens to refer to when Muslims (and not Islams as you called them) are at war.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:38:29 PM
Yes. I've seen this first hand.
You forgot this sooty: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Christian_sentiment
Christians are being killed in China for what they believe.
did you even read that link
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:41:29 PM
Yes, I did, and if you read the section of the US, there is one attack. A guy who committed arson on churches and vandalized them.
An american atheist campaign was tagged on but that didn't do any harm, and was an expression of atheism.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 10:41:40 PM
Waddle, sweetie, I've seen you make some good posts arguing your points before but this one just doesn't do it for me.

Actually considering how the definition of offensive is subjective, so there is no universal definition for what can be defined as offensive. So it's technically perfectly okay for someone to label just things that happens to be incorrect as offensive, meaning it'd be justified for the person to view everything that's offensive as incorrect.
I'm trying really hard to understand this but I can't. I realize that the definition of offensive is subjective, but what's factual is, obviously, not subjective. Whether something is offensive or not has no bearing on whether something is factual or not. That's why Slow's post that essentially said "everything that's offensive is wrong" set me off.  :P

Quote
You worded it poorly, but the leftist view sees that everyone has the right to be upset about anything at any time. You shouldn't ever question the person who is offended by anything but rather the thing the person is offended about, when trying to define "should that person be offended by that?".
With all due respect, it's arrogant try to raise your argument's point with "it makes no sense" or "it defies all common sense", especially when your point is questionable. Humble alternatives for it are fe. "it makes no sense to me" or "i just don't get it", instead of speaking as if you'd represent the entire universe.
What are you talking about? I never word things poorly.  8)

Nah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.

Quote
But should you be offended in the first place if someone is correct?
Oh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.

Quote
also you are close-mindedly implying that the left becomes a lynch mob only because some one sees things differently, which is against the left message. Just because someone sees things differently, doesn't make the other viewpoint wrong, or justified just because people have a right to have different viewpoints.
As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda.  :P

Quote
which gets me to my next point
The reason the "freedom" of speech is and should be restricted, is because it can be abused to undermine an individual's other rights, like equality. Like people use it to justify racism, which would allow people to be seen unequally. It should be restricted like any other "freedoms" that contradict other rights. like they restricted the "freedom of stabbing people to death".
Though it's still notable how these "human rights" are just there to keep up the society and actually are still questionable. for example, the freedom of taking someone else's life can still be ethically arguable.
Freedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level. I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?

Quote
ninja'dexcept it's the definition of a homophobe, because it discrimination if you see heterosexuality as right and homosexuality as wrong.do you see gay people discriminating straights, because i'm pretty sure the gays are the only oppressed minority just saying.
Not even going to respond to this because I don't think I have to.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:43:43 PM
Yes, I did, and if you read the section of the US, there is one attack. A guy who committed arson on churches and vandalized them.
An american atheist campaign was tagged on but that didn't do any harm, and was an expression of atheism.
noooot you
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 08, 2015, 10:45:21 PM
yo before this gets any more out of hand, I'm gonna say this- I was referring to people who DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, but homosexuality is not in line with their personal morals or beliefs.  You can go ahead and call people who make fun of homosexuals homophobes if you want (although anti-gay would probably be more accurate), just don't mindlessly include those people who treat people with different sexualities no differently than they would treat ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING.  You're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing.
Quit arguing about it, because you all have no clue what I mean apparently.  This has nothing to do with homosexuality, really.  I don't care what's going on with whoever kim what's her face is.  If someone's sexuality is different than mine, cool, if I don't believe homosexuality is a "good thing", THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HATE THAT PERSON.  I WOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SEXUALITY, ok?
Please, just stop.  Dishing dirt on "homophobes" is not ok, and is just as bad as dishing dirt on homosexuals or any PERSON IN THE WORLD.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 10:46:55 PM
merrrrr political incorrectness
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 08, 2015, 10:47:34 PM
merrrrr political incorrectness
of course ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on September 08, 2015, 10:48:47 PM
You're all missing the point.

You should be theorizing how I'm going to campaign for presidency in 2028.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:49:23 PM
Nah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.
Because the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots.
Quote
Oh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.
As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda.  :P
It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that.
Quote
Freedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level.
Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it.
Quote
I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start attacking people for speaking out against the government?
It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.


yo before this gets any more out of hand, I'm gonna say this- I was referring to people who DO NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HOMOSEXUALS, but homosexuality is not in line with their personal morals or beliefs.  You can go ahead and call people who make fun of homosexuals homophobes if you want (although anti-gay would probably be more accurate), just don't mindlessly include those people who treat people with different sexualities no differently than they would treat ANY OTHER HUMAN BEING.  You're doing the exact same thing you accuse them of doing.
Quit arguing about it, because you all have no clue what I mean apparently.  This has nothing to do with homosexuality, really.  I don't care what's going on with whoever kim what's her face is.  If someone's sexuality is different than mine, cool, if I don't believe homosexuality is a "good thing", THAT DOESN'T MEAN I HATE THAT PERSON.  I WOULD TREAT THEM THE SAME NO MATTER WHAT THEIR SEXUALITY, ok?
Please, just stop.  Dishing dirt on "homophobes" is not ok, and is just as bad as dishing dirt on homosexuals or any PERSON IN THE WORLD.
So, don't make fun of bigots?

noooot you
What do you take issue with? The content in the US section was waaaay less extreme. And the atheist campaigns were literally just billboards. Hell, there were more arsons in Norway than America, not to mention the other crimes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 08, 2015, 10:50:40 PM
Because the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots. It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that. Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it. It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.

So, don't make fun of bigots?
What do you take issue with? The content in the US section was waaaay less extreme. And the atheist campaigns were literally just billboards. Hell, there were more arsons in Norway than America, not to mention the other crimes.
As an addendum to my post:
DON'T THROW THE WORD BIGOT AROUND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, CAUSE CLEARLY YOU DON'T
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:50:56 PM
No, I'm saying I wasn't talking to you.

big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
noun: bigot; plural noun: bigots
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
synonyms:   chauvinist, partisan, sectarian; racist, sexist, homophobe, dogmatist, jingoist
"he comes off as a naïve, close-minded bigot"

WELL THEN
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 08, 2015, 10:52:23 PM
Can't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 08, 2015, 10:52:47 PM
No, I'm saying I wasn't talking to you.
Oh, I see now. Sorry.
As an addendum to my post:
DON'T THROW THE WORD BIGOT AROUND LIKE YOU KNOW WHAT IT MEANS, CAUSE CLEARLY YOU DON'T
big·ot
ˈbiɡət/
noun
a person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions.
"don't let a few small-minded bigots destroy the good image of the city"
You can replace "opinions" with just about whatever.
EDIT: Ninja'd with the exact same definition as Dude
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on September 08, 2015, 10:53:50 PM
Alright friends, you all had your fun, take this somewhere private.

This is a warning.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 10:55:49 PM
Can't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.
I understand that you're tired of it but you have the option of ignoring it so I don't think we have to stop unless shit gets out of control
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 10:55:59 PM
Because the people upset at the recent same sex marriage decision were using their religion to be bigots.
Ah yes, religious people who are actually convicted are such terrible people. They're all less human than all the minorities that need the shield of "they can get upset for any reason." I mean tbh 100% of the people who call themselves "Christians" should have been opposed to the decision but even that wasn't the case.

Quote
It's easy to deny things, but that doesn't make them less true. And the right is waaay worse about that.
Says someone on the left. I don't really consider this even valid because the left thrives by attacking the right like this.  :P

Quote
Which is why we supress hate speech, as it's used to take away other people's rights. In the cases where it doesn't, though, which is more than one might think, I agree that it's pointless to ban it. It's a fundamental human right. Not just American, or German, or Swedish, or Dutch or anything like that. It's a fundamental human right.
So it's a fundamental right as long as it doesn't make anyone feel bad? I'm allowed to express myself in whatever way I want as long as I don't hurt someone else's fweelings because they can't accept that not everyone has to agree with them

Quote
So, don't make fun of bigots?
I really hate this word. A bigot is someone who can't tolerate other viewpoints. Nocturne is being incredibly tolerate of other viewpoints while still retaining his own. It's the Left that insists on everyone's viewpoints being akin to their political agenda, or else you're labeled as said "bigot". Which doesn't make any sense, frankly. It's honestly being used on the wrong people that the definition would suggest.  :P

EDIT: Ninja'd. Alright.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 11:01:58 PM
o no not the left theyll kill us all
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 11:17:04 PM
Can't you guys take this somewhere else off the forums? These kind of things never end well and I'm honestly tired of all this debating.

Just as we have freedom of speech, so too do you have the freedom to choose what media to consume and not consume. It's not as if the contents of this are being broadcast on the main page of the NSM forums in bright bold letters for all to see. What would you rather this topic be about, if not politics?

(This thread is more about semantics at this point but the discussion was about politics. In a thread titled "Politics". I don't see the problem.)
Title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 11:25:56 PM
What would you rather this topic be about, if not politics?
New topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Title: Re: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 11:26:54 PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow)

Get yourselves edumacated, kids. It's gonna be a wild ride.
Title: Re: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: Altissimo on September 08, 2015, 11:27:25 PM
New topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS

I think rainbows should be illegal
Title: Re: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 11:28:41 PM
My uncle used to coach the Hawaiian Rainbows
Title: Re: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 11:33:31 PM
♪ You are my sunshine, my only sunshine ♪
♪ You make me happy when skies are grey ♪
♪ You'll never know dear, how much I love you ♪
♪ Please don't take my sunshine away~ ♪
Title: Re: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: InsigTurtle on September 08, 2015, 11:35:09 PM
I believe that rainbows should only be allowed in the country if they can contribute to the US by paying taxes, working, and integrating into our American society. All freeloader rainbows are a drain on the economy and resources should not be reallocated to help them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on September 08, 2015, 11:38:53 PM
Should we declare war on the sun or the rain to prevent more rainbows from infiltrating society? Soon enough the Aurora to Rainbow ratio will tip in a disadvantageous direction and we need to decide what steps to take to prevent that.
Title: Re: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: Dude on September 08, 2015, 11:40:23 PM
My uncle used to coach the Hawaiian Rainbows
i officially cannot find this anywhere now wtf
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 08, 2015, 11:52:42 PM
(http://img3.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20121225031740/mlp/images/f/f0/Rainbow_Dash_performing_a_sonic_rainboom_S1E16.gif)

(http://videochums.com/review/mega-man-8-3.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on September 09, 2015, 12:22:30 AM
Waddle, sweetie, I've seen you make some good posts arguing your points before but this one just doesn't do it for me.
:] for some reason people always tend to dislike it when I point out their mistakes

I'm trying really hard to understand this but I can't. I realize that the definition of offensive is subjective, but what's factual is, obviously, not subjective. Whether something is offensive or not has no bearing on whether something is factual or not. That's why Slow's post that essentially said "everything that's offensive is wrong" set me off.  :P
Whether something is factual or not isn't technically related to how an individual interprets it, meaning it's not in straight correlation to how an individual defines it!!
also "wrong" can also be taken as "ethically wrong"

Nah in all seriousness, I don't agree that the left sees that everyone has the right to be upset. They didn't tolerate people being upset at the recent same-sex marriage decision (which is another whole argument in its entirety), for example.
first of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
You assume "they" and "their" actions represent the entirety of the left view, but in reality it has no effect on the actual values.
Second of all, in your example they weren't even denying people's right to be upset, as they were offended as well, but by the offended people.

Oh, absolutely. Because it's easy to deny things.
If you don't mind opening your philosophy a bit for me fren, to me this only seems like a red herring

As far as I'm concerned the left only justifies viewpoints that agree with its own political agenda.  :P
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativist_fallacy
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you seem deadset that the left doesn't think like that. If the left has a right to its opinion, why shouldn't anyone else have the right?

Freedom of speech can't undermine equality though, at least not on the individual level. I also personally see it as a more fundamental American value than equality. (And yes, I'm speaking from an American perspective here. I can't speak for Germany or Finland or wherever.) As soon as you start restricting freedom of speech, you restrict expression, thought, and pretty much everything else about a person's individuality. To be perfectly frank I don't give a dang if a person is racist or not. As long as they don't act on the racism, it's not breaking any laws. Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?
If you're white and act racist towards fe. the asian people, you're clearly not gonna act that way towards other white people. That's known as discrimination and undermines the right to be treated as an equal individual of the society.
also you're speaking from your own personal and individual perspective, and not representing the entirety of america. :x
You're absolutely right about when restricting "freedom", you restrict individualism. But that's exactly what laws and human rights do, and it's a dilemma to say should laws and human rights exist in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation is a regulated thing for a reason, and
Quote from: The European Convention on Human Rights
ARTICLE 10

Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers. This article shall not prevent States from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema enterprises.
The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities, conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for the protection of the reputation or the rights of others, for preventing the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.
^this explains pretty well why.
Besides, how long until we start atacking people for speaking out against the government?
as long as you live in democracy you should be fine fren.


ninja'd @maestro if you're gonna do something then please do something about this off-topic clutter .-.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 12:24:19 AM
Content Warning
Spoiler
MLF you have absolutely no right to come in here and say extremely conceited and insulting things, then act like you're the good guy by changing the subject.

To everyone else: There is no straight equivalent for homophobia because one doesn't exist. Don't you dare claim to be a "victim." Are straight kids driven to suicide because their friends and family disown them under the name of god, something they were raised to believe is a loving entity who looks after everyone? Are straight people physically assaulted and raped because they're straight? Huh, but I guess having your church rightfully accused of being bigoted is just an absolutely horrible crime. Oh, and that's also totally different from freedom of speech - that right only applies to me when I want to be politically incorrect!
[close]

Much of our western culture came from Greece and Rome, yes?
Because,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Greece
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome
In Rome, you were allowed to have gay sex as long as you took the dominant position  :o Acceptable partners were slaves, prostitutes, and entertainers.
In Greece, instead of sexuality being limited to the sexuality in and of itself, it was assigned to dominant and submissive roles, dominant roles being associated with masculinity and submissive roles being associated with femininity.
inb4 someone says "down with the patriarchy"

Along with many other civilizations. Homophobia came around with the Roman Catholic Church (In rome, it was only acceptable when it was a democracy, not when it was a christian autocracy iirc.) Anyways, this is redundant to the point both you and I were trying to make, since I posted that in your defense.

(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSc5x4ziwc5C7lTRgbGlArAP239MYn2KHJe4yuy_4QDOM2AUXc9M8NC7P6g)

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 09, 2015, 12:27:12 AM
The only way people use that word is in a derogatory way. "Blinded by political correctness," etc. When something is offensive, it's not politically incorrect, it's just incorrect.
Most of the times I hear it is about people being stringently uptight about "offensive" things (in quotes for a reason).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on September 09, 2015, 12:46:16 AM
You mean like asking people not to use the phrase trigger word because their somone or other was shot and it traumatizes them kind of thing?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 09, 2015, 12:49:28 AM
ninja'd @maestro if you're gonna do something then please do something about this off-topic clutter .-.
you obviously didn't get the memo then
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 12:51:39 AM
you obviously didn't get the memo then
Just as we have freedom of speech, so too do you have the freedom to choose what media to consume and not consume. It's not as if the contents of this are being broadcast on the main page of the NSM forums in bright bold letters for all to see. What would you rather this topic be about, if not politics?

(This thread is more about semantics at this point but the discussion was about politics. In a thread titled "Politics". I don't see the problem.)
Title: Re: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
Post by: Dude on September 09, 2015, 12:53:24 AM
New topic title: SUNSHINE AND RAINBOWS
i did this to make mlf happy that was the memo that waddle missed duh

god you're so insensitive
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 12:59:10 AM
Most of the times I hear it is about people being stringently uptight about "offensive" things (in quotes for a reason).

That's usually the intended purpose when someone uses the word. Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited. The word was literally invented as anti-left propaganda, so it has no place in intelligent discussion (same goes for any anti-right propaganda.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 01:07:09 AM
i did this to make mlf happy that was the memo that waddle missed duh

god you're so insensitive

Yes, let's make MLF happy. Now that we know "Islams" are violent killing machines and Christians are perfectly pure and peaceful people, nothing else needs to be said.
if you didnt catch my alliteration i hate you
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 09, 2015, 01:10:19 AM
That's usually the intended purpose when someone uses the word. Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited. The word was literally invented as anti-left propaganda, so it has no place in intelligent discussion (same goes for any anti-right propaganda.)
(http://canyoncollective.com/uploads/addedsmilies/facepalm.gif)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 09, 2015, 01:13:50 AM
:] for some reason people always tend to dislike it when I point out their mistakes
Because you tend to do it in a really technical way that makes it hard to rebut because I don't understand all the jargon.  :P

Quote
Whether something is factual or not isn't technically related to how an individual interprets it, meaning it's not in straight correlation to how an individual defines it!!
Sure, I don't have any problems with this.

Quote
also "wrong" can also be taken as "ethically wrong"
Is it ethically wrong to offend someone though? That's a whole nother debate and something that I've never really thought about hmm.

Quote
first of all https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
You assume "they" and "their" actions represent the entirety of the left view, but in reality it has no effect on the actual values.
Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me. I need to learn not to stereotype the entire left into one viewpoint even though that's what everyone on the left does to the entire Republican party. I realize that not everyone shares the same views but I can assume a majority of people who identify themselves as "the left" share at least similar views on these sort of issues.

Quote
Second of all, in your example they weren't even denying people's right to be upset, as they were offended as well, but by the offended people.
This is... really confusing. Although I suppose it makes sense. There were still some pretty hateful things said on both sides that I could have done without.

Quote
If you don't mind opening your philosophy a bit for me fren, to me this only seems like a red herring
Certain issues, no matter how many times they're "proven," will never be seen as factual by the entirety of the American population. This of course is directed to both sides of the political spectrum.

Quote
everyone is entitled to their opinion, but you seem deadset that the left doesn't think like that. If the left has a right to its opinion, why shouldn't anyone else have the right?
Fair enough point. I suppose the problem is that I find a lot of people presenting the left's opinions as "progressive" (when in actuality "progressive" can be used to describe anything under the sun) or whatever. The left are the open-minded ones, the intellectuals, the educated, the scholarly. The right are the greedy stick-in-the-mud bigots who want to enslave everyone that isn't a millionaire into the economy!

Obviously that isn't the actual view of the Democratic party (at least I hope not) but it's certainly a dramatized view of many of its strong supporters.

Quote
If you're white and act racist towards fe. the asian people, you're clearly not gonna act that way towards other white people. That's known as discrimination and undermines the right to be treated as an equal individual of the society.
What if you're just a jerk and act that way towards everyone. Or would it be any worse if that person acted that way towards white people only? IDK you're ignoring my point that racist thought can't and shouldn't be regulated by the government, but only racist action.

Quote
also you're speaking from your own personal and individual perspective, and not representing the entirety of america. :x
Duh, what else do you expect me to do? The "entirety" of America doesn't agree on anything. Ever. Nothing in this thread represents the entirety of America.

Quote
You're absolutely right about when restricting "freedom", you restrict individualism. But that's exactly what laws and human rights do, and it's a dilemma to say should laws and human rights exist in a society. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation is a regulated thing for a reason, and^this explains pretty well why.
Sure, but that's why we have a set Bill of Rights to list what freedoms belong to humanity innately and to protect them from tyranny. But then the government starts to infringe on it. Then what do you do?

Quote
as long as you live in democracy you should be fine fren.
Vote Bernie Sanders 2016...?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 01:15:05 AM
*extremely low resolution image*

Bravo! Such a brilliant display of pretentiousness! I'll have to add this to my repertoire!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 09, 2015, 01:15:45 AM
Bravo! Such a brilliant display of pretentiousness! I'll have to add this to my repertoire!
Says you who said this:
Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 01:18:55 AM
Is it ethically wrong to offend someone though? That's a whole nother debate and something that I've never really thought about hmm.

I think this is the heart of it all.

Yes, it is ethically wrong to purposely offend someone.
Not, it's not ethically wrong to accidentally offend someone. If you do however, you should say sorry, not go "wow stop being so politically correct", which falls under the category of purposefully offending someone.

Off topic: I just realized purposely and purposefully are both words and they mean the same thing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 01:26:50 AM
Says you who said this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
I'll stand by all three of these statements:
You're Pretentious
I'm Pretentious
Spoiler
Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 09, 2015, 01:27:38 AM
Whoa, Firearrow, what the fuck
It's like you try to take everything I say seriously.
Calm down, brah.

EDIT: Nvm i misinterpreted what you said, continue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 09, 2015, 01:31:14 AM
I think this is the heart of it all.

Yes, it is ethically wrong to purposely offend someone.
Not, it's not ethically wrong to accidentally offend someone. If you do however, you should say sorry, not go "wow stop being so politically correct", which falls under the category of purposefully offending someone.

Off topic: I just realized purposely and purposefully are both words and they mean the same thing.
This is where the issue gets complicated, though. Anybody (specifically referring to the earlier-mentioned "uptight" people) could be offended by anything. If you can thus define "offended" as applying to any situation, how can anybody disagree with you without purposefully offending you?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
I'll stand by all three of these statements:
You're Pretentious
I'm Pretentious
Spoiler
Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
[close]
The problem with what you said is that you're making a broad assumption that, with certainty, does not apply to the situation which I described in my earlier post, yet you are apparently assuming it does, and does so in every situation, or at least the majority of situations.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 09, 2015, 01:41:06 AM
When I hear someone say something like "the left ideology is flawed because..." I just think "this person is a moron and should be ignored." Because that's the level of intelligence and language you'd expect to see from someone who thinks The Blaze is good writing and delivers coherent arguments. Now in America, being on "the right side of politics" has the reputation of defending people who think it's okay to hate other people on something they can't control. Like Huckabee, who will sooner be a ball of lard than president.

I can't believe people get mad over being told they're being intolerant, then whine about being "persecuted." Do you expect people to support your behavior to support your baseless ideas and hurt feelings?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 01:47:51 AM
This is where the issue gets complicated, though. Anybody (specifically referring to the earlier-mentioned "uptight" people) could be offended by anything. If you can thus define "offended" as applying to any situation, how can anybody disagree with you without purposefully offending you?

Because disagreeing with someone isn't offensive?

Quote
The problem with what you said is that you're making a broad assumption that, with certainty, does not apply to the situation which I described in my earlier post, yet you are apparently assuming it does, and does so in every situation, or at least the majority of situations.

You have yet to point out how it doesn't. Rather, you decided to post a picture.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 09, 2015, 01:51:24 AM
Because disagreeing with someone isn't offensive?
...no? At least, not inherently.

Quote
You have yet to point out how it doesn't. Rather, you decided to post a picture.
You are making an assumption about a situation where it has clearly been stated to be contradictory, hence my response. There doesn't need to be any "explanation" because your statement was entirely inapplicable to the situation.

EDIT: To elaborate...
Most of the times I hear it is about people being stringently uptight about "offensive" things (in quotes for a reason).
Of course, their reason for calling someone out on being "too sensitive" is usually selfish and conceited.
My post was specifically referring to its usage in a situation where using it is not "selfish and conceited," yet you brought it up when referring to the situation which I stated. Also the term "too sensitive" is loaded language in this specific case, but that's a different story and not entirely relevant to the main point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 02:00:27 AM
...no? At least, not inherently.

...so I'm right?

Quote
You are making an assumption about a situation where it has clearly been stated to be contradictory, hence my response. There doesn't need to be any "explanation" because your statement was entirely inapplicable to the situation.

Whatever you're trying to prove you win. Now can we get back on the topic about political correctness and give me a counter argument that isn't in .jpg format.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 09, 2015, 02:01:52 AM
Whatever you're trying to prove you win. Now can we get back on the topic about political correctness and give me a counter argument that isn't in .jpg format.
he's gonna go get a BMP
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 09, 2015, 02:02:19 AM
where's bds with his gif
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 09, 2015, 02:08:59 AM
...so I'm right?
No.

Quote
Whatever you're trying to prove you win. Now can we get back on the topic about political correctness and give me a counter argument that isn't in .jpg format.
I clarified in the edit to my post. I don't have anything to "counter" because my whole statement was encased in my original post (thus the statement itself could be considered a counter to your response :P). Your statement was inapplicable to my statement, hence my "facepalm picture" response. If you're intentionally being inflammatory to provoke a response, then, well, I guess you did?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on September 09, 2015, 03:54:05 AM
I vote everyone is a dickbutt and gets banned
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 09, 2015, 04:09:26 AM
(https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSg2YKIZjK-ifrZLvmmVgGT9dX9Y6W6VNY_-U-W63qvgWWfHkgS)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 09, 2015, 05:44:29 AM
that's what everyone on the left does to the entire Republican party.

Literally all of the prominent members are hilariously over the top right wing (like how every single republican candidate opposes gay marriage in one way or another), so it's a bit of a different story.  There's at least some variety in both social and economic views with many popular left wing individuals, while right wing may have some economic and policy variety, their social block, at least in the ones that get all of the media attention, is straight outta medieval europe.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 09, 2015, 05:48:12 AM
yeah, blue is extremely conservative, and I like to make fun of him for it
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 09, 2015, 07:55:47 AM
I like to make fun of him for it
yeah, I like to take people's words and turn them into personal attacks when they were never intended to be
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 15, 2015, 09:58:58 PM
For those who might not be paying attention, there's a debate tomorrow night on CNN (at the Reagan library!). The minor debate starts at 3 PM Pacific time (6 PM EST), and will include our friends Lindsey Graham, Bobby Jindal, George Pataki, and Rick Santorum. Jim Gilmore was not invited as he did not poll well enough recently. Also, Rick Perry, the governor of Texas, has dropped out.

At 5 PM Pacific time (8PM EST), immediately following the minor debate, will be the major debate between the Top 11 candidates, essentially the previous Top 10 on the Fox News debate last month plus Carly Fiorina. It promises to be a fun time.

Also, while doing some research I found this really interesting article on Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/forget-trump-how-bernie-sanders-and-ben-carson-129070072541.html) about Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson. Should be an interesting read for people on both sides of the political spectrum.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheInsidiousSpurt on September 15, 2015, 10:56:10 PM
Thanks Blueflower. I might tune in.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 16, 2015, 01:14:48 AM
Also, while doing some research I found this really interesting article on Yahoo (https://www.yahoo.com/politics/forget-trump-how-bernie-sanders-and-ben-carson-129070072541.html) about Bernie Sanders and Ben Carson. Should be an interesting read for people on both sides of the political spectrum.

It just looks like a well worded "Vote for Ben Carson" article with a touch of "conservatives are pretty amazing ya'know, and the amazing ones are the ones that vote for Ben Carson."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 16, 2015, 01:23:14 AM
It just looks like a well worded "Vote for Ben Carson" article with a touch of "conservatives are pretty amazing ya'know, and the amazing ones are the ones that vote for Ben Carson."
Except I don't think that's what its intention was. It pointed out good things and flaws in both candidates. Plus I just thought it was interesting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 16, 2015, 01:50:15 AM
Except I don't think that's what its intention was. It pointed out good things and flaws in both candidates. Plus I just thought it was interesting.

That seemed to of been the message the author was trying to get across (along with don't vote for trump and that other guy). Maybe I'm wrong though.

Changing the subject, can someone enlighten me on the Religious Liberties some of the republicans have listed under issues they want to fix? I'm not aware of any laws/changes taking away peoples freedom of religion, but if there are I definitely would like to see them gone. I'm just afraid it's euphemism for "let's reunite church and state and ensure we never become a secular society."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 16, 2015, 02:00:09 AM
Changing the subject, can someone enlighten me on the Religious Liberties some of the republicans have listed under issues they want to fix? I'm not aware of any laws/changes taking away peoples freedom of religion, but if there are I definitely would like to see them gone. I'm just afraid it's euphemism for "let's reunite church and state and ensure we never become a secular society."
I think a lot of this has to do with that Kim Davis nonsense, and I agree that I don't understand a lot of it. Some definitely comes from the whole notion that every group in America constantly has to be the victims, the oppressed, the discriminated-against (whether actually true or entirely fabricated), and spend more time whining and name-calling than going out and fighting for what they believe in!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 16, 2015, 02:08:42 AM
I think a lot of this has to do with that Kim Davis nonsense, and I agree that I don't understand a lot of it. Some definitely comes from the whole notion that every group in America constantly has to be the victims, the oppressed, the discriminated-against (whether actually true or entirely fabricated), and spend more time whining and name-calling than going out and fighting for what they believe in!

Ugh don't even bring up Kim Davis. But yeah, I agree. I hate how our society is "if you aren't the oppressed, you're the perpetrator!" It just makes everyone go around trying to prove that they're a victim so they don't end up as the bad guy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 16, 2015, 05:31:48 AM
Why is it that when I read liberal viewpoints they just seem wrong, like, in what world is deficit spending ok

and that's how I figured out I was conservative
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 16, 2015, 05:39:01 AM
Religious liberty as it pertains to the Kim Davis case is essentially the notion of being exempt from certain laws on a religious basis.
Unfortunately, that's not how a secular government works; when a religious conviction can override the law of the land, government loses damn near if not all of its authority
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 16, 2015, 05:51:25 AM
I've never actually heard of a christian religion that forbids from signing a marriage license for homosexuals.  What she did wasn't ok.
Religious liberty as it pertains to the Kim Davis case is essentially the notion of being exempt from certain laws on a religious basis.
Unfortunately, that's not how a secular government works; when a religious conviction can override the law of the land, government loses damn near if not all of its authority
If there were a law that said, everyone needs to drink beer each morning or they'll be arrested, then I wouldn't follow that law and instead choose to go to prison.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 16, 2015, 05:52:53 AM
Why is it that when I read liberal viewpoints they just seem wrong, like, in what world is deficit spending ok

and that's how I figured out I was conservative

Yes, not spending too much money is a conservative value (unless you're bush?), but since when was deficit spending a liberal viewpoint? That sounds like something a conservative would say to bash liberalism, not something a liberal would say.

If you're actually interested in the difference between liberal and conservative view points rather than opinionated propaganda from one side, I'd suggest reading this. (http://news-basics.com/2010/liberal-vs-conservative-values/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 16, 2015, 05:54:14 AM
I've never actually heard of a christian religion that forbids from signing a marriage license for homosexuals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church
Quote
If there were a law that said, everyone needs to drink beer each morning or they'll be arrested, then I wouldn't follow that law and instead choose to go to prison.
Yes, and you would be right to do so. However, drinking beer every morning actually affects your life, letting two gay dudes down the street get married does not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 16, 2015, 05:59:04 AM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catholic_Church Yes, and you would be right to do so. However, drinking beer every morning actually affects your life, letting two gay dudes down the street get married does not.
that's why what she did wasn't ok, and what I did was ok
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 16, 2015, 02:10:56 PM
Yes, and you would be right to do so. However, drinking beer every morning actually affects your life, letting two gay dudes down the street get married does not.

to play devil's advocate, that's not enough of an argument for the government to be able to accept it. Plus, lots of conservatives think that same-sex marriage does affect them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 16, 2015, 06:16:21 PM
You mean the slippery slope of "what's next, beastiality being legal?"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 16, 2015, 06:41:17 PM
Probably something about "Oh, our children will see this and want to imitate it and that would be wrong"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 16, 2015, 07:09:52 PM
Yes, not spending too much money is a conservative value (unless you're bush?), but since when was deficit spending a liberal viewpoint? That sounds like something a conservative would say to bash liberalism, not something a liberal would say.
It might not be what they say, but it's what they do. Government entitlement programs (that liberals support and conservatives generally do not) now take up a huge portion of our budget and essentially prevent us from using tax dollars for important things. Like, oh IDK, paying off our massive debt.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 17, 2015, 12:22:02 AM
It might not be what they say, but it's what they do. Government entitlement programs (that liberals support and conservatives generally do not) now take up a huge portion of our budget and essentially prevent us from using tax dollars for important things. Like, oh IDK, paying off our massive debt.
That, once again, sounds like something a conservative would say to bash the other party, it's truth is very limited.

I've found an unbiased source (unbiased meaning he hates both parties equally, so more of a neutral bias I guess?) It's not the most... scholarly of websites out there, but I found his opinion rather interesting and enlightening.

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-liberals-justify-spending-well-beyond-revenue-on-a-government-scale-but-not-on-a-personal-one (https://www.quora.com/Why-do-liberals-justify-spending-well-beyond-revenue-on-a-government-scale-but-not-on-a-personal-one)

I think what I'm trying to say is that what one party says about the other is either not true or a gross exaggeration. It's like asking ISIS their opinion on Christianity - you're probably not gonna get an accurate answer.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 17, 2015, 12:29:12 AM
It might not be what they say, but it's what they do. Government entitlement programs (that liberals support and conservatives generally do not) now take up a huge portion of our budget and essentially prevent us from using tax dollars for important things. Like, oh IDK, paying off our massive debt.
It's interesting to note that the states that take up the most welfare are also the ones who generally oppose minimum wage hikes- for an obvious reason. When you don't pay people a living wage, they have to go off of government benefits.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 17, 2015, 01:10:12 AM
Would you mind explaining to me why raising the minimum wage is a good idea? I honestly have no idea and I'm curious about what the logic behind that is.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 17, 2015, 01:13:50 AM
Because it allows people who work a 40 hour work week at the federal minimum wage to actually have a living wage; if you're a family of two and both parents work 40 hours a week with the federal minimum wage of 7.25 an hour, you're still below the federal poverty line.
Fun fact; had the minimum wage followed the inflation through the 70's, it'd be somewhere around 22 dollars an hour.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 17, 2015, 06:17:57 AM
More money for lower class workers -> More money put back into lower-mid income neighborhoods and small businesses

Also the people that have to work 2-3 minimum wage jobs to support 3 kids might be able to afford more than mcdonalds every day which might be kinda neat

Think of it as something (somewhat-inversely) similar to Reagan's trickle down, except it's an actual working economic model unlike anything he ever did
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 17, 2015, 06:23:48 AM
everyone who's taken an economics class knows that when the minimum wage goes up the # of people working goes down
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 17, 2015, 06:56:35 AM
everyone who's taken an economics class knows that when the minimum wage goes up the # of people working goes down

Then let's not have a minimum wage, everyone gets to work!!!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 17, 2015, 07:02:36 AM
Then let's not have a minimum wage, everyone gets to work!!!
theoretically speaking, yes, if there were no minimum wage, unemployment would be nonexistent.  If the minimum wage was $20, nobody would have a job (except for the people who already make more than 20 an hour.)  IDK about you but I'd rather keep my job than getting fired cause Walmart can't afford to keep a minor
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 17, 2015, 07:09:00 AM
theoretically speaking, yes, if there were no minimum wage, unemployment would be nonexistent.  If the minimum wage was $20, nobody would have a job (except for the people who already make more than 20 an hour.)  IDK about you but I'd rather keep my job than getting fired cause Walmart can't afford to keep a minor

So, obviously, it's a balancing act. People who want to raise the minimum wage think our current rate of $7.25/hr is on the south end of it - don't act like they're bumbling idiots who don't know the first thing about economics.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 17, 2015, 07:16:46 AM
not a lot of places pay 7.25 any more.  If you think about it, without government interference, the places that don't pay as much wouldn't have as many applicants.  They have to increase their pay to stay competitive with other places.  EG: retail.  Raising the minimum wage would, at the very best, have slight positive consequences.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 17, 2015, 02:18:53 PM
More money for lower class workers -> More money put back into lower-mid income neighborhoods and small businesses

Also the people that have to work 2-3 minimum wage jobs to support 3 kids might be able to afford more than mcdonalds every day which might be kinda neat

Think of it as something (somewhat-inversely) similar to Reagan's trickle down, except it's an actual working economic model unlike anything he ever did
It sounds to me just about as viable as an economic solution as "print more money" does. I mean, if I was a small business owner and I catered to people who work minimum wage jobs (McDonalds, for example, as you just said), then when I saw that the minimum wage went up I would either immediately reduce the number of hours I allow my employees to work, reduce my number of employees, or raise the price of services equivalently. Inflation took a nose-dive during Reagan's administration because he understood how to make an economy powerful. Weakening the power of the American dollar by passing out more of it for the same work isn't going to do that.

Also, Nocturne, take a look at my all-time favorite New York Times article, the kind of thing that you'd never see in that newspaper today:

http://www.nytimes.com/1987/01/14/opinion/the-right-minimum-wage-0.00.html

I don't know if I agree with it but it's something to think about.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 17, 2015, 05:33:54 PM
I'm assuming raising the minimum wage would also entail programs to help people get and keep those jobs. For example, if you read Hilliary Clintons take on the issue (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/issues/plan-raise-american-incomes/), she doesn't just say "lololol guys let's raise the minimum wage because I don't know shit about economics like all those smart republics!" She has plans to make everything work out, because nothing works in a vacuum (likewise, you can't criticize it in a vacuum either.)

Note: I don't support Hilary Clinton more than any other candidate atm, I'm just looking for an easy example.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on September 17, 2015, 10:34:30 PM
So, I didn't watch the GOP debate last night, but I saw the "important" stuff on Facebook. It seems that the main points our country took away from the debate were:

- Donald Trump knows nothing about Autism/vaccines, and
- there was a really hot guy sitting behind the moderator in the audience.

Truly, this presidential race is leaps and bounds ahead of its time.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 17, 2015, 11:12:57 PM
So, I didn't watch the GOP debate last night, but I saw the "important" stuff on Facebook. It seems that the main points our country took away from the debate were:

- Donald Trump knows nothing about Autism/vaccines, and
- there was a really hot guy sitting behind the moderator in the audience.

Truly, this presidential race is leaps and bounds ahead of its time.
not sure which is worse, the candidates for this year or the people in america this year
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 17, 2015, 11:36:19 PM
IMO the way compensation needs to happen is that the CEO's need to stop paying themselves fucking ridiculous amounts of money when their workers have to rely on government welfare programs (the things the right is always bitching about), making it so the government is essentially paying them in the form of their worker's healthcare and food costs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 17, 2015, 11:43:38 PM
IMO the way compensation needs to happen is that the CEO's need to stop paying themselves fucking ridiculous amounts of money when their workers have to rely on government welfare programs (the things the right is always bitching about), making it so the government is essentially paying them in the form of their worker's healthcare and food costs.
you make it sound like 3/4 of the nation is relying on the government for their living instead of cursing them for taking their money
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 17, 2015, 11:44:32 PM
Not 3/4, but just short of 1/2.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 17, 2015, 11:47:43 PM
Not 3/4, but just short of 1/2.
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/terence-p-jeffrey/census-49-americans-get-gov-t-benefits-82m-households-medicaid
49,901,000 who collected Social Security; 49,073,000 who got food stamps; "46,440,000 on Medicare; 23,228,000 in the Women, Infants and Children program, 20,223,000 getting Supplemental Security Income;13,433,000 who lived in public or subsidized rental housing; 5,098,000 who got unemployment; 3,178,000 who got veterans' benefits; and 364,000 who got railroad retirement benefits."

So I'm seeing more like 50 mill, not 150 mill
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 17, 2015, 11:49:24 PM
"In total, the Census Bureau estimated, 151,014,000 Americans out of a population then estimated to be 306,804,000 received benefits from one or more government programs during the last three months of 2011. Those 151,014,000 beneficiaries equaled 49.2 percent of the population."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 18, 2015, 01:02:38 AM
a large portion of those benefits HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SUBJECT AT HAND.  Raising the minimum wage would do nothing to decrease the number of, say, military veterans receiving money.  To imply such a thing is folly.  You actually have to read the numbers instead of lumping them together
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 18, 2015, 01:05:11 AM
In all honesty social security is fine because you essentially pay for yourself. At least, that's how it should be. Medicare is probably justifiable too but to a lesser degree, and certainly not as many people need it that get it. Food stamps you could also probably make a case for but those could use some cuts as well. We're spending money we don't have, or so it would appear.

Out of curiosity, any ideas how long it would take to pay back the entire national debt if the government stopped dishing out benefits like it is currently? A little more than two 8-term presidencies, or roughly 18 years. It's a huge problem but it's not unsolvable if we just get our acts together and stop being fiscally irresponsible. We're essentially the richest and most powerful country on earth and yet we're not smart enough to manage our checkbook. Of course, I'm not in favor of dropping all government programs, but slashing them down until we're spending the money that we take in and only the money that we take in is the only sensible action here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 18, 2015, 02:19:45 AM
^Do you really think the republicans are gonna do that? They're just gonna spend money on their republican agenda rather than the democratic one. Do you want our money to go to government programs or tax cuts and the military?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 18, 2015, 02:48:33 AM
Preferably a bit should go to all of the above (we don't need a military all the time, but currently it would be nice to not be shrinking it), but in the degree that they still leave a bit of a surplus behind. In other words, the debt shouldn't be going up.

Also, I'm pretty sure John Kasich could do it, seeing as how he's done it twice before (once in Ohio and once during a previous federal administration I believe)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 18, 2015, 03:04:01 AM
Preferably a bit should go to all of the above (we don't need a military all the time, but currently it would be nice to not be shrinking it), but in the degree that they still leave a bit of a surplus behind. In other words, the debt shouldn't be going up.

Also, I'm pretty sure John Kasich could do it, seeing as how he's done it twice before (once in Ohio and once during a previous federal administration I believe)

Well, it says on his campaign page that he's gonna increase military funding (https://johnkasich.com/NationalSecurity/) and cut taxes (https://johnkasich.com/BalancingBudgets/).

Supposedly he has had success in Ohio, so maybe that approach works?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 18, 2015, 07:40:01 AM
I don't see why people are so angry about government funded support, that's the point of government.  It's like they want to revert back to some barbaric society where you're either in the bourgeois or some flea ridden peasant.

The focus shouldn't be that too many people are using it, or it should be taken away, it should be how do we ensure that it can continue being funded as it should be, and how can we further support people that have a need to pull on these programs.  It's absurd how selfish some people are.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 18, 2015, 12:54:04 PM
I don't see why people are so angry about government funded support, that's the point of government.  It's like they want to revert back to some barbaric society where you're either in the bourgeois or some flea ridden peasant.

The focus shouldn't be that too many people are using it, or it should be taken away, it should be how do we ensure that it can continue being funded as it should be, and how can we further support people that have a need to pull on these programs.  It's absurd how selfish some people are.
Now we're just getting into the semantics of what government's primary function is, and unfortunately for you, no one agrees on that and I don't think anyone ever will. I mean if you honestly believe that government's biggest responsibility is to dispense benefits to people then that's fine but stop assuming that everyone shares your point of view. :P The programs all need major reform or else we're never going to be able to support them. Actually we can't support them already but that doesn't seem to be anyone's concern. Votes are far more important!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 20, 2015, 09:39:14 PM
Lol everyone. Does anyone agree that the government's role ISN'T to take care of their citizens? Sorry, but Lord Reagan isn't a good example when it comes to what works, we know the the trickle down effect doesn't work.

Example:

Suddenly a billionaire has $300 million more to spend. Will he buy 100,000+ cars and save an American automaker from bankruptcy?

Suddenly $100,000 working class people get $300 million total from a tax refund (yes, these exist). Will they buy 100,000 cars so they don't have to drive their old cars to work?

The reason a safety net exists is because bad things happen to anybody. And don't say it'll never happen to you. Let's say your parents both get into a car accident and can't work. Would you honestly say 'tough luck, maybe you shouldn't have been driving"? Then give them bootstraps and tell them to work anyway, so you can keep your house and appliances? Will all people feel obliged to give you their services for free until you get back on your feet (try this at Wal-Mart)?

Earlier this year:
http://www.rawstory.com/2015/05/conservative-spurns-obamacare-and-insurance-but-blames-obama-now-that-hes-going-broke-and-blind/

The update to that story is that people on GoFundMe donated $28k and told him to get insurance ASAP after the story went viral. It's also amazing that I hear a lot of people who talk about people abusing the welfare system (we know this doesn't happen on the scale they think) find no issue with soliciting strangers for help with crowdfunding sites.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 21, 2015, 09:41:05 PM
I'd like to make a few comments and then I have a new political update.

Firstly, Regan's economic policy wasn't intended to give rich people more money to go out and buy cars or whatever. Basing an economic system on the faith in the goodness of human beings is doomed from the start. The system was designed to lower tax rates and thus get the rich people to stop investing their money overseas to avoid the high tax rates in America. Then, of course as rich people tend to do, they would try to make more money. How would they do that? By starting more businesses, of course! This resulted in a boost to the economy, more employment, and an increase in revenues to the government.

You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.

Secondly, I don't think anyone should advocate that the government shouldn't have a safety net of last resort. But it truly has to be of last resort. Pumping out one trillion dollars a year into entitlement programs doesn't sound to me like it's being used as a last resort.

Also, here's the political news: Scott Walker has supposedly dropped out of the election (http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2015/09/21/scott-walker-said-to-be-quitting-presidential-race/). Such a shame too. I rather liked him. He just couldn't stand out with so many similar and better candidates in the field.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 21, 2015, 11:11:43 PM
Since we're still on the topic of money, you guys might find this useful. http://www.ontheissues.org/Budget_+_Economy.htm#Headlines (http://www.ontheissues.org/Budget_+_Economy.htm#Headlines)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 25, 2015, 04:35:10 AM
Firstly, Regan's economic policy wasn't intended to give rich people more money to go out and buy cars or whatever. Basing an economic system on the faith in the goodness of human beings is doomed from the start. The system was designed to lower tax rates and thus get the rich people to stop investing their money overseas to avoid the high tax rates in America. Then, of course as rich people tend to do, they would try to make more money. How would they do that? By starting more businesses, of course! This resulted in a boost to the economy, more employment, and an increase in revenues to the government.

You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.

Tax cuts=welfare for the rich and is in every way, a handout. Honestly, these companies that tell you trickle down works are the ones who are best at sucking money out of the government/taxpayers for their own benefit. It seems like you're the one putting faith in a terribly flawed system. (https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12049327_10153316023056051_7343413211761017873_n.jpg?oh=cdcf4d2eb282715d0353644b27029171&oe=569C59EF)

I thought about this today because under Fiorina (who is running for president), her company among others lobbied for a tax cut in exchange to bring money, r&d and jobs to the US. What actually happened was that she took $4 billion out of $4.3 billion in handouts to buy stock (illegal). Later she made a bad decision to buy Compaq and then laid off tens of thousands of workers and she got fired for that with a nice $21 million severance package. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-hp-ceo-fiorina-used-job-creating-tax-breaks-to-buy-back-stock-then-fired-thousands-of-workers/) So how much of this $21 million did the fired workers get? And what do you think rich people did with their money? Buy YOU a house? They put their money back in stock and investments and begged the government to bail them out when that turned sour! If the rich have never been richer, then why is the government in massive debt and some people are unemployed?

Since 1969 only Clinton ended his term with a surplus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton) Reagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)

Quote
Pumping out one trillion dollars a year into entitlement programs doesn't sound to me like it's being used as a last resort.

Entitlement programs for the rich? We haven't paid a trillion to barely feed people with food stamps. How is it entitlement to give people a chance at having enough to eat or stay alive? Let's blame the poor people instead while the rich people are running off with money.

Look at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin's education, labor unions and environment. I could never justify tax cuts on education but somehow afford a sports stadium. 

While I'm at it, there is this article about how businesses reinvented themselves with Christianity as PR. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/how-big-business-invented-the-theology-of-christian-libertarianism-and-the-gospel-of-free-markets/) Also, a history of the Koch brothers and Fred Koch are worth reading.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 25, 2015, 05:28:42 AM
Uck here we go again.

Tax cuts=welfare for the rich and is in every way, a handout.
hand·out
noun
1. something given free to a needy person or organization.

wel·fare
noun
1. financial support given to people in need.

Don't really think it meets either of these definitions. In order for something to be a handout you have to... hand it out. I mean if gas prices go down people don't think "wow this is great the gas companies are giving us free money!"

Quote
Honestly, these companies that tell you trickle down works are the ones who are best at sucking money out of the government/taxpayers for their own benefit.
And I'd much rather have politicians suck money out of the taxpayers for their own benefit? No, not really. The rich keep the economy going. The government throws money down the drain, hence 18 trillion some dollars in debt.

Quote
It seems like you're the one putting faith in a terribly flawed system. (https://scontent-lga3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfp1/v/t1.0-9/12049327_10153316023056051_7343413211761017873_n.jpg?oh=cdcf4d2eb282715d0353644b27029171&oe=569C59EF)
Ah, absolutely. I trust Pope Francis who's in charge of a country with no economy for all of my economic needs! Next we can learn about climate change from the man who invented the internet!

Quote
I thought about this today because under Fiorina (who is running for president), her company among others lobbied for a tax cut in exchange to bring money, r&d and jobs to the US. What actually happened was that she took $4 billion out of $4.3 billion in handouts to buy stock (illegal). Later she made a bad decision to buy Compaq and then laid off tens of thousands of workers and she got fired for that with a nice $21 million severance package. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/ex-hp-ceo-fiorina-used-job-creating-tax-breaks-to-buy-back-stock-then-fired-thousands-of-workers/)
I don't know enough about the particular situation to defend her. I can tell you, however, that I'm going to take everything from Rawstory.com with a grain of salt. I mean, come on, if I posted a link to a Fox News article would you take me seriously? Probably not. All that website needs is knowledge of her being conservative and it has a motivation to drag her through the mud.

Reading up Carly's Wikipedia page (which is a good deal less biased) reveals that she hired more people during her career than fired, so there was a net gain of employees for the company. In addition, she was fired for "declining stock value, disappointing earning reports, disagreements about the company's performance, and her resistance to transferring authority to division heads."

Quote
So how much of this $21 million did the fired workers get?
Well they actually probably got some of it depending on whether they filed for unemployment benefits or not.

Quote
And what do you think rich people did with their money? Buy YOU a house?
Why the heck would I want rich people to buy me a house? I'll work hard and buy my own house, thank you. And yes, of course I know not everyone has the opportunities to buy a house.

Quote
They put their money back in stock and investments and begged the government to bail them out when that turned sour!
Government should never bail people out. Ever. It's not their problem.

Quote
If the rich have never been richer, then why is the government in massive debt and some people are unemployed?
The rich being rich doesn't have anything to do with the government being in debt. Let's get a president that won't double the debt in their presidency, shall we?

Quote
Since 1969 only Clinton ended his term with a surplus. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presidency_of_Bill_Clinton)
I'm aware of this. From what I understand, he cooperated with Republicans (John Kasich likes to take partial credit for this) to balance the budget. And that's nice and I respect him for that. I mean if he didn't he would have been as "the Monica Lewinsky" President for all of history so he kind of saved his own behind in that regard.
 
Reagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
Yeah, I'm aware of this. Reagan himself was never directly linked with the affair, but I suppose like Harding and Teapot Dome a President gets blamed for what his subordinates do behind his back, huh?

Quote
Entitlement programs for the rich? We haven't paid a trillion to barely feed people with food stamps. How is it entitlement to give people a chance at having enough to eat or stay alive? Let's blame the poor people instead while the rich people are running off with money.
Here's another quote from Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program's Wikipedia page:

"SNAP benefits cost $74.1 billion in fiscal year 2014 and supplied roughly 46.5 million Americans with an average of $125.35 for each person per month in food assistance.[2]" I'm assuming that because it says "each person," that families with numerous children would get more than this, but I could be wrong on that. That's certainly enough to live off of per month for food, certainly. It wouldn't be very luxurious or healthy but the poor that I've seen in Bolivia would kill for that income a month.

Quote
Look at Scott Walker's record in Wisconsin's education, labor unions and environment. I could never justify tax cuts on education but somehow afford a sports stadium. 
Here's Scott Walker's budget for the upcoming few years. (http://www.doa.state.wi.us/Documents/DEBF/Budget/Biennial%20Budget/2015-17%20Executive%20Budget/bib1517.pdf) As for labor unions and the environment, those are other debates entirely.

Quote
While I'm at it, there is this article about how businesses reinvented themselves with Christianity as PR. (http://www.rawstory.com/2015/06/how-big-business-invented-the-theology-of-christian-libertarianism-and-the-gospel-of-free-markets/) Also, a history of the Koch brothers and Fred Koch are worth reading.
Ooh boy, another rawstory article. "Merrrrr capitalism and religion are evil, everyone's a blind sheep to what the media tell them, merrrrr."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 25, 2015, 04:33:59 PM

You can argue all you want about how successful the plan was, but the fact is that Reagan is still one of the most beloved Presidents of the modern era for it, and it certainly had quite a few positive outcomes.

Conservatives like him because of his STOP THE DAMN REDS WITH THE POWAH OF JESUS speakings, not anything to do with his actual policies.  His views are hilariously out of line with all of the leading conservative agendas at present.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 27, 2015, 04:43:20 AM
Conservatives like him because of his STOP THE DAMN REDS WITH THE POWAH OF JESUS speakings
Lol if you can find him saying anything close to this I'd be very interested in seeing it.

Also a few new updates from the political world:

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 27, 2015, 05:54:13 AM
right-sided shit
ok thanks for the update
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 27, 2015, 05:59:20 AM
  • Kim Davis is becoming a Republican because the Democrats abandoned her and have been calling her Hitler for a few months now. Let's see how long it takes the media to forget she was a Democrat and to start going "merrrrrrr Republicans" again.

Kim Davis is fodder against Christians who don't know what the first amendment actually is, not republicans. "Hurr Durr, Imma change my political opinion about completely unrelated things because I don't like the people who share my opinion" sounds really dumb though.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 27, 2015, 06:12:10 AM
ok thanks for the update
I mean do I need to specify that I lean right before making my posts? The left-leaning people on this forum certainly present their opinions as factual a lot more than I do.  :P

Kim Davis is fodder against Christians who don't know what the first amendment actually is, not republicans. "Hurr Durr, Imma change my political opinion about completely unrelated things because I don't like the people who share my opinion" sounds really dumb though.
You could make that case, sure. But like you keep pointing out to me, the partisan system is flawed to a degree. What's wrong with her changing her registration and keeping some Democratic principles? Certainly hasn't stopped Jeb Bush and his standardized education or Donald Trump and his single-payer healthcare.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 27, 2015, 06:16:25 AM
You could make that case, sure. But like you keep pointing out to me, the partisan system is flawed to a degree. What's wrong with her changing her registration and keeping some Democratic principles? Certainly hasn't stopped Jeb Bush and his standardized education or Donald Trump and his single-payer healthcare.

It's just... really childish. If she changed her opinion to be more oriented to the right side, then she cares more about her nonexistent dignity than what she actually thinks is best for the country. If she changed affiliations without changing her opinion, then she's completely destroying the point of even registering for a party just to make a lousy point (though I'd argue there's no good reason to register for any party, as you know ;3)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 27, 2015, 06:24:34 AM
It's just... really childish. If she changed her opinion to be more oriented to the right side, then she cares more about her nonexistent dignity than what she actually thinks is best for the country. If she changed affiliations without changing her opinion, then she's completely destroying the point of even registering for a party just to make a lousy point (though I'd argue there's no good reason to register for any party, as you know ;3)
I mean the main reason to register for a political party is to vote in the primaries. Even if you don't agree 100% with either side (which of course most people don't fall into) it's still better to register to the side that you're more likely to support, or the side with the candidates that you want to win, so you can vote for them early on.

Also, couldn't you make the argument that every politician acts for what they perceive to be the best for the country, no matter how delusional they may be? Or perhaps you could also make the argument that all politicians act for their own purposes and couldn't care less about their country? You be the judge of that one.

I'm not going to defend Kim Davis on here because there really isn't very much to go off of that doesn't involve using religion. So I'll concede your point for now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 27, 2015, 06:33:11 AM
I mean the main reason to register for a political party is to vote in the primaries. Even if you don't agree 100% with either side (which of course most people don't fall into) it's still better to register to the side that you're more likely to support, or the side with the candidates that you want to win, so you can vote for them early on.

By that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.

Quote
Also, couldn't you make the argument that every politician acts for what they perceive to be the best for the country, no matter how delusional they may be? Or perhaps you could also make the argument that all politicians act for their own purposes and couldn't care less about their country? You be the judge of that one.

Kim Davis isn't a politician so I don't know what point you're trying to make.

Quote
I'm not going to defend Kim Davis on here because there really isn't very much to go off of that doesn't involve using religion. So I'll concede your point for now.

That's the whole thing, you can't use religion to defend Kim Davis because religion should not even be a factor in what she does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on September 27, 2015, 06:39:58 AM
By that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.
Sure, go ahead. No one's stopping you!

Quote
Kim Davis isn't a politician so I don't know what point you're trying to make.
But she is. At least I'm pretty sure she is. She was elected to hold an office as a county clerk in Kentucky, doesn't that make her a politician?

Quote
That's the whole thing, you can't use religion to defend Kim Davis because religion should not even be a factor in what she does.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Kim Davis isn't a member of Congress nor is Congress condoning her actions.  :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 27, 2015, 06:48:48 AM
ooh, political crap
#votejackolantern2016

I will now be taking questions, thank you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 27, 2015, 06:58:04 AM
By that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.
i'm actually doing that lmao
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 27, 2015, 06:08:33 PM
Ah yes, the more reputable candidates, such as the woman who was an abysmal failure as a business executive that thinks we should reenter the most volatile and self-destructive phase of the Cold War with a new arms race and full-on military hostility towards our current adversaries.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 29, 2015, 04:07:54 AM
Uck here we go again.
hand·out
noun
1. something given free to a needy person or organization.

wel·fare
noun
1. financial support given to people in need.
Same concept, though, of giving money to someone to help them out, which we do for the rich all the time- and they invest it in tax free havens and China, where the cost of labor is dirt cheap.

Quote

Reagan closed down mental hospitals and sold weapons to Iran. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Contra_affair)
Yeah, I'm aware of this. Reagan himself was never directly linked with the affair, but I suppose like Harding and Teapot Dome a President gets blamed for what his subordinates do behind his back, huh?
And do tell, how much was it on the average taxpayer when we bailed out wall street, or when we give tax cuts to the Koch brothers? How much of that check are we picking up? Reagan also supported amnesty for illegal immigrants and a ban on assault weapons, BTW.
Quote
As for labor unions and the environment, those are other debates entirely.
Honestly they're not really that controversial. The only "bad" things that I can think of from labor unions has been voting for political candidates and I'm not educated on that story so I can't speak for that one.
The environment? Simply put, if you disbelieve in climate change, you're wrong.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) End of story.
Quote
Government shouldn't bail anyone out. Ever. It's not their problem.
Then I suppose you'd be fervently against the bailing out of Wall Street, right?
Or wait, do you want to keep the supposed "top talent" even though they went bankrupt?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 29, 2015, 04:12:14 AM
New rant:
Can someone explain to me why the self professed "Christian Fundamentalists" can't stand illegal immigrants or Syrian refugees?
In the Bible it says multiple times to treat the immigrant as your family, because they've probably gone through hell and back, and that you either were in their position once or will be in the future.
But now most of the GOP candidates (who are all christian) want to block out immigration, and yet in other policies are influenced by their religion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 29, 2015, 04:18:18 AM
You're trying to find logic where none exists
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 29, 2015, 04:24:29 AM
Because they only care about the bible when it benefits their ability to win the election.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on September 29, 2015, 04:24:57 AM
Lol if you can find him saying anything close to this I'd be very interested in seeing it.

You could try reading a history textbook, or looking at sources beyond christiandailynewsforpatriots.biz

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=100253947

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/09/16/us/politics/ap-us-gop-2016-reagan.html?_r=0

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 29, 2015, 04:35:28 AM
Ben Carson: "Well I like the idea of a proportional tax. That way you pay according to your ability; I got that idea, quite frankly from the Bible- tithing."
"We need to secure all borders, not just by fences but also by surveillance, drones, and other equipment."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 29, 2015, 05:14:43 AM
he's not a politician either I thought he was a doctor
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 29, 2015, 06:25:38 AM
They aren't mutually exclusive.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 29, 2015, 06:53:45 AM
excuse me, yes they are, have you ever met a doctor
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 29, 2015, 07:06:03 AM
I'm so glad some of you guys can't vote lmao
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMarioPianist on September 29, 2015, 12:14:30 PM
I'm so glad some of you guys can't vote lmao
I'm glad I can't vote XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 29, 2015, 01:34:23 PM
I'm so glad some of you guys can't vote lmao

Fun fact: I turned 18 two days before the 2012 election. My dad took a picture of me outside the voting booth and put it on his Facebook (where he's friends with people of all stripes) and people on both sides of the spectrum were saying "I hope she picked the right candidate."

(i picked the one who did not have binders full of women)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 29, 2015, 01:57:14 PM
I turned 18 2 days before the day of the 2008 election lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 29, 2015, 02:05:43 PM
... I turned 14 the day of the 2008 election
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 29, 2015, 02:43:42 PM
No you didn't.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 29, 2015, 02:58:22 PM
yeah I did. november 4?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: braixen1264 on September 29, 2015, 03:16:03 PM
Even if I was able to vote I'd be one of those people that just don't really give a shit about politics
"hey r u a repub or demo"
"im a kid that dont give a fuk"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 29, 2015, 03:44:21 PM
yeah I did. november 4?
2nd I thought. Wasn't it a Tuesday?

Edit: oh wait I was wrong. shocker there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 29, 2015, 10:02:21 PM
Fun fact: I turned 18 two days before the 2012 election. My dad took a picture of me outside the voting booth and put it on his Facebook (where he's friends with people of all stripes) and people on both sides of the spectrum were saying "I hope she picked the right candidate."

(i picked the one who did not have binders full of women)
good choice
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 30, 2015, 12:28:56 AM
he's not a politician either I thought he was a doctor
A retired neurosurgeon who's running for president because conservative logic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on September 30, 2015, 12:31:21 AM
So apparently only politicians can become president now? I don't remember reading that in the Constitution....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 30, 2015, 12:39:39 AM
No, but you're supposed to be, oh.. what's that word....
Qualified.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on September 30, 2015, 12:41:18 AM
If all it takes to be President is just be a politician, then at least half the world is qualified given the track record of most politicians.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 30, 2015, 12:56:49 AM
So apparently only politicians can become president now? I don't remember reading that in the Constitution....
Qualified.
someone who doesn't have multiple degrees in law and history and all that stupid boring crap shouldn't have a political position
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 30, 2015, 01:53:46 AM
No, but you're supposed to be, oh.. what's that word....
Qualified.
So apparently only politicians can become president now? I don't remember reading that in the Constitution....
someone who doesn't have multiple degrees in law and history and all that stupid boring crap shouldn't have a political position

Seriously guys? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Politician)

By virtue of running for president he's a politician. No, that doesn't mean he isn't a doctor.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on September 30, 2015, 03:30:14 AM
Seriously guys? (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Politician)

By virtue of running for president he's a politician. No, that doesn't mean he isn't a doctor.
"Politician" used in this connotation usually refers to someone solely involved in politics, as in these definitions:
Quote
1 :  a person experienced in the art or science of government; especially :  one actively engaged in conducting the business of a government
2
a :  a person engaged in party politics as a profession
b :  a person primarily interested in political office for selfish or other narrow usually short-sighted reasons
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 30, 2015, 03:49:08 AM
Please explain to me how running for president isn't included under that definition.

Quote
A politician (from Classical Greek πόλις, "polis") is a person holding or seeking an office within a government, usually by means of an election, voted for either by people or by a definitive group in the government. Politicians propose, support and create laws or policies that govern the land and, by extension, its people. Broadly speaking, a "politician" can be anyone who seeks to achieve political power in any bureaucratic institution where the ranks are awarded by the kind of support the person has.
Quote
Politicians are people who are politically active, especially in party politics. They are people holding or seeking political office whether elected or appointed, professionally or otherwise. Positions range from local offices to executive, legislative and judicial offices of state and national governments.[1][2] Some law enforcement officers, such as sheriffs, are considered politicians.

We aren't talking about two different words here, you're just using concise definitions to leave a larger margin of interpretation. If you want to argue that you have to hold an office before you can be a politician, be my guest. As far as I'm concerned, all it takes is running for one.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 30, 2015, 03:57:10 AM
Quote from: blueflower
derp

Lol I thought Catholics recognize the pope with some authority. Btw the pope says evolution is real and so is climate change. He also has a master's degree in chemistry, so I would give him the microphone when it comes to science.

I mean do I need to specify that I lean right before making my posts? The left-leaning people on this forum certainly present their opinions as factual a lot more than I do.  :P

You haven't cited ANY sources for your crazy beliefs, and I picked RS because it's easy enough for teenagers to understand. You can read the NYT or New Yorker if you feel like a big kid. The problem is that you refuse to read anything that disagrees with you, even facts.

I've heard things about Kim Davis being a Democrat and it has nothing to do with her having any ideas aligning with the party's. Some reasons I heard were 1) her mother was one 2) she lived in one of the more liberal towns in KY so she could have been doing it for the votes. I've been in a booth and I would be lying if I knew everyone on the ballot. Since the gay men were denied a marriage license by her had voted for her, it's likely they didn't know her and assumed she was the lesser of two evils.

But she is [a politician]. At least I'm pretty sure she is. She was elected to hold an office as a county clerk in Kentucky, doesn't that make her a politician?

She is an ELECTED OFFICIAL, elected to uphold the law and do some paperwork. Which she refuses to do.

Kim Davis isn't a member of Congress:P

This makes her NOT a politician. She neither makes the law, nor does she get to choose which ones to carry out. She's a paperwork grunt and her ego is too big for her to understand that. How can you lecture people about politics and not know the difference yourself?

By that logic I'd register as republican so I can try and make sure the least "redneck" candidate makes it to the end.

Know someone who does this to vote in the Republican primaries.

@whoever used the CNS link
CNS is unreliable, just like any news network that has a conservative political affiliation with their name. You can see that their math completely did not add up.



---

Hey, let's get back to the evils of feeding the poor, St. Blueflower. $125 per person is a total handout because they adults with children don't deserve to eat. By the way, most of these programs are made to feed hungry CHILDREN. Are you seriously going to tell them to stop eating? I spend $40 for groceries in a week and I'm the size of a 12 year old. $125 is chicken scratch. It's funny that you use the argument, "a developing country would kill for this." WE ARE NOT A DEVELOPING COUNTRY. It's like telling your kids to eat their spinach because there's a starving kid in Africa. It isn't really a good argument.

If you don't pay taxes and stash tons of it overseas, you have a lot to do with how the government is getting revenue. I can tell you the reason why people in China are more hesitant to invest in business, it's because their money can vanish overnight, and they don't have any program that federally backs them in case of that kind of catastrophic loss. For example, the FDIC here for the average person.

The severance pay for Carly Fiorina has nothing to do with the government, HP paid that. It's funny to think that if you were right, the government did indeed bail out the average worker while Fiorina made off with the loot (from HP). But let's talk more about your worship of the rich.

Conservatives like him because of his STOP THE DAMN REDS WITH THE POWAH OF JESUS speakings, not anything to do with his actual policies.  His views are hilariously out of line with all of the leading conservative agendas at present.

Oh yes, the religion and capitalism thing, the fuel for the gullible. Doesn't that show it's really a thing?

Also Ben Carson said God gave him the answers to his chemistry exam for an interview. This guy is deluded and his professor did what all professors did; recycle his exam questions and keep everyone on their toes all semester.

@Dude
Hey, I said that first, on Skype D: But I'll let you have it because you made it sound funny.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 30, 2015, 04:01:54 AM
Lol I thought Catholics recognize the pope with some authority. Btw the pope says evolution is real and so is climate change. He also has a master's degree in chemistry, so I would give him the microphone when it comes to science.

but don't catholics believe in creationism
so we shouldn't listen to the pope anyway
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on September 30, 2015, 04:57:29 AM
Also Ben Carson said God gave him the answers to his chemistry exam for an interview. This guy is deluded and his professor did what all professors did; recycle his exam questions and keep everyone on their toes all semester.

Ewwwwwww. Honestly, that alone convinced me not to vote for him. If god can't help Africa because of his "ultimate mysterious plan", then why the hell should he help you on a chemistry test?

Ugh, I'm just imagining him doing weird ass stuff in office because "god told him to." I had a lot of respect for him before too :P.

but don't catholics believe in creationism
so we shouldn't listen to the pope anyway

Catholics who claim to know more about biology than biology majors because theology trumps everything? That's stupid.
Catholics who claim to know more about biology than biology majors and more about theology than the pope because "that's what Catholics believe"? Wat.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on September 30, 2015, 07:54:34 AM
Omg guys I found this picture that perfectly describes Ruto's post to blue

(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on September 30, 2015, 08:12:37 AM

(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
dying
I'm literally sitting here coughing my lungs out cause I'm sick and I might be dying
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 30, 2015, 08:39:11 AM
Ewwwwwww. Honestly, that alone convinced me not to vote for him. If god can't help Africa because of his "ultimate mysterious plan", then why the hell should he help you on a chemistry test?

Ugh, I'm just imagining him doing weird ass stuff in office because "god told him to." I had a lot of respect for him before too :P.


Oh yeah. It's pretty disturbing to think this guy was a surgeon, but he probably would have a whole team restrain him if he started doing cuckoo stuff on a patient. I know about his background, but even more about how he thinks America should remove the programs that helped him succeed in the first place. Like pulling up the ladder after he climbs it.

Also this comment:
"I think I know the exact day this happened!  I was studying for a very important life-changing test too that night, and I asked for help.  God said, shut up, I'm helping Ben Carson and can't do everything.  You know what's it's like everyone calling you every night asking for help?  Well, God does work in mysterious ways.  Damn you Ben Carson, because of you, I now work at Burger King."

Omg guys I found this picture that perfectly describes Ruto's post to blue
Spoiler
(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
[close]

Well...XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 30, 2015, 05:28:16 PM
Lol I thought Catholics recognize the pope with some authority. Btw the pope says evolution is real and so is climate change. He also has a master's degree in chemistry, so I would give him the microphone when it comes to science.
This is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on September 30, 2015, 06:30:24 PM
This is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.
? Except Ruto wasn't saying that creationists don't or can't have PhDs at all friend. Notice how she said "I thought" and "I would", implying personal opinions. Besides, if you want to talk about logic, people tend to trust people with experience on science more than people who don't have experience, so you can't call Ruto illogical at all.

Don't try to draw conclusions that have no basis from what people say and are completely unrelated to the point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 30, 2015, 07:02:00 PM
Besides, if you want to talk about logic, people tend to trust people with experience on science more than people who don't have experience
This is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on September 30, 2015, 07:15:09 PM
i didn't mention a word on creationists smh

It's common human behaviour to trust people on things you think they have knowledge of. That's why you usually go to a doctor instead of to your 3-year-old sibling when you have aids.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 30, 2015, 07:16:29 PM
It's common human behaviour to trust people on things you think they have knowledge of. That's why you usually go to a doctor instead of to your 3-year-old sibling when you have aids.
I agree
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on September 30, 2015, 07:18:26 PM
there we go then
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on September 30, 2015, 08:03:42 PM
It's common human behaviour to trust people on things you think they have knowledge of. That's why you usually go to a doctor instead of to your 3-year-old sibling when you have aids.

:D :D :D :D ;)

This is actually very poor logic. I know multiple Creationists with PhDs in Chemistry, Science, you name it.

Lol creationists. I can't imagine a more toxic environment for them than a science classroom. Wasn't there a site I posted saying how creationism disagrees with every law/theory in biology/chemistry/physics? Oh yeah. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/

I would NOT give anyone a degree in chemistry because they are creationist, because it means they don't understand even basic chemistry. If you're talking about that idiot tax cheat Ken Hovind, his PhD is from a diploma mill and not recognized by a real institution. However, if you're Ben Carson, you can get your chemistry degree first and then make up bullshit to get voters/suit your religion later because you're famous and won't get in trouble.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 30, 2015, 08:15:19 PM
Ah.....I don't have time to discuss this.....but I will say this:
Nothing in the Bible goes against Science. Everything in the Bible agrees with it.

Also, the first and second laws of thermodynamics go against Evolution. You can't forget the Law of Entropy.

"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found -- not even a tiny one. Like conservation of energy (the "first law"), the existence of a law so precise and so independent of details of models must have a logical foundation that is independent of the fact that matter is composed of interacting particles."

Anyway, would you like to continue this on skype sometime, Ruto? I don't have time now and I'd love to continue XD
Ever since the beginning of this month, I have been extremely busy.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on September 30, 2015, 08:57:59 PM
Entropy only applies in closed systems, MLF, which the earth is not.
But, you seem to know them well, so what are the other laws, could you tell me?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on September 30, 2015, 09:03:16 PM
Alas, I don't have time now :/
Wish I did.....I'll contact you when I have time. Actually, I think this discussion would be better on skype. We wouldn't be waiting so long on each other to comment and we'd get more thoughts in quicker. There is an NSM skype chat now that Maestro put up. I can add anyone that is interested. There is only 10 participants as of now.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on September 30, 2015, 10:09:40 PM
Ah.....I don't have time to discuss this.....but I will say this:
Nothing in the Bible goes against Science. Everything in the Bible agrees with it.

?????? then why do so many christians disbelieve evolution
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on September 30, 2015, 10:16:27 PM
When I gave up trying to take some people in this thread seriously it actually became pretty amusing I highly recommend it
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 01, 2015, 12:52:34 AM
I'm really confused, what does thermodynamics have to do with evolution? Genetic changes over time cannot result in diversification because energy cannot be created nor destroyed? Evolution can't occur because entropy can only increase in a closed system?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how your argument is any different than trying to bake cookies with a calculator.

Also what's with your aversion to posting in these threads? You like post twice then tell everyone to stop talking and move to skype.

"No exception to the second law of thermodynamics has ever been found..."

except for god

When I gave up trying to take some people in this thread seriously it actually became pretty amusing I highly recommend it

http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People (http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People)
yes i see the irony in this
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on October 01, 2015, 02:45:09 AM
Also what's with your aversion to posting in these threads? You like post twice then tell everyone to stop talking and move to skype.
Tbh, I don't really like talking about this stuff on the forums.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on October 01, 2015, 02:47:15 AM
...so why do you start in the first place
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on October 01, 2015, 02:52:38 AM
Just thought I'd add that little bit.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 01, 2015, 03:07:15 AM
Just thought I'd add that little bit.

Protip: Don't post in a thread labeled politics or religion if you don't want people disagreeing with you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on October 01, 2015, 03:16:05 AM
Protip: Don't post in a thread labeled politics or religion if you don't want people disagreeing with you.
That's not the problem.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on October 01, 2015, 03:19:09 AM
Of course not. The problem is posting something in public and then telling people to talk to you privately about it. That's unreasonable.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: braixen1264 on October 01, 2015, 03:21:27 AM
I get butthurt about religeous stuff pretty easily so I try to avoid reading stuff in this topic at all, else a war would start and/or I'll forever be known as stupid and senseless
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 01, 2015, 03:41:26 AM
@mlf telling us to stop
(https://i.imgur.com/u8a0sQx.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on October 01, 2015, 03:47:33 AM
If you don't want to talk about this stuff, avoid the damn topic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on October 01, 2015, 04:11:15 AM
I get butthurt about religeous stuff pretty easily so I try to avoid reading stuff in this topic at all, else a war would start and/or I'll forever be known as stupid and senseless
This says it all^

The problem is posting something in public and then telling people to talk to you privately about it.
I said this because I didn't want to talk about it then. I was busy.
I didn't say it cause I wanted everyone to not talk about it. I just don't have time to respond so I suggested talking about it later on skype.
Doesn't matter.

Obviously, I'm always the "match in the gas can" about everything. I just won't talk then.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 01, 2015, 04:28:07 AM
stirring the pot
Claim CF001:

The second law of thermodynamics says that everything tends toward disorder, making evolutionary development impossible.
Source:

Morris, Henry M., 1974. Scientific Creationism, Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 38-46.
Response:

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.
In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

The only processes necessary for evolution to occur are reproduction, heritable variation, and selection. All of these are seen to happen all the time, so, obviously, no physical laws are preventing them. In fact, connections between evolution and entropy have been studied in depth, and never to the detriment of evolution (Demetrius 2000).

Several scientists have proposed that evolution and the origin of life is driven by entropy (McShea 1998). Some see the information content of organisms subject to diversification according to the second law (Brooks and Wiley 1988), so organisms diversify to fill empty niches much as a gas expands to fill an empty container. Others propose that highly ordered complex systems emerge and evolve to dissipate energy (and increase overall entropy) more efficiently (Schneider and Kay 1994).

Creationists themselves admit that increasing order is possible. They introduce fictional exceptions to the law to account for it.

Creationists themselves make claims that directly contradict their claims about the second law of thermodynamics, such as hydrological sorting of fossils during the Flood.

Source: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001.html
[close]

Nah, not interested in a skype chat with a bunch of kids. Dude's got a point, if you find you're unintentionally getting in trouble by talking repeatedly, stop talking and think about what you did wrong. Stop asking me to contact you/share contact info, it's borderline harassment and I don't need to deal with more problems.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 01, 2015, 05:00:56 AM
@MLF
If you don't want to talk about this stuff, avoid the damn topic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 01, 2015, 05:06:56 AM
I have an idea, let's get back on topic.

(https://media.giphy.com/media/1nDm900wgGU1O/giphy.gif)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 01, 2015, 05:22:12 AM
I'm really confused, what does thermodynamics have to do with evolution? Genetic changes over time cannot result in diversification because energy cannot be created nor destroyed? Evolution can't occur because entropy can only increase in a closed system?

Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see how your argument is any different than trying to bake cookies with a calculator.

Also what's with your aversion to posting in these threads? You like post twice then tell everyone to stop talking and move to skype.

except for god

http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People (http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-Condescending-People)
yes i see the irony in this
I think mlf's point here was that the Big Bang as it's currently postulated is literally creating matter
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 01, 2015, 05:28:21 AM
I think mlf's point here was that the Big Bang as it's currently postulated is literally creating matter
I'm not too knowledgeable on the big bang, so if any astrophysics buffs wanna correct me go ahead. But I'm pretty sure the big bang is the theory that the entirety of everything was all compressed down into a single point, aka a singularity (somewhat like a blackhole.)

Keep in mind that scientists are as good as 100% sure evolution is the cause of both humans and species (which was the previous topic at hand, why I assumed mlf was referring to thay.) Theories on the creation of the universe and biogenesis (big bang, amino acids formation, etc.) are completely unrelated and are nothing more than hypotheses and or guesswork.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 01, 2015, 05:32:49 AM
The Big Bang does no such thing. I'm not even an expert this is just basic knowledge of the theory.
The Big Bang simply states that at the beginning of time matter was pressed into a single point of infinite density, and that it essentially exploded and the matter clumped together (if you will) and formed our universe.
It gives no explanation of HOW that matter got there, but if your God only gives answers because of a gap in the knowledge of science, he's gonna be going away pretty fast, because scientists solve these questions very quickly.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yellow on October 01, 2015, 05:38:04 AM
all compressed down into a single point, aka a singularity
Actually, if I remember correctly, Stephen Hawking apparently did some maths involving something called imaginary time (think imaginary numbers represented on a 2 dimensional plane... let me just find a picture.)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg/220px-Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg.png)
If I read correctly a while back, apparently accounting for imaginary time makes the big bang thing not a singularity or whatever.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 01, 2015, 05:43:21 AM
Actually, if I remember correctly, Stephen Hawking apparently did some maths involving something called imaginary time (think imaginary numbers represented on a 2 dimensional plane... let me just find a picture.)

(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/be/Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg/220px-Real-and-imaginary-time-axes.svg.png)
If I read correctly a while back, apparently accounting for imaginary time makes the big bang thing not a singularity or whatever.
Bleh, sounds like a bunch of stuff I'll never understand unless I become a 4 dimensional being. That's pretty interesting though, I need to go edumacate myself.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 01, 2015, 06:01:33 AM
pretty sure he proved god existed then he disproved it the exact same way or something weird like that
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 01, 2015, 06:12:38 AM
pretty sure he proved god existed then he disproved it the exact same way or something weird like that

..?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on October 01, 2015, 10:11:03 AM
I think he's referring to a quote he made a long time ago regarding a very early theory of his regarding black holes. It was partly made in jest, if I'm remembering the context correctly.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 02, 2015, 07:01:43 AM
I'm confused about the second amendment.

It says "the right to bare arms" so does that mean just firearms or weapons in general?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yugi on October 02, 2015, 07:17:05 AM
I suggest that we put this thread in Forum Games where it rightfully belongs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 02, 2015, 09:14:46 AM
I'm confused about the second amendment.

It says "the right to bare arms" so does that mean just firearms or weapons in general?
obviously the meaning is pretty ambiguous given the extent of weaponry back then but I'd assume it meant any way to feasibly defend yourself
aka frying pans
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on October 02, 2015, 02:49:22 PM
I thought it meant wearing tank tops
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 03, 2015, 12:06:34 AM
Keep in mind, that statement is prefaced with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".
In the late 18th century, automatic weapons weren't a thing; it was flintlock technology.
So, should this make assault weapons legal?
Well, no constitutional right is absolute- the first amendment prohibits slanderous/defamatory speech, prohibits rallies that endanger public safety, etc. The 5th amendment, while you have the right to avoid self incrimination, you can still be legally forced to take a breathalyzer test. So, whether assault weapons are constitutionally ban-able is up for debate.
IMO the right to self defense shouldn't include tools that more often than not injures others before used for self defense.  (http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 03, 2015, 01:15:47 AM
I picked a good time to go on a school retreat.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 03, 2015, 01:47:34 AM
Keep in mind, that statement is prefaced with "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".
In the late 18th century, automatic weapons weren't a thing; it was flintlock technology.
So, should this make assault weapons legal?
Well, no constitutional right is absolute- the first amendment prohibits slanderous/defamatory speech, prohibits rallies that endanger public safety, etc. The 5th amendment, while you have the right to avoid self incrimination, you can still be legally forced to take a breathalyzer test. So, whether assault weapons are constitutionally ban-able is up for debate.
IMO the right to self defense shouldn't include tools that more often than not injures others before used for self defense.  (http://www.vpc.org/press/self-defense-gun-use-is-rare-study-finds/)
or people who sell guns can actually check who they're selling them to
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 03, 2015, 02:29:35 AM
You don't need a criminal record to murder someone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 03, 2015, 02:53:04 AM
IMO If you're going to get a gun permit it should be like driving a car- you need to be well trained in proper maintenance and safety and how to use it correctly. I see no reason why that is unconstitutional; I see an infinite amount of why it's a responsible decision.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 03, 2015, 03:03:59 AM
You don't need a criminal record to murder someone.
no, you need a mental ilness record
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 03, 2015, 03:07:15 AM
no, you need a mental ilness record
Step 1. Don't go to a psychologist.
Step 2. Get a gun.

I suppose a mandatory psychiatric exam before buying a gun would be a decent idea. It doesn't help situations where people get messed up after owning a gun for 5 years (annual examinations to renew your license?)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 09, 2015, 03:55:07 AM
I really hate the whole gun control law thing. It would be nice for each family to own a gun for safety reasons but people are dumb and abuse that right.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 09, 2015, 04:05:39 AM
But what exactly are guns gonna protect us from? Unless you're carrying it around all the time you're still just as vulnerable to gun violence (which will be pretty rampant given a "everyone owns a gun" scenario.) If any outside governments attacked U.S. soil, your gun is gonna be about as useful as a toothpick. Same goes for the U.S. military. The only thing I can really think of is wild animals in more rural areas. If you don't believe me, just look at gun based statistics in other countries.

The idea of needing a gun to protect ourselves is unique to America (other counties are pretty confused as to why we love guns so much), which comes from the whole unexplored frontier/every man for himself way back when our country was founded. I think people are so touchy about gun control because guns are so engraved into our culture, but I think the safety of the general public is more important than preserving that small part of American history and culture.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 09, 2015, 04:43:13 AM
The idea of needing a gun to protect ourselves is unique to America (other counties are pretty confused as to why we love guns so much), which comes from the whole unexplored frontier/every man for himself way back when our country was founded. I think people are so touchy about gun control because guns are so engraved into our culture.
Well said.
If only SFK were here
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 09, 2015, 05:02:23 AM
Agreed.
Look at Australia, where virtually zero citizens have guns. Low murder rate, and when they took guns away, guess what didn't happen? Rise in homicide with other weapons. The gun deaths dropped, and nothing else picked up the slack.
Study after study after study consistently show that more guns=more homicides.
As the comedian Jim Jeffries put it, there's only one reason to have a gun; "Fuck off, I like guns!".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on October 09, 2015, 08:17:56 AM
As an Australian I can confirm most of these facts. Except people still have guns, it's just regulated so that crazy people don't have guns.

Let's just ignore the shooting that occurred at Parramatta on Monday...

Nah fuck it, it was a police station, they have guns. It just further proves the point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on October 09, 2015, 03:37:11 PM
It's disgusting that there's such a dependency on them in this country.  We need a crackdown like Australia had, throw out the 2nd Amendment and everything, I don't care, it's been long overdue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: EFitTrainr on October 09, 2015, 05:53:39 PM
Politics, schmolitics!

Why, back when I was a kid, the closest thing we had to a political system was our unanimous fear of dinosaurs!
Those vicious bastards.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 09, 2015, 06:30:59 PM
If we still had hostile forces in America it'd be a good idea
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 09, 2015, 07:14:34 PM
It's disgusting that there's such a dependency on them in this country.  We need a crackdown like Australia had, throw out the 2nd Amendment and everything, I don't care, it's been long overdue.
Get the states to vote on a new amendment to override the 2nd Amendment then. You need 75% of them to say "yes" to that and then it'll go through. Anything other than that is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 09, 2015, 08:20:58 PM
Obviously we have to go through due process, but that doesn't mean until we do we just sit around with our thumbs up our arses.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 09, 2015, 10:45:35 PM
Get the states to vote on a new amendment to override the 2nd Amendment then. You need 75% of them to say "yes" to that and then it'll go through. Anything other than that is unconstitutional and therefore illegal.
Gun control is not against the second ammendment, which is something that we urgently need to strike down on. Outright banning guns is something we can decide on later as it may prove to be unnecessary.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 10, 2015, 12:03:07 AM
Why the hell does everyone skip the "well-regulated" part?

1) A bunch of hicks carrying their rifles in public is not well-regulated
2) Parents not locking up their guns from their toddlers is not well-regulated.
3) Bypassing background checks by buying a gun from another bumpkin is not well-regulated.

Then there are people buying multiple guns. It just gives an illusion of class or safety (running away or taking cover is the best way to survive). I would throw in the compensation excuse too since it's mostly men that feel the need to buy the biggest, newest or the fastest whatever.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 03:46:43 AM
The first Democratic debate of this election cycle will be held tomorrow (Tuesday) night at 8:30 EST on CNN. Participants include front-runner Hillary Clinton, socialist Bernie Sanders, and three other people that most voters haven't even heard of: Jim Webb, a former senator from Virginia, Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Lincoln Chafee, the former governor of Rhode Island.

Hope some of you tune into this one, it's going to be wildly entertaining even though it'll be a good bit shorter than the Republican debates thus far.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 13, 2015, 03:55:00 AM
Participants include front-runner Hillary Clinton, close second democratic socialist Bernie Sanders, and three other people that most voters haven't even heard of: Jim Webb, a former senator from Virginia, Martin O'Malley, the former governor of Maryland, and Lincoln Chafee, the former governor of Rhode Island.

FTFY
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 04:50:05 AM
#1 It's not a close second, he's still a good 20% behind her and

#2 Didn't I imply that he's in second by saying that the other three participants are virtually unknown to the American voter base
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 13, 2015, 04:55:04 AM
1) Which states are you looking at? He's ahead in Iowa and NH. Looking only at the nationwide poll leaves a large gap in your knowledge, especially with a candidate that is gaining steam quickly like Bernie is.
2) Not really; you mentioned front runner and then listed off other candidates. Doesn't necessarily mean he's second; also you said nothing about him other than "socialist" which isn't even accurate. He's a democratic socialist; IE what Scandinavia has, what Canada has, what most of western Europe has as well.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 05:05:51 AM
Can I seriously not make a single post in this thread without you going ballistic like literally everything I said with the possible exception of "socialist" versus "democratic socialist" was 100% factual.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 13, 2015, 05:30:46 AM
2) Not really; you mentioned front runner and then listed off other candidates. Doesn't necessarily mean he's second; also you said nothing about him other than "socialist" which isn't even accurate. He's a democratic socialist; IE what Scandinavia has, what Canada has, what most of western Europe has as well.
so you're saying a democratic SOCIALIST isn't a SOCIALIST
I think his point more than anything was clear
you're too young to understand politics BAM
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 05:36:50 AM
Besides the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee was asked a while ago what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist was, and she couldn't answer the question lol. Leads me to believe there is none, making the term "Democratic Socialist" about as redundant as "Republican Bigot".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 13, 2015, 07:41:29 AM
so you're saying a democratic SOCIALIST isn't a SOCIALIST
I think his point more than anything was clear
you're too young to understand politics BAM

Yeah, those 14 year olds will never understand the importance of misrepresenting a politicians stance to make them look bad. What a n00b
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 13, 2015, 09:42:30 AM
what's so bad about being a socialist
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on October 13, 2015, 11:05:31 AM
Looking only at the nationwide poll leaves a large gap in your knowledge

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/08/upshot/joe-biden-no-money-weak-polls-but-still-clintons-toughest-rival.html

Not really.

Quote
Source: NBC/WSJ, Fox News, Quinnipiac, CNN, CBS/NYT, ABC/Washington Post, YouGov

Nothing is blatantly wrong with socialism, it just has a bad stigma because of this mass of uneducated Americans that grew up with BETTER DEAD THAN RED EVIL SOCIALIST EMPIRE mentality.  Then there are just the plain selfish prick conservatives that don't like the idea of collective wealth going towards public betterment.

Also
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html

Polls are increasingly worthless so I really wouldn't just sit behind them with your arms crossed to prove your point.  I personally still think Sanders is far too left-wing to have any practical chance at winning the nomination, and would stand no chance at all in the general election.  He also fairly strongly supports gun rights (disregarding his pre-debate flip) so I am auto-opposed.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 13, 2015, 04:41:42 PM
Nothing is blatantly wrong with socialism, it just has a bad stigma because of this mass of uneducated Americans that grew up with BETTER DEAD THAN RED EVIL SOCIALIST EMPIRE mentality.  Then there are just the plain selfish prick conservatives that don't like the idea of collective wealth going towards public betterment.

Yeah, some people think it's 1950...Sounds like that 50s propoganda with capitalism=Christian is still around.

Also
]
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html

Polls are increasingly worthless so I really wouldn't just sit behind them with your arms crossed to prove your point.

Sort of like how people think Trump has a chance at becoming president because polls. Yeeeeeeeeah right. The Republican race turning into a race where people are beating each other at saying the most outrageous shit. Sanders has a lot of great ideas, but how much could he do as president? We're better off with 100 of him and Elizabeth Warren in the Senate and 400 in the House lmao.

@miscellaneous
If one top person doesn't know it, surely it means no one else does??? ::)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 04:45:51 PM
If one top person doesn't know it, surely it means no one else does???
If the chairman of the Republican National Committee couldn't answer what the difference was between a Republican and a fascist, the media would go ballistic.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 13, 2015, 04:49:40 PM
It seems to me that a lot of Republicans don't know what they're talking about when they use insult Obama by calling him socialist, communist, and fascist at the same time.

What you said didn't even happen yet, so automatically painting the person as a victim is just a paranoid thought.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 13, 2015, 06:43:10 PM
Double post because I found this:

Ben Carson and his "Holocaust could have been prevented with guns" remark. Here's a bit of actual historical info from the BBC (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34485358).

"The Anti-Defamation League, an anti-Semitism monitoring group, has previously said that drawing comparisons between the gun control debate in the US and the Holocaust was "historically inaccurate and offensive", especially to Holocaust survivors and their families.
In 1943, armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought the Nazis. Jews killed about 20 Nazis, but about 13,000 Jews died in the uprising."

I bolded the "armed" for everyone.

Besides the chairwoman of the Democratic National Committee was asked a while ago what the difference is between a Democrat and a Socialist was, and she couldn't answer the question lol. Leads me to believe there is none, making the term "Democratic Socialist" about as redundant as "Republican Bigot".

Can I seriously not make a single post in this thread without you going ballistic like literally everything I said with the possible exception of "socialist" versus "democratic socialist" was 100% factual.

If you had just said. "my mistake" and corrected your initial post without that DNC chairwoman comment, the recent posts would ALL be without incident. That, and not going defensive by listing stuff, which sounded pretty hostile imo.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 07:20:50 PM
If you had just said. "my mistake" and corrected your initial post without that DNC chairwoman comment, the recent posts would ALL be without incident. That, and not going defensive by listing stuff, which sounded pretty hostile imo.
Nah I'm not compromising my views for the sake of not being labled "hostile," sorry
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 13, 2015, 07:41:39 PM
I can't wait to vote for Sanders.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 07:43:10 PM
I can't wait to vote for Sanders.
waddle's genitalia will be waiting for you
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 13, 2015, 07:45:48 PM
Do you like hearing yourself talk or what's the deal?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 07:47:43 PM
Do you like hearing yourself talk or what's the deal?
Yeah absolutely I just spam up the forums whenever I get the chance

No I just like making stupid jokes  :P And arguing with people
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 13, 2015, 08:01:34 PM
I've also seen you call people imbeciles behind their back
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 08:03:18 PM
I've also seen you call people imbeciles behind their back
And...?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 13, 2015, 08:23:52 PM
what's so bad about being a socialist
Nothing. It's just mislabeling, which leads to incorrect assumptions.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 13, 2015, 08:47:08 PM
My dad says that the president doesn't even have much control over the economy and it's really congress who influences that
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 13, 2015, 09:02:24 PM
And...?
It says a lot about your character. Idk.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 13, 2015, 09:05:11 PM
It says a lot about your character. Idk.
Perhaps. And the fact that you shifted this to an attack on my character shows a lot about yours.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 13, 2015, 09:07:12 PM
I was just adding to this tho...
Yeah absolutely I just spam up the forums whenever I get the chance

No I just like making stupid jokes  :P And arguing with people

Overreacting much?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on October 13, 2015, 09:20:20 PM
Perhaps. And the fact that you shifted this to an attack on my character shows a lot about yours.
just gonna say that a reference to waddle's genitalia seemed like an ad hominem attack that came before his. even if you didn't mean it as an insult, it comes across as disrespectful.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on October 13, 2015, 09:22:11 PM
I think he was just referencing the "vote Sanders or the dick stays soft" joke in Waddle's sig
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Jub3r7 on October 13, 2015, 09:28:46 PM
ah, makes sense. thanks for the clarification. I'm not up to date with NSM's current dick jokes
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 13, 2015, 09:33:31 PM
too bad it wasn't funny
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 13, 2015, 10:30:37 PM
too bad it wasn't funny
wasn't supposed to be funny it was supposed to be true
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 13, 2015, 11:05:54 PM
Nah I'm not compromising my views for the sake of not being labled "hostile," sorry

If you're wrong, most people will try to correct you, no matter what your views are. No need to think of yourself as a martyr or some kind of ideological warrior. That would just be egotistic.
 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 13, 2015, 11:33:44 PM
If you're wrong, most people will try to correct you, no matter what your views are. No need to think of yourself as a martyr or some kind of ideological warrior. That would just be egotistic.
keywords bolded
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 14, 2015, 01:11:34 AM
@Blue The difference between a socialist and a democratic socialist is quite vast.
Socialism: "a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole."
That's PURE socialism. Bernie isn't a pure socialist; what he's advocating for is a social democracy, IE the government Scandinavia, Canada, and most of Western Europe has.
@Kefka You can say he doesn't have a shot, but he's currently polling better than Obama did at this point in the race of 2008.  (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFLtCx8VRyc)
If you don't want to go by polls, then what should we go by? If there's another system I'd be happy to check it out.
As for Biden, I'm fairly sure he said he's not running. It'd also be fairly late to join the race now, though I suppose stranger things have happen.
Also, say what you like, but Bernie Sanders has made his stance regarding guns quite clear (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sq86YXlQ4d0). He's fairly moderate on the issue, and honestly (though I don't disagree w/you) your stance is quite radical in this political climate on guns (throwing out the second amendment and making guns illegal).
@NoS He did kinda screw up...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 14, 2015, 01:22:17 AM
So I have been recently informed that I have been rude to blueflower so I will be posting reasons for my posts that, as Olimar says, an "anonymous user", has said were "rude".
Do you like hearing yourself talk or what's the deal?
Blue has been posting practically every other time and knows not many people here agree with him so I wasn't sure if he's just posting to start shit or what.
I've also seen you call people imbeciles behind their back
This is in reference to FSM's private chat with him during the Fire Emblem homophobia incident that he posted in a skype room that we have with a couple of NSM members.
The log
[6/26/2015 12:22:04 AM] (FSM):  [26/06/15 07:03:40] zbluflowah: okay i realize that i'm a few years younger than you and from your perspective i'm probably an idiot
[26/06/15 07:03:40] zbluflowah: but can you please at least try to be nice
[26/06/15 07:04:06] (FSM): you’re the one who won’t apologize
[26/06/15 07:04:20] (FSM): it wasn’t nice
[26/06/15 07:05:55] zbluflowah: I apologized to you, didn't I?
[26/06/15 07:06:06] zbluflowah: I'm not making any more posts in that thread because they'll just further entrench me
[26/06/15 07:06:46] (FSM): I promise no one will say anything bad if you apologize
[26/06/15 07:07:21] zbluflowah: Oh, I promise they will
[26/06/15 07:07:27] zbluflowah: I'll consider apologizing anyway though I suppose
[26/06/15 07:07:31] (FSM): also I never heard an apology
[26/06/15 07:08:04] zbluflowah: Ugh why is this so annoyingly complicated
[26/06/15 07:08:21] (FSM): On 26/06/15, at 07:05, zbluflowah wrote:
> I apologized to you, didn't I?

On 26/06/15, at 07:07, (FSM) wrote:
> also I never heard an apology

wouldn’t call this complicated
[26/06/15 07:08:42] zbluflowah: I'm trying to figure out what precisely I'm being accused of before I apologize for it
[26/06/15 07:09:05] zbluflowah: If it had to do with the difference between "giving birth" and "having kids" then yeah sure I'll apologize for that
[26/06/15 07:13:48] (FSM): You made it clear to others how because homosexual couples can’t have biological kids(that belong both of them), it’s worse than if you had a straight couple and thus children between them
[26/06/15 07:14:22] zbluflowah: From a gameplay perspective that's correct
[26/06/15 07:14:27] (FSM): meaning it’s homophobic, because you don’t see them as equals, even though same-sex couples can get kids in other ways
[26/06/15 07:14:43] zbluflowah: We were talking about Fire Emblem
[26/06/15 07:14:50] zbluflowah: I didn't say a single thing about actual homosexuals
[26/06/15 07:16:10] (FSM): It’s still homophobic even if it’s in a game
[26/06/15 07:16:52] zbluflowah: So if I don't use the Demolition Man in Team Fortress 2, that means I hate black people too?
[26/06/15 07:18:20] (FSM): If you don’t use him because of his colour, it is racist
[26/06/15 07:18:41] zbluflowah: Sure, that's fine
[26/06/15 07:18:56] zbluflowah: But by that same logic I didn't say anything about homosexuality itself
[26/06/15 07:19:18] zbluflowah: Having kids in Fire Emblem is significantly beneficial to succeeding in the game, and therefore is the best course of action
[26/06/15 07:20:26] (FSM): you’re homophobic if you see same-sex relationships as non-equal to straight ones
[26/06/15 07:21:03] zbluflowah: Then I guess by your definition I'm homophobic when I play Fire Emblem lol
[26/06/15 07:21:38] (FSM): Nah, that definition just means you’re homophobic
[6/26/2015 12:24:32 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:21:48] zbluflowah: Stop telling me what I am
[26/06/15 07:22:36] zbluflowah: I don't know if I feel the need to defend myself here or not because these accusations are absurd
[26/06/15 07:24:06] (FSM): On 26/06/15, at 07:19, zbluflowah wrote:
> Having kids in Fire Emblem is significantly beneficial to succeeding in the game, and therefore is the best course of action

But same-sex couples can have kids in other ways than sex
[26/06/15 07:24:15] (FSM): so all of your arguments seem invalid
[6/26/2015 12:28:02 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:27:19] zbluflowah: I mean I guess that might be my opinion but still
[6/26/2015 12:31:40 AM] Ruto: oh god someone let him remove himself from the gene pool if he's so concerned
[6/26/2015 12:34:27 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:32:47] zbluflowah: But what do I apologize for
[26/06/15 07:33:03] (FSM): For any malaise you might have caused
[26/06/15 07:33:06] zbluflowah: Being inconsiderate in my wording?
[26/06/15 07:33:31] zbluflowah: If I say that Kefka and/or Dude will post something hurtful again in reply XD
[26/06/15 07:33:37] (FSM): They won’t
[26/06/15 07:34:09] (FSM): they’re mature enough
[26/06/15 07:34:15] zbluflowah: Dude and Kefka are both imbeciles
[6/26/2015 12:34:40 AM] (FSM): [26/06/15 07:34:15] zbluflowah: Dude and Kefka are both imbeciles
[26/06/15 07:34:28] zbluflowah: You know what, fine I'll make an apology so vague that they can't pick it apart XD
[close]

So please, stop complaining about me as I'm not the only one who is a terrible person
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 14, 2015, 03:27:10 AM
So this is the incriminate blueflower thread now? Yes, he can get overly defensive and overreact to people disagreeing with him, however, the extent that this has been taken to is absurd. I've given up any hope I've had in NSM being able to discuss things civilly. Peace, I'm done with these topics.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on October 14, 2015, 03:42:19 AM
I've given up any hope I've had in NSM being able to discuss things civilly. Peace, I'm done with these topics.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 14, 2015, 03:47:55 AM
(http://technabob.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/anime-fansub-fail-1.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 14, 2015, 04:19:50 AM
Alright, I apologize. We had that conversation somewhere between 1 and 2 in the morning, I was angry, tired, and felt betrayed by numerous people at the time that I thought were my friends.

Dude I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I don't think you're an imbecile. I said it in the heat of the moment and I'm sorry.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 14, 2015, 04:25:38 AM
Honestly an imbecile is hardly the worst thing to call a person.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on October 14, 2015, 04:44:43 AM
[quote that went missing]

You weren't even involved in the debate!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 14, 2015, 05:42:19 AM
Imbecile isn't bad at all. At least u didn't say faggot. I bet you would have a whole army on ur ass Lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 14, 2015, 06:10:49 AM
Imbecile isn't bad at all. At least u didn't say faggot. I bet you would have a whole army on ur ass Lol
bloo doesn't say naughty words like that
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on October 14, 2015, 06:20:47 AM
Imbecile isn't bad at all. At least u didn't say faggot. I bet you would have a whole army on ur ass Lol

Next time you feel like posting something this stupid, don't
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 14, 2015, 06:22:08 AM
I never called anyone a faggot. Sorry if you guys got the wrong idea
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on October 14, 2015, 06:55:04 AM
He's fairly moderate on the issue, and honestly (though I don't disagree w/you) your stance is quite radical in this political climate on guns (throwing out the second amendment and making guns illegal).

Of course, I don't honestly think that would happen for a few generations at minimum, but I find his record to be highly flakey.

Anyway Hillary rekt that debate
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on October 14, 2015, 07:00:26 AM
Can nsm just take a month break from sensitive topics or whatever? I know everyone's prided on their freedom of speech and their power to maturely discuss their views, but we've proven over and over again that that's just not going to happen

I'm really tired of everyone I like fighting all the time
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: InsigTurtle on October 14, 2015, 07:18:51 AM
so uh can y'all stop jibber jabbering about the severity of various curse words and the personal attacks and shtuff? it'd be rather appreciated.

so, just a couple of unrelated thoughts.

in the fantasy world that some call canada, we have a federal election coming up super soon. keep in mind that canada's existence is still unverified.
where i live, there's a pretty high chinese population. and recently, there was an advertisement in chinese and punjabi that the conservative party sponsored that made statements such as "the liberal party wants to make marijuana easy to get for kids". and i'm just wondering why they would try to stoop down to the level of using scare tactics instead of actually making legitimate arguments.

the news comments on pretty much any article say "stop harper" or "it's harper's fault" now. i honestly can't tell if they're joking or if they are being serious. the overwhelming anti-conservative sentiment pretty much everywhere i go is rather annoying. i can't go anywhere without seeing a stop sign vandalized to say "stop harper". i mean, sure. i don't quite agree with some of their policies, either. but this is just getting insane. it doesn't help that i live in probably the most liberal and left-leaning part of canada... whose liberal party is conservative and whose conservative party is pretty much irrelevant. why do we even have a premier with an approval rating of 30%. why, bc.

i'm stuck in canada during the election season. please send help.

ninja'd but i don't really care.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 14, 2015, 07:28:00 AM
I think I've heard of canada before, but I didn't know it had a government.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 14, 2015, 10:02:08 PM
I think I've heard of canada before, but I didn't know it had a government.

XDDD. Truuuue
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 14, 2015, 11:18:41 PM
in case you guys haven't noticed i'm trying to get this topic locked or deleted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 15, 2015, 01:43:22 AM
Why is that?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 15, 2015, 02:14:00 AM
Of course, I don't honestly think that would happen for a few generations at minimum, but I find his record to be highly flakey.

Anyway Hillary rekt that debate
Hillary has a much shadier past than Bernie; and I'm not talking about Benghazi, I frankly don't give a damn- I'm referring to her voting history. She voted yes on Citizens United, Yes on the Iraq War, and until I think 2012 or 2013 was opposed to same sex marriage.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 15, 2015, 02:38:44 AM
Why is that?
because republicans are the devil it only divides us as a community and that's noooo good.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 15, 2015, 02:45:26 AM
So this is the incriminate blueflower thread now? Yes, he can get overly defensive and overreact to people disagreeing with him, however, the extent that this has been taken to is absurd. I've given up any hope I've had in NSM being able to discuss things civilly. Peace, I'm done with these topics.
oh

and if Olimar told me who the anonymous complaint was from i wouldn't have had to post it in public so just throwing that out there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheInsidiousSpurt on October 19, 2015, 02:48:24 AM
Well I mean if a politics thread without a spicy debate is no fun. But yea it probably does divide the community. I'm only a month new so I don't know that well.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 03:06:42 AM
NSM doesn't know how to have spicy debates without causing drama.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 19, 2015, 03:09:54 AM
i cant wait to use all these reaction images ive been saving
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 19, 2015, 03:25:37 AM
There are people on my facebook that support Donald Trump...

What a sad world xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: TheMarioPianist on October 19, 2015, 03:32:03 AM
There are people on my facebook that support Donald Trump...

What a great world xD

ftfy



Ok, truth be told, I'm not the biggest Trump fan in the world. I mean, his political party doesn't always match up with his ideas...personally I'm more of a Ben Carson guy. But still, I'd take Trump over any of the liberal candidates. (Then again, I'd take Vermin Supreme over a liberal ;D.)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 03:37:38 AM
I'm kinda curious what would happen if he became president. We'd become the world's most hated country, minorities would disappear, we'd probably be in an endless state of war with the middle east and mexico. Idk, it's fun to think about ;3
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 19, 2015, 03:39:18 AM
Related: https://youtu.be/u8i_a6F_K0I
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 03:40:36 AM
(Then again, I'd take Vermin Supreme over a liberal ;D.)

Excuse me, but are you trying to use Vermin Supreme as a tool for negative comparisons? I'll have you know that no one can compare to his caliber of perfection.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 19, 2015, 03:43:03 AM
Lol not at all. It's because they're the stereotypical Trump voter, barely literate in their only language, incredibly xenophobic and clinging to superstition like fact. I don't really get why people think Trump is a statesmen, not there are any rules in it to begin with.

Pericles had mistresses, bribed people and did all sorts of crazy things, Cicero's name literally meant "chickpea" and people considered them as actually competent people in state matters. Trump is just an entertainer.

I'm kinda curious what would happen if he became president. We'd become the world's most hated country, minorities would disappear, we'd probably be in an endless state of war with the middle east and mexico. Idk, it's fun to think about ;3

He won't be president because he can't stay out of trouble. I think China and Russia would "take action." Ben Carson is totally nuts, so not that either.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on October 19, 2015, 03:47:24 AM
(Then again, I'd take Vermin Supreme over a liberal ;D.)
At this point, Vermin Supreme would probably be a better choice than any of the candidates. :-\
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 19, 2015, 03:47:47 AM
(https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/97/f3/5e/97f35e631b051a04c92cd6a19bb484a6.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 03:52:04 AM
The only republican I'm really OK with is John Kasich, mostly because all the other ones are gonna try and make gay marriage illegal again.
pls no
support firearrow x hawt guys
vote for any democrat or kasich

At this point, Vermin Supreme would probably be a better choice than any of the candidates. :-\

Yeah, I'm really not too fond of any of the Candidates. Trump is a comedian, Carson is insane, Clinton just says what people want to hear, Jeb is the republican equivalent of that, and America isn't ready for someone like sanders.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 19, 2015, 03:53:56 AM
Kasich is best Republican hands down.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 19, 2015, 03:55:08 AM
support firearrow x hawt guys

Isn't that how yaoi is categorized???
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 19, 2015, 03:58:41 AM
bernie sanders is a senile old man
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 04:02:49 AM
bernie sanders is a senile old man

He seems mentally capable to me. People mostly hate him because his views are against what America has historically stood for, that doesn't make him stupid, just different. Considering countries with similar views (Sweden, Norway, etc.) are extremely well off and rated some of the happiest countries on earth, can you really say that someone trying to copy that is a senile old man?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 19, 2015, 04:06:44 AM
Isn't that how yaoi is categorized???
pretty sure yaoi uses slashes
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 19, 2015, 04:10:27 AM
pretty sure yaoi uses slashes

;)

If a vote for FireArrow is a vote for yaoi...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 19, 2015, 04:33:27 AM
I wasn't aware you were classified as senile for wanting to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world..
Honestly Rand Paul wasn't as bad as some. Kasich I don't care for because IIRC he's a climate denier, he wants to cut taxes, and maybe worst is he wants to increase our already horribly expensive military budget.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 19, 2015, 04:37:22 AM
I wasn't aware you were classified as senile for wanting to catch up to the rest of the industrialized world..
Honestly Rand Paul wasn't as bad as some. Kasich I don't care for because IIRC he's a climate denier, he wants to cut taxes, and maybe worst is he wants to increase our already horribly expensive military budget.

He said best Republican, not best candidate!

I would also like high speed trains.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 19, 2015, 04:39:21 AM
I still would choose Rand Paul over him, since Rand Paul is somewhat libertarian esque. On social issues he's a bit better. He's still an idiot, but trying to choose a republican candidate to run the economy is like picking which sharp stick to kill a komodo dragon.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 19, 2015, 04:58:14 AM
I still would choose Rand Paul over him, since Rand Paul is somewhat libertarian esque. On social issues he's a bit better. He's still an idiot, but trying to choose a republican candidate to run the economy is like picking which sharp stick to kill a komodo dragon.
that's a really dumb comparison
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 06:42:16 AM
that's a really dumb comparison

i personally prefer the yaoi comparison
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 19, 2015, 12:43:59 PM
bernie sanders is a senile old man
A few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):

"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.

"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"

"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!

Question: What is America's biggest enemy?

Bernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on October 19, 2015, 01:06:42 PM
"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
Well, it may seem absurd, but it does prove his point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on October 19, 2015, 02:01:49 PM
"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!

How is this evidence of senility? Pointing out the prison population is important exactly because of the incidence of innocent or mentally ill prisoners.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on October 19, 2015, 03:45:05 PM
Bernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.
You are technically correct, but the fact of the matter is that the tipping point is just over the horizon, so, in effect, if we don't act now, we may as well be giving our children an inhabitable planet. Of course, the actual effect will be an uninhabitable planet (by our standards of living) for our great-great grand children, which, it could be argued, are still our children. In essence, unless Climate Change is acted upon, our descendants will inherit an inhabitable planet.

Of course Sander's is using hyperbole and family appeal to persuade his audience, but all politicians do this. Personally, I find his use of persuasive devices more succinct and amiable than that of Donald Trump, for example.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 19, 2015, 05:29:11 PM
A few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):

"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.
Yeah, comparing the US to developing countries is so schmart! One thing I learned from my Chinese culture class is that China took the most people out of poverty in the last 50 years than any other country in history.

"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
Obviously you need money to keep a campaign running! Besides, he turned away dirty money and that's better than what a lot of people would do. Trump has billions and he accepts donations, why aren't you complaining about that?

"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!

You have a lot to read...

Question: What is America's biggest enemy?

Bernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.

Yes, we know you're a denier, but that's not how climate change would work. One article I saw on Scientific American says 100 degree winters in 2100 are possible. Right now, the warmer, more acidic oceans are killing off coral and driving fish north. Also, there's a theory that the mass dying of sea stars are due to a virus that proliferates in warmer water. But you're going to say we don't need oceans to live now? I'm not the one to shove the problems to kids, but people do it now and in the 80s like it's cool.

What is a civil conversation?

i personally prefer the yaoi comparison

I saw an FF one a few weeks ago and was like "there is no way you can make that SFW."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on October 19, 2015, 05:48:58 PM
Stop oh my god.
People complain how much fighting there is or how "blueflower is unfairly targeted" but if you actually read the topic, you can see how every "fight" here has spawned from the narrow-minded, propagandistic, biased and/or offensive posts meant to personally attack people instead of criticizing the actual ideas or ideologies. The reason why you think NSM can't talk in a civil fashion is because of some of the bad apples in the basket and you should do something about it. I'm tired of this because I've lost count how many times I've told you all to view things rationally and to keep an open mind. Don't let your emotions cloud your judgement.

bernie sanders is a senile old man
Fren this quote is a textbook case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Also, ageism.

A few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):
You're literally arguing to try to back up an ad hominem.
If you write them yourself, they are not quotes from Bernie fren ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ in order "to back that up" first of all you need to use actual quotes instead of these clearly biased quotes, that you even admit to writing these in a bigoted fashion. It's literally like you're fishing for an argument ._.
No I just like making stupid jokes  :P And arguing with people
and this quote doesn't convince me of your motives on why you keep posting narrow-minded and condescending posts.

"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.
Yeah I watched the video but here's a quote
Spoiler
Quote
Jeff Frank, Sanders’ press secretary, clarified that when the senator said "major country," he meant a member nation of the OECD, an international economic group composed of 34 generally wealthy countries. (OECD stands for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.)

Frank also said that Sanders was referring to a 2012 UNICEF report on childhood poverty in which the United States ranked 34th out of 35 countries with a childhood poverty rate of 23.1 percent, besting only non-OECD member Romania. The report primarily uses data from 2009.

According to that report, Sanders’ statement would be true; however, a later UNICEF report from 2014 with more recent OECD data put the U.S. rate of childhood poverty lower than that of Israel, Mexico, Spain, and Greece, as well as that of non-OECD Latvia. (Romania was not included.)
[close]
So yeah, you're right on how he was clearly overstating the situation, which is typical in politics(not saying it's justified). This is a prime example of how authorities are always questionable (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority).
(But still, I personally think the US' poverty rate is very high and I agree on how no children should have to live in poverty.)

"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
I'm not sure if you got the point of that. Major companies are able to donate incredibly much to campaigns, hundreds of thousands and therefore it's easier for major companies to "buy" politicians on their side, essentially corrupting the candidates.
What's worth to note is how unlike fe. Clinton, Sanders rejects all these kind of billionaire donations and hasn't taken any corporate PAC money. Sanders gets I think all of his donations from individuals with a donation limit of $2700 (http://www.fec.gov/pages/brochures/contrib.shtml), which imo represents the message of how every individual is important with his campaign.

"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!
But let me explain, as the difference in income becomes larger, it essentially results in more people suffering from poverty. And as long as the people who suffer from poverty remain a minority, they can't do anything about it, they can't make a change. The social mobility would pretty much be at a standstill, meaning in general the lower class wouldn't have a chance to rise to a higher class, as they are struggling to even be able to support themselves. In general, those people are more likely to be desperate enough to break the law in order to try to make their lives and situation better. And as you might deduce from all that, the difference in income is also in correlation with the severity of the criminal law. "The more severe the criminal law is, the less crime is likely to occur." It's also notable how corrupted your justice system could become (http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/30/baltimore-rioters-parents-500000-bail-allen-bullock), for example in this case favouring the upper class(instead of whites).
By lowering income differences, you create peace within the society. When there's peace within the society, there isn't that much of a need for prisons.

You are technically correct, but the fact of the matter is that the tipping point is just over the horizon, so, in effect, if we don't act now, we may as well be giving our children an inhabitable planet. Of course, the actual effect will be an uninhabitable planet (by our standards of living) for our great-great grand children, which, it could be argued, are still our children. In essence, unless Climate Change is acted upon, our descendants will inherit an inhabitable planet.

Of course Sander's is using hyperbole and family appeal to persuade his audience, but all politicians do this. Personally, I find his use of persuasive devices more succinct and amiable than that of  Donald "That baby was driving me crazy" Trump, for example.
a+++++++++ post by my fren Clanker, couldn't have said it better myself :] Honestly a lot of people here should learn from these kind of posts.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 19, 2015, 08:04:15 PM
wow blue i never thought of it that way, you're very persuasive i'll be sure to make my vote on someone who can make america great again like donald trump
(https://41.media.tumblr.com/653a383f86076032e854cdff4afa70cd/tumblr_inline_nwc0a4z2fW1r580lk_540.jpg)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 19, 2015, 10:46:26 PM
If you have anything against blueflower's posts, wouldn't it be wiser to not respond rather than make me question why this topic was unlocked? It takes two to argue, no matter who started it.

Fren this quote is a textbook case of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem Also, ageism.
You're literally arguing to try to back up an ad hominem.

We're electing people into our office, not ideologies. This is not ad hominem at all, he is not avoiding the point of an argument by attacking the person making the argument, because the argument is "is Bernie Sanders fit to be president."

"He's a senile old man" is an incredibly abrasive and weak argument, but it's not a fallacy.

tl;dr
Lock this again.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 19, 2015, 11:05:00 PM

Lock this again.
no, keep going, I was going to nuke a bag of popcorn
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on October 19, 2015, 11:36:18 PM
The topic is fine when people have their reasonable debates with one another.  It's when certain members decide to go on a Colbert-tier parody flame baiting crusade when issues arise.  Most people in the topic are capable of civil, logical discussion.  If issues arise unilaterally, then yes it might need closing, otherwise things will be dealt with on an individual basis.  The deficiencies of just one or two individuals in a community should not be what limits the entirety.

Let this be a genero warning I suppose, but without this topic I could easily see posts along the lines of it just bleeding into other areas of the forum as the months progress.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on October 19, 2015, 11:47:13 PM
Outright banning any political discussions, no matter how minor, is just unfeasible.

If you have nothing of value to contribute to the current conversation, please refrain from posting as you will only dilute whatever the subject at hand is and derail the conversation towards a less constructive direction and will likely agitate those trying to have a serious conversation. This means no idle quotes, no blanket "I agree/disagree with X person" without adding to the conversation, and no sarcastic responses like "yeah, sure they will (eye roll)."

Think before you post, please try to cite your sources, and it is recommended that you if you can't handle a heated conversation then do not chime in. We do not need to hear you whining about "I don't like seeing people disagree" or "I don't like this topic".

Also, opinions do not hold any logical weight. Do not expect people to take you seriously if you cannot back up your argument with credible sources. Save parody and satire for elsewhere on the forum.

Just some friendly advice.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 19, 2015, 11:52:06 PM
Outright banning any political discussions, no matter how minor, is just unfeasible.
Really? Seems as simple as a 3 day ban for each offense tho.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: MaestroUGC on October 19, 2015, 11:55:43 PM
I meant just blanket "No politics ever" is unfeasible. People will talk about it anyway.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 20, 2015, 12:13:40 AM
They can talk about it privately though. Why bring it to a Nintendo sheet music forum?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: blueflower999 on October 20, 2015, 12:21:41 AM
They can talk about it privately though. Why bring it to a Nintendo sheet music forum?
With this in mind we could delete probably over 60% of the posts on this forum and the entire "Off Topic" board
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 20, 2015, 12:24:37 AM
A few quotes from Bernie to back this up (paraphrased, of course):
Paraphrased =/= taking what he said and making it way more hyperbolic than it was.

Quote
"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST CHILD POVERTY RATE OF ANY MAJOR COUNTRY IN THE WORLD!" Um, no. China and India are major countries.
He said industrialized countries, which India is not, nor is it a member of the OECD.
 
Quote
"THERE IS TOO MUCH MONEY IN POLITICS! DONATE TO ME AT BERNIE SANDERS DOT COM"
Too much *big* money in politics; millionaires and billionaires like the Koch brothers endorsing campaigns and giving ludicrous sums of money to the candidates that will pass laws convenient to them and reject laws inconvenient to them.
Quote
"AMERICA HAS THE HIGHEST PRISON POPULATION IN THE WORLD." Yeah, and they're all in there for crimes they didn't commit. Oh, heavens!
Actually, quite a few people are in jail for crimes they didn't commit, or petty crimes that really aren't worth locking them up for. As a matter of fact, it costs us more money to keep people in a box for ~15 years than to rehabilitate and readjust them. I thought you were all about money?
Quote
Question: What is America's biggest enemy?

Bernie: "CLIMATE CHANGE IS OUR BIGGEST ENEMY BECAUSE IF WE DON'T ACT NOW OUR CHILDREN WILL INHERIT AN UNINHABITABLE PLANET." I don't even think most climate change models predict this lol. Unless the change skyrockets to an average of one degree per year (which it won't) I'm pretty sure my children will live on a habitable planet.
Actually, only judging by the damage we've done right now several cities (if not the entire state) of Florida will be gone by 2200 due to rising oceans. To say nothing of the excessive droughts, lack of clean water (those underground reservoirs have almost entirely been contaminated by fracking), massive floods and forest fires (we're already dealing with the latter in my state, Oregon), far warmer winters..

tl;dr: Blue you're putting strawman after strawman on Bernie, not even realizing that your arguments are invalid anyways. And you wonder why people respond and "attack" you?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 20, 2015, 12:48:33 AM
With this in mind we could delete probably over 60% of the posts on this forum and the entire "Off Topic" board
pretty sure 99.9% of them don't make people show their worst side like politics does.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 20, 2015, 04:35:46 AM
A few years ago I started getting an idea as to my political viewpoints
I was listening to a lecture blah blah blah and suddenly I thought, "what this person is saying... is just completely wrong."
That's how I learned obama was bad.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 20, 2015, 04:43:56 AM
(http://38.media.tumblr.com/344e48702f2e94830c1a3817511d5468/tumblr_inline_myu0m3E5CK1qlrx1d.png)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on October 20, 2015, 05:04:05 AM
We're electing people into our office, not ideologies. This is not ad hominem at all, he is not avoiding the point of an argument by attacking the person making the argument, because the argument is "is Bernie Sanders fit to be president."

"He's a senile old man" is an incredibly abrasive and weak argument, but it's not a fallacy.
Ideologies are behind every choice we make.
He was attacking the attributes of the person himself, instead of giving any reasoning as to why exactly he'd be senile. Like Maestro said, opinions don't hold any logical weight, as that'd be an open question. It's still slander nevertheless.

A few years ago I started getting an idea as to my political viewpoints
I was listening to a lecture blah blah blah and suddenly I thought, "what this person is saying... is just completely wrong."
That's how I learned obama was bad.
You should read Maestro's latest post on this topic :]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 20, 2015, 05:11:05 AM
Ideologies are behind every choice we make.
He was attacking the attributes of the person himself, instead of giving any reasoning as to why exactly he'd be senile. Like Maestro said, opinions don't hold any logical weight, as that'd be an open question. It's still slander nevertheless.

I'm sorry, but I just don't see how it's any different than us bashing trump or carson. As long as we aren't attacking eachother (which is what this thread quickly devolves into after every blueflower/noc post), there's nothing to get worked up over.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on October 20, 2015, 05:29:12 AM
I wasn't saying how people trashing Trump or Carson without any basis would be any different from what noc was doing. I don't agree on allowing hypocritical attacking against the attributes of certain people, we should stop all unjustified shitting on anyone. We should strive to be better than people throwing biased insults towards anyone.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on October 20, 2015, 05:35:27 AM
I wasn't saying how people trashing Trump or Carson without any basis would be any different from what noc was doing. I don't agree on allowing hypocritical attacking against the attributes of certain people, we should stop all unjustified shitting on anyone. We should strive to be better than people throwing biased insults towards anyone.
is it still ad hominem to say trump is a turkeyface who can't take anything seriously
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on October 20, 2015, 05:57:59 AM
Unless you can justify that, then yes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 20, 2015, 07:49:14 PM
1) Advice for being a comedian in political commentary: whatever you make fun of has to be true and logical.
2) Some of you are just being inflammatory. If someone corrects you, getting defensive and throwing another insult is going to result in another argument. Better to save your reputation and said say "oops, corrected" or "I stand corrected."
3) YOU ARE NOT A MARTYR. Being defensive doesn't actually help your cause as much as you think, especially if you're wrong on basic facts. Your ego is worth less than friendship, for example...



I would hold Trump to a different standard because he's also an entertainer. Don't expect people *not* to treat him like the Bieber of finance. I think there's a reason that Republicans get kicked around more, it's because they try to screw over lots people and say things that aren't true, and they should know better.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: EFitTrainr on October 20, 2015, 08:12:21 PM
yeah but why is Donald Trump orange
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 20, 2015, 11:32:05 PM
He's an oompa loompa
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 20, 2015, 11:55:15 PM
A few years ago I started getting an idea as to my political viewpoints
I was listening to a lecture blah blah blah and suddenly I thought, "what this person is saying... is just completely wrong."
That's how I learned obama was bad.
If you have nothing of value to contribute to the current conversation, please refrain from posting as you will only dilute whatever the subject at hand is and derail the conversation towards a less constructive direction and will likely agitate those trying to have a serious conversation.

Think before you post, please try to cite your sources, and it is recommended that you if you can't handle a heated conversation then do not chime in.

(. . .)

Also, opinions do not hold any logical weight. Do not expect people to take you seriously if you cannot back up your argument with credible sources. Save parody and satire for elsewhere on the forum.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 26, 2015, 06:23:42 AM
http://gawker.com/ben-carson-has-plenty-of-energy-once-tried-to-stab-a-g-1738615515

Crazy! In other news, a surgeon is a great career choice for psychopaths who don't end up in jail first. Basically, you get paid for cutting people up. I read that in Scientific American too, about a surgeon who was curious and took a personality test. He found out he was a psychopath.

If anyone is curious, they should take a test (https://www.google.com/search?q=psychopath+sociopath+personality+test&rlz=1C1LENP_enUS503US503&oq=psychopath+sociopath+personality+test&aqs=chrome..69i57.7887j0j1&sourceid=chrome&es_sm=93&ie=UTF-8). Remember, you can always be a surgeon. Just don't end up in the news first for torturing dogs to death, like Mike Huckabee's son.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on October 26, 2015, 02:17:23 PM
[snip]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 27, 2015, 04:23:23 AM
On the subject of Ben Carson, here are some interesting lines from an article I read earlier today.
"According to the latest poll from Bloomberg Politics and the Des Moines Register (https://drive.google.com/viewerng/viewer?url=http://www.gannett-cdn.com/LDSN/desmoines/PDF/151023_ia_methodology_7760982.pdf), Carson is ahead of the pack with 28 percent of the vote. But more interesting are the facts behind his rise. Iowans aren’t just charmed by his demeanor, his experience, and his inexperience as a politician and policymaker—although that’s definitely true—they also support his most controversial, and entirely ludicrous, ideas.

Eighty-five percent of respondents say Carson’s lack of experience is mostly or very attractive; 88 percent say the same for his skill as a neurosurgeon, while 49 percent say it’s unattractive that he has little experience with foreign policy.

But then it goes off the rails. Two years ago, at the Values Voter Summit, url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/10/11/ben-carson-obamacare-worst-thing-since-slavery]Carson said that the Affordable Care Act[/url]—designed to increase health coverage for millions of uninsured Americans—was the “worst thing that has happened in this country since slavery,” which trapped millions of people in brutal hereditary bondage for more than two centuries. American slavery was a disgraceful chapter in our history that still shapes the structure of our society. Obamacare, by contrast, has delivered insurance and health services to 17.6 million people. (http://obamacarefacts.com/sign-ups/obamacare-enrollment-numbers/)

What do Iowa Republicans think? Eighty-one percent say this makes him a “mostly” or “very” attractive candidate.

Last month, Carson voiced opposition to a hypothetical Muslim president. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/09/ben_carson_doesn_t_believe_muslims_should_be_president_his_genial_reputation.html) “I would not advocate that we put a Muslim in charge of this nation. I absolutely would not agree with that,” he said. This, despite the Constitution’s clear dictate on religious tests—they’re verboten. What do Iowa Republicans think? Seventy-seven percent say this makes him a “mostly” or “very” attractive candidate.

Two weeks ago, Carson said that guns—in the hands of German Jews—could have slowed Adolf Hitler and even stopped the Holocaust. (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/08/politics/ben-carson-gun-control-2016-election/) “I think the likelihood of Hitler being able to accomplish his goals would have been greatly diminished if the people have been armed,” he said.

Historians think this is ludicrous. “I can think of no serious work of scholarship on the Nazi dictatorship or the causes of the Holocaust in which Nazi gun control measures feature as a significant factor,” wrote Alan Steinweis for the New York Times.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/15/opinion/ben-carson-is-wrong-on-guns-and-the-holocaust.html)

What do Iowa Republicans think? A whopping 77 percent say that Carson’s statement makes him “very” or “mostly” attractive. Overall—presumably based on his beliefs and opinions—96 percent of Iowa Republicans are attracted by “common sense”-based approach to issues. If there’s an area where respondents were unhappy, it’s with Carson’s fetal tissue research as a neurosurgeon. Forty-eight percent find it “mostly” or “very” unattractive."
You can read the rest of the article  here. (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/iowa_republicans_love_ben_carson_the_state_s_conservative_caucus_goers_have.html)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 27, 2015, 06:07:35 AM
I really don't want to think our country can be this disgusting. Please tell me the is empty left wing mud slinging or something because I just don't want to accept the fact that our America is that fucking stupid, pardon my french.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on October 27, 2015, 06:58:30 AM
Wait, who are you talking about, PDS or Iowa Republicans?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 27, 2015, 04:52:01 PM
You don't need to mudsling the right wing to make them look bad >_> Their candidates are a joke. The person saying the most outrageous crap gets the most attention or biggest lead in the polls. Confucius must be rolling over in his grave.

I also read the Slate article. I'm sure I posted about Carson's comment on "arming the Jews would prevent the Holocaust". He's probably doing it for the media attention to sell more books and paid appearances, but using a presidential candidate platform for monetary gain is an insult.

Article: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-34485358

"The Anti-Defamation League, an anti-Semitism monitoring group, has previously said that drawing comparisons between the gun control debate in the US and the Holocaust was "historically inaccurate and offensive", especially to Holocaust survivors and their families.

In 1943, armed Jews in the Warsaw ghetto fought the Nazis. Jews killed about 20 Nazis, but about 13,000 Jews died in the uprising.

Ben Carson's comments come days after a mass shooting at a college in the US state of Oregon, in which nine people were killed."


lmao my ex-boyfriend wants/wanted to be a surgeon

Glad you got out of that okay lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: JDMEK5 on October 27, 2015, 05:42:36 PM
Freakin' Justin Trudeau is gonna run my beautiful country to the ground! ..oh wait.. is this american politics? I'll just back out here..
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 27, 2015, 05:59:14 PM
I'm mostly disturbed by the "Obama care is the worst thing since slavery." I'm so sorry that the upper class people living a decent life pay a bit more for medical insurance, but come on. Are these people really selfish enough to think that it's even remotely appropriate to compare being charged more money (to help out people!) to slavery?

I swear, these people (majoriry of iowa republicans) dont even know what Jesus preached.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on October 27, 2015, 08:55:12 PM
I'm mostly disturbed by the "Obama care is the worst thing since slavery." I'm so sorry that the upper class people living a decent life pay a bit more for medical insurance, but come on. Are these people really selfish enough to think that it's even remotely appropriate to compare being charged more money (to help out people!) to slavery?

I swear, these people (majoriry of iowa republicans) dont even know what Jesus preached.

People either  have no idea about anything or they're just trolling the polls. Since trolling is fun to people, it could be possible that they're just bored.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on October 28, 2015, 09:16:35 PM
Just a reminder to everyone that the 3rd Republican Debate is tonight!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on October 28, 2015, 11:52:23 PM
Anyone wanna play the republican debate drinking game?
You just get totally shitfaced beforehand, that way you can stand listening to them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on October 29, 2015, 12:11:19 AM
For reference:
Spoiler
DRINK EVERY TIME:

1. Donald Trump brags about how much money he makes.

2. Trump uses the words "disaster," "loser" or "head spin."

3. Trump says he "loves" somebody or thinks he/she is a "wonderful person," before ripping him/her for being a loser or a disaster or whatever.

4. Trump rips another candidate's poll numbers. Make it a double if he tweaks Jeb about cutting the pay of his staffers. Add a beer chaser if Trump doubles down and talks about how well, in contrast, he pays his people.

5. Anyone references how Hillary "lied before the committee."

6. A candidate proposes abolishing an utterly necessary branch of government, or a politically untouchable program like Medicare.

7. Jeb Bush refers to himself as "Veto Corleone," or insists that "Washington is the pejorative term, not Redskins." Drink as much as you can stomach if he actually uses either line.

8. Any candidate makes an awkward/craven pop-culture reference, including references to Peyton Manning or the Broncos.

9. Any candidate illustrates the virtue of one of his/her positions by pointing out how not PC it is.

10. Any candidate compares anything that isn't slavery to slavery. A double if it's Ben Carson.

11. Any candidate evokes Nazis, the Gestapo, Neville Chamberlain, concentration camps, etc. Again, a double if it's Ben Carson, who has been amping up the slavery/Holocaust imagery lately.

12. Carson cites the Bible as authority for complex policy questions.

13. Any candidate righteously claims he/she would never have compromised on the debt ceiling thing. You may drink more if you feel sure enough that the person is lying.

14. Carly Fiorina whips out a number that is debunked by Politifact or some other reputable fact-checking service before the end of the night. (Example: the 307,000 veterans who supposedly died last year because of Barack Obama's inept management of the VA.) Actually, drink if any candidate does this.

15. A low-polling candidate makes a wild and outrageous statement in a transparent attempt to revive his or her campaign. Huckabee calling for summary bludgeonings of immigrants would be an example.

16. A candidate complains about not getting enough time. This evergreen drinking game concept is henceforth known as the "Jim Webb rule."

17. The audience bursts into uncomfortable applause at a racist/sexist statement.

DRINK THE FIRST TIME AND THE FIRST TIME ONLY:

18. A candidate evokes St. Reagan.

DRINK EVERY TIME YOU HEAR:

19. "Selling baby parts"

20. "White Lives Matter" or "All Lives Matter"

21. "Ferguson Effect"

22. "I'm the only candidate on this stage who…"

23. George Bush/My brother "kept us safe"

24. "Shining city on a hill"

TAKE A SHOT OF JAGER IF:

25. Anyone references a biblical justification for gun ownership, or insists an infamous historical tragedy would have been prevented if more people had been armed.

The following rules are optional, for the truly hardcore.

BONUS SHOTS IF:

    Ted Cruz mentions his wife's baking skills without mentioning she worked for Goldman Sachs.
    Rand Paul mentions the Constitution, the Framers or the founders before he mentions his children.
    Someone makes a quiet car joke at Christie's expense.
    Fiorina mentions being a secretary or having a husband who drove a tow truck.


Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-official-gop-debate-drinking-game-rules-pt-3-20151028#ixzz3puIqleMA
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 07, 2015, 01:44:08 AM
So this is a thing.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on November 07, 2015, 02:59:50 AM
That's incredibly offensive to young people xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 07, 2015, 07:02:10 PM
I want to say it's a step up from comparing Obamacare to slavery, but....
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on November 08, 2015, 11:46:53 PM
I want to say it's a step up from comparing Obamacare to slavery, but....

Not as bad as being proud of pantaloons aflame. (http://theslot.jezebel.com/ben-carson-admits-that-his-autobiography-isnt-100-accu-1741295273?trending_test_a&utm_expid=66866090-62.H_y_0o51QhmMY_tue7bevQ.1&utm_referrer=http%3A%2F%2Ftheslot.jezebel.com%2F%3Ftrending_test_a)

Then he made a disgusting tweet about how much he made this week from sounding like a victim of the media. It makes sense if you're out to make money from gullible people to sell books, but then if your autobiography lied about stuff, isn't that bad press? He needs to go away.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: InsigTurtle on November 10, 2015, 12:48:49 AM
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/gallery/2015/nov/07/ben-carson-house-homage-to-himself-in-pictures?CMP=fb_gu

I found the third image to be pretty funny.
Spoiler
As humble as you can get while engraving a biblical inscription into stone and covering it with gold leaf, surrounded by ornate decorations and numerous awards
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on November 14, 2015, 08:27:38 AM
I hope Carson or Trump say something insensitive about the French attacks like after that shooting at that university and then their poll numbers crash and burn
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on November 14, 2015, 08:53:26 AM
If they were armed this would of never happened!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on November 14, 2015, 06:39:09 PM
If they were armed this would of never happened!

I think Newt said that. Ugh.

I hope Carson or Trump say something insensitive about the French attacks like after that shooting at that university and then their poll numbers crash and burn

Heard morons say Trump's wall would be a good idea but joke's on her, since she can't vote in a US election. I think it would make the hardcore idiots just foam at the mouth.

I also think that Trump's latest speech and Carson caugh fabricating parts of his autobiography did enough damage lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on November 15, 2015, 10:38:02 AM
Whoop. There it is.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on November 15, 2015, 04:16:24 PM
[snip]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on November 15, 2015, 05:42:33 PM
why just threaten? why not go all the way? go big or go home, man.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on November 15, 2015, 07:20:12 PM
why just threaten? why not go all the way? go big or go home, man.

Trump may be despicable but he's not deserving of murder.

Even if it would prove an excellent point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on November 15, 2015, 07:23:42 PM
Oh no, not murder. Just shoot him in the foot.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on November 15, 2015, 08:01:45 PM
Oh no, not murder. Just shoot him in the foot.

What are you saying? We don't need someone else to do that for him!!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on November 15, 2015, 10:39:48 PM
Whoop. There it is.

People being this stupid really depresses me.
Title: why is american politics such a shitfest like this
Post by: Waddle Bro on November 21, 2015, 08:56:20 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
hail trump
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on November 25, 2015, 08:00:08 PM
For those of you who think that Islamic terrorism is really a threat in the US....
http://reverbpress.com/politics/battlegrounds/toddler-shooting-incidents-threat-muslim-terrorists-us/
Title: Re: why is american politics such a shitfest like this
Post by: Ruto on November 27, 2015, 08:13:09 PM
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/trump-says-he-would-certainly-implement-muslim-database-n466716
heil trump

fixed because that's where people made the comparison

For those of you who think that Islamic terrorism is really a threat in the US....
http://reverbpress.com/politics/battlegrounds/toddler-shooting-incidents-threat-muslim-terrorists-us/

You forgot attacks made by white supremacists (basically losers whose only achievement in life is being born white and thinks he/she can be great by putting other people down). If they don't have their guns/bombs/artillery/"freedom" they would be lower than cow turds and even less useful. I wouldn't fertilize a lawn with white supremacists.

I once talked to this guy who said he shot himself by accident with a BB gun and he didn't go to the hospital for it, so there are probably way more unreported incidents. The way he said it made me think that he thought it was nothing. :O
Title: Re: why is american politics such a shitfest like this
Post by: mikey on November 27, 2015, 08:57:29 PM
I once talked to this guy who said he shot himself by accident with a BB gun and he didn't go to the hospital for it, so there are probably way more unreported incidents. The way he said it made me think that he thought it was nothing. :O
I mean, it's possible to get shot with a bb and not even feel it, so...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Zunawe on November 28, 2015, 12:32:04 AM
BB =/= Airsoft if that's what she meant. They are much more painful.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on November 28, 2015, 01:43:36 AM
Colorado wtf
Title: Re: why is american politics such a shitfest like this
Post by: Ruto on November 28, 2015, 03:27:20 AM
I mean, it's possible to get shot with a bb and not even feel it, so...

He shot himself in the butt.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on November 28, 2015, 10:14:14 AM
Americans can have some pretty impressive butts if you know what i mean
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 08, 2015, 08:41:22 PM
http://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2015/12/class-based-affirmative-action/419307/?utm_source=SFFB
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on December 10, 2015, 07:20:27 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/cj-pearson-endorses-bernie-sanders

Hahaha I don't care much about what people say on YouTube but the reactions are pretty funny. The people who were praising this kid last week are now howling in rage.

(Basically a black kid who got famous for insulting Obama (and backing Republicans) is now supporting Bernie Sanders, what a troll!) xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 19, 2015, 11:22:19 PM
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/12/19/watch-the-christmas-parody-informercial-the-ted-cruz-campaign-has-paid-to-air-during-saturday-night-live/

I thought this one was funnier than the trump one
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 20, 2015, 01:34:20 AM
Here's one I found that I thought was hilarious on the issue of Islamophobia:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10103964279738483&set=a.738882800843.2371193.6228901&type=3&theater
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 20, 2015, 05:12:46 AM
http://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg (http://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg)

I wish they would of somehow mentioned starbuck's red coffee cup.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 20, 2015, 05:34:55 AM
http://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg (http://media.cagle.com/20/2013/12/08/141396_600.jpg)

I wish they would of somehow mentioned starbuck's red coffee cup.
what, nobody thinking of Jesus?  Criminal.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 20, 2015, 06:35:37 AM
i think the cartoon would be much more criminal if they were thinking of jesus in the season of imagination
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 20, 2015, 06:54:15 AM
oh is that the joke
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 20, 2015, 09:00:06 AM
sorry my online sarcasm detector not of very high quality so i'll explain the joke like a dumbass

Some conservative people have this delusion that there's a war on Christmas, so they're comparing this imaginary thing to the other imaginary Christmas things such as Santa and flying reindeer. So yeah, I guess you can extrapolate that Jesus is the point of Christmas and everything else from conspiracy theories to the Clause family is fluff. I personally just see it as mocking hypersensitive Christians and politicians that cater to them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on December 23, 2015, 10:50:46 PM
In my opinion, all politicians are paid liars. Of course, this may be stereotypical, but I'm just making a blanketed statement. If you could show me one completely truthful politician, I'd be thoroughly surprised.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on December 23, 2015, 11:06:19 PM
Bernie Sanders
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on December 23, 2015, 11:08:46 PM
(http://www.stripersonline.com/content/type/61/id/1505301/)


EDIT:
lol
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 23, 2015, 11:28:37 PM
As compared to what? (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/)
;3
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on December 23, 2015, 11:34:18 PM
I didn't know something as great as this existed! (Although, I'm not sure about that high of %%% for Carson. Sorry, ignore my political bias, it's just the way I was raised :P)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on December 23, 2015, 11:51:29 PM
Ok so which shitty Republican candidate should I vote for in the primary?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 24, 2015, 12:24:35 AM
all politicians lie, tell half-truths, or generally warp facts to their own suiting.  Bernie Sanders is no exception
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 12:55:26 AM
all politicians lie, tell half-truths, or generally warp facts to their own suiting.  Bernie Sanders is no exception
Some more so than others.
Hillary Clinton (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/)
Bernie Sanders (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/bernie-s/)
Donald Trump (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/)
Ben Carson (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ben-carson/)
Ted Cruz (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/ted-cruz/)
Marco Rubio (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/marco-rubio/)

And for giggles
Barack Obama (http://www.politifact.com/personalities/barack-obama/)

Hillary is the most honest candidate by a large margin, which kinda surprises me. Bernie Sanders, Marco Rubio, and Obama are in the middle. All the other relevant GOPs I bothered to look up don't seem to be very factual. Keep in mind this site simply measures the truth of statements political people make, if telling what you perceive to be the truth counted for anything trump and bernie would be passing with flying colors.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 12:57:50 AM
You might as well say there's no such thing as an honest person, then, because everyone does that.
That said, I'd be interested to see what you think of as Sanders' "lies, half-truths," and "generally warped facts", or if you'll just repost the politifact article.
@Dude I'd say Rand Paul, since he's kind of a libertarian. He's far better on foreign policy than any of the other republicans, as well as being better on some social issues.
@FireArrow Keep in mind that Politifact isn't known for their objectivity; they are known for neutrality, but neutrality =/= objectivity.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on December 24, 2015, 01:03:50 AM
why are some of those factcheck things up there twice? also doubt you should assume that sanders or any major politician is the one searching all those statistics? pretty much all statistics are given to them by their team, at least when it comes to presidential candidates. point is how if you think you're telling the truth, your intentions doesn't mean you objectively always are.
especially the teams behind billion dollar presidential campaigns(ridiculous amounts imo) are definitely using rhetoric methods to bring the ws home. these false claims i'm looking at on homie are clearly exaggerated instead of made-up bullshit like "obama's classmates don't even remember him" tho. but always take all stats with a grain of salt, but if you look at the big picture, my man bernie has been laying down these words of wisdom and truth like corn flakes in my breakfast bowl.
why i pointed out sanders to you e.gadd bro is because he's the one who has been speaking heavily against the corrupting effect money has on the political process in us, the same problem you have with politicians.

just a general tip for everyone here, left or right, recommending you to take a look at the goal the politician wants to point out instead of how the politician is doing it. if you focus on just the road, you might end up running to a hole that the road led you to.
edit; firearrow, you should also focus on the quality of the facts or lies. a lot of them aren't honestly even that big of a deal that anyone should care about. though while hillary for example makes up her own bullshit of her grandparents and you compare that to anything sanders-false idk it's just interesting to see who's genuinely lying.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 01:07:33 AM
And, as is the tradition in the NSM politics thread, Waddle Bro lays down good knowledge for everyone to contemplate.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 01:30:52 AM
Just using politifact since MLF used it. If he considers it valid evidence against bernie, then it should also be considered valid evidence that most of his (not Rubio ;]) republican candidates are much worse.

edit; firearrow, you should also focus on the quality of the facts or lies. a lot of them aren't honestly even that big of a deal that anyone should care about. though while hillary for example makes up her own bullshit of her grandparents and you compare that to anything sanders-false idk it's just interesting to see who's genuinely lying.

I didn't feel like weeding through that for each person. You could argue though that Bernie's false statements would negatively impact decisions he'd make in office, whereas shit about Hillary's grandparents doesn't really hurt anyone. If we're talking about simply the intention of each candidate not to lie, then a lot of the republicans do a pretty good job of that. Sure, they throw around completely ridiculous things about planned parent hood and Obama, but they probably believe what they're saying.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on December 24, 2015, 01:36:01 AM
XD I know this is off topic from the conversation (but this is the Off-Topic forum), but have you guys seen the Bad Lip Reading videos of the candidate debates on YouTube? XD imo, the democratic debate is funnier XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on December 24, 2015, 01:39:22 AM
Just using politifact since MLF used it. If he considers it valid evidence against bernie, then it should also be considered valid evidence that most of his (not Rubio ;]) republican candidates are much worse.

I didn't feel like weeding through that for each person. You could argue though that Bernie's false statements would negatively impact decisions he'd make in office, whereas shit about Hillary's grandparents doesn't really hurt anyone. If we're talking about simply the intention of each candidate not to lie, then a lot of the republicans do a pretty good job of that. Sure, they throw around completely ridiculous things about planned parent hood and Obama, but they probably believe what they're saying.
ya you're completely right and thanks for clearing it up, and i mostly meant that mentioning stuff like "people have written over 60 books about me" and that being marked as a true fact(even though it meaningless) raises your average score, making you appear as a more trustworthy person. that's a bit frivolous to me.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 01:46:02 AM
ya you're completely right and thanks for clearing it up, and i mostly meant that mentioning stuff like "people have written over 60 books about me" and that being marked as a true fact(even though it meaningless) raises your average score, making you appear as a more trustworthy person. that's a bit frivolous to me.

Yeah it's probably not best to use that sight as a way to "tally honesty." My bad.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on December 24, 2015, 01:54:09 AM
Just using politifact since MLF used it. If he considers it valid evidence against bernie, then it should also be considered valid evidence that most of his (not Rubio ;]) republican candidates are much worse.
Actually, I have no clue what that site even is.....Blue told me to post that link O_O


Anyway, tbh, I'm not really following politics too closely. I think I've only watched one of the Republican debates. :P

Here are my current views on politics at the moment and what I think of the candidates:
(my opinion; please respect that)
Ben Carson
I think he has the potential to be a good president, but I honestly don't think he is ready. He just doesn't have enough experience in the field of politics and jumping from neurosurgeon to president might not be the right thing to do. I do agree with most of the things he says and that he does have the potential to be a good leader. I also think that it was pretty stupid of him to say that God gave him the answers to a test in high school :P
I don't think that was true.

Marco Rubio
He is my favorite candidate. I think Rubio would be a great president and I agree with almost everything he says. He has the experience (he worked in politics since 1998, I believe) and the leadership skills.

Alas, I haven't really followed the Democrats.....at all so don't have anything to say about them.
As of now, Marco Rubio is my favorite candidate.


You might as well say there's no such thing as an honest person, then, because everyone does that.
That said, I'd be interested to see what you think of as Sanders' "lies, half-truths," and "generally warped facts", or if you'll just repost the politifact article.
This is true. I don't think there is any candidate running that tells the truth all the time.
There is always going to be warped facts and, as you say, half-truths.

ya you're completely right and thanks for clearing it up, and i mostly meant that mentioning stuff like "people have written over 60 books about me" and that being marked as a true fact(even though it meaningless) raises your average score, making you appear as a more trustworthy person. that's a bit frivolous to me.
I don't see anything wrong with promoting yourself or showing off your accomplishments. Take Ben Carson, for example. I've seen these pictures online of his house and people are always saying things like, "What's with all the pictures of yourself on the wall(s)" or "What a proud person. He has a million trophies plastered throughout his house." etc.
If I was a Retired Neurosurgeon that worked very hard at college, has a doctorate, and worked extremely hard (and let's not forget saving lives) all my life, yes, I would have all my accomplishments and trophies all through my house and would "show-off" :P


Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 02:30:17 AM
Blue can come back and post it himself if he wants to argue on here, lol.
My issue with Rubio is one I have with several candidates; he's been given too much money. The corporations that donate to his (and several others, including Hillary Clinton) campaign, and they know that since they enabled their campaign to be successful, people like Rubio and others won't dare piss them off with any sort of legislation.
This is true. I don't think there is any candidate running that tells the truth all the time.
There is always going to be warped facts and, as you say, half-truths.
Then it seems we need a new definition of honest; perhaps someone who in the majority of cases tells what they know to be the truth, does not intentionally manipulate information, etc..
Also keep in mind that honest isn't a concrete yes or no thing, it's not an "your either honest or you aren't". There are certainly degrees of honesty.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on December 24, 2015, 02:36:50 AM
Blue can come back and post it himself if he wants to argue on here, lol.
Agreed

My issue with Rubio is one I have with several candidates; he's been given too much money. The corporations that donate to his (and several others, including Hillary Clinton) campaign, and they know that since they enabled their campaign to be successful, people like Rubio and others won't dare piss them off with any sort of legislation.
Perhaps.


Also, I forgot to bring up Donald Trump. I would be very anxious having him as president and think he's one of the worst on the Republican Party. His goals are very far-fetched. Building a wall (as he likes to say time and time again is just stupid) and getting rid of the Islamic people is just as stupid. Having him on the Republican side just makes all the Republicans look bad which does not help anything. If he was president, he'd start a war with every country in the world O_O
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 02:46:58 AM
Actually, I have no clue what that site even is.....Blue told me to post that link O_O

Don't blindly listen to other people. I love blue, but when MLF posts I want to hear what MLF has to say.


Quote
Anyway, tbh, I'm not really following politics too closely. I think I've only watched one of the Republican debates. :P
Quote
Alas, I haven't really followed the Democrats.....at all so don't have anything to say about them.

You should probably see what the democrats have to say if you plan on voting. You'd be doing a disservice to your country is you voted someone without a fair consideration of both sides and all viable candidates.

Quote
Here are my current views on politics at the moment and what I think of the candidates:
(my opinion; please respect that)
Ben Carson
I think he has the potential to be a good president, but I honestly don't think he is ready. He just doesn't have enough experience in the field of politics and jumping from neurosurgeon to president might not be the right thing to do. I do agree with most of the things he says and that he does have the potential to be a good leader. I also think that it was pretty stupid of him to say that God gave him the answers to a test in high school :P
I don't think that was true.

The thing about Carson is the BS he says isn't just confined to the one statement about high school.

Quote
Marco Rubio
He is my favorite candidate. I think Rubio would be a great president and I agree with almost everything he says. He has the experience (he worked in politics since 1998, I believe) and the leadership skills.

If experience was you're main interest, then wouldn't Hillary be your gal?

Quote
This is true. I don't think there is any candidate running that tells the truth all the time.
There is always going to be warped facts and, as you say, half-truths.

Some candidates do so more than others. There's just a few issues that you should always try and check politifact or better yet a primary source (please don't use news articles and blogs.)
Notably:
Planned Parent Hood
Obama
Gun Control
Gay Marriage and Adoption
One politician talking about another
etc.

Quote
I don't see anything wrong with promoting yourself or showing off your accomplishments. Take Ben Carson, for example. I've seen these pictures online of his house and people are always saying things like, "What's with all the pictures of yourself on the wall(s)" or "What a proud person. He has a million trophies plastered throughout his house." etc.
If I was a Retired Neurosurgeon that worked very hard at college, has a doctorate, and worked extremely hard (and let's not forget saving lives) all my life, yes, I would have all my accomplishments and trophies all through my house and would "show-off" :P

Most people don't consider narcissism a desirable quality. Though you bring up a good point that it's gonna be hard to find a candidate that isn't that way.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 02:49:43 AM
Also, I forgot to bring up Donald Trump. I would be very anxious having him as president and think he's one of the worst on the Republican Party. His goals are very far-fetched. Building a wall (as he likes to say time and time again is just stupid) and getting rid of the Islamic people is just as stupid. Having him on the Republican side just makes all the Republicans look bad which does not help anything. If he was president, he'd start a war with every country in the world O_O

Yay double posts. Question: Would you vote Trump over a democrat?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on December 24, 2015, 02:55:05 AM
You should probably see what the democrats have to say if you plan on voting. You'd be doing a disservice to your country is you voted someone without a fair consideration of both sides and all viable candidates.
Don't worry. I know plenty about them. A friend of mine is always talking to me about politics and gives me the scoop on every debate (GOP and Democrat). :P
And, as I said, I agree with almost everything Rubio has to say.

If experience was you're main interest, then wouldn't Hillary be your gal?
I don't agree with most of what she says. She almost has the opposite views that I (and Rubio) have on a plethora of subjects.

Some candidates do so more than others. There's just a few issues that you should always try and check politifact or better yet a primary source (please don't use news articles and blogs.)
Notably:
Planned Parent Hood
Obama
Gun Control
Gay Marriage and Adoption
One politician talking about another
etc.
Of course. I know what I think about on all of these issues and will probably vote accordingly.


Yay double posts. Question: Would you vote Trump over a democrat?
Hmmmm.....that's a toughy. I don't know if I'd like having Trump as a president and don't think I'd vote for him. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it if that is what it comes to. I don't think Trump can beat any Democrat running.

Btw, I'm glad how "cool" this is going. This is how conversations on controversial topics should be done! 👍
Title: call me sartre
Post by: Waddle Bro on December 24, 2015, 03:43:19 AM
Actually, I have no clue what that site even is.....Blue told me to post that link O_O
firearrow said it pretty well and tight but i'm gonna take it a bit further, because thinking critically is one of the biggest things in life for me because imo people should know why they are doing the things they're doing.

so, thinking can be exhausting and life can feel like just a one big moment of "whatever". when we combine fatigue and the fear to make decisions with the countless institutions, societies, people and religions that love explaining us what we should do, we get used to it and start to think it's pointless to think for ourselves when so many other things could just take the wheel of our thoughts.

instead of letting blue or anyone ghost your thoughts and tell you what to do, you should think critically and do what you think is the best. i'm not saying listening to other people is bad, but listening to someone else blindly without knowing why is. i'm not telling you to close your minds and reject everything the world has to say. taking someone else's advice can be great, but you need to figure out why you should take the advice. that way the information you perceive becomes a part of you and your essence, so you're taking your own advice. we should continue searching for wisdom and knowledge and continue to listening to others, but we shouldn't make any of it a part of ourselves unless we agree with it. every time you hear or observe something or someone is telling you what to do, just ask yourself if you agree with it. that way you avoid following something blindly.

"but woodle bra aren't you telling us how we should think right now?!" i'm actually not. i'm here to just get you to open your eyes and even question everything i'm telling you at this moment. if you listen to what i'm telling blindly, you're letting just another thing control your thoughts and cloud your mind. don't swallow shit that people try to shove down your throats. trust yourselves. even if you're afraid of mistakes, just remember that mistakes aren't the bad thing, they only teach and make you stronger. but the fear of mistakes is what paralyzes your ass. when you let something control your thoughts, you're like a pen, only a tool.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on December 24, 2015, 04:49:45 AM
A medical degree (MD) is NOT a doctorate (PhD). Just thought I'd put that out there.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 24, 2015, 06:05:20 AM
A couple days ago I had the shocking realization that I'm going to be able to vote in the next election.  I most certainly will not.  My political views:
Conservatives:
They get it right.
Liberals:
They're misguided, but well-meaning.
Trump:
Not a conservative.
Carson:
A crazy doctor.  Knows nothing of politics.
Cruz:
I guess this is the best guy, cause most of the conservatives from my hometown love him.
Clinton:
If it had to be a democrat, it should be her.
Sanders:
Socialist.  Will make America a Non-America.
Waddle Bro:
What the heck why is this guy so invested in American politics, seems fishy, not gonna listen to anything he says
Trump Followers:
Shockingly, they do exist.  They seem to ignore the bad stuff he says- quote from my facebook: "True, he's rough around the edges, but maybe rough is what america needs."  gross.
Politics:
Kind of stupid.
Declaration of Independence:
We're AMERICA, not BRITISH COLONIES.  We don't WANT to switch to european government.
Declaration of Independence:
Hey, if we hate it, we can tear it down.  Revolt of the citizens is justified by the D of I.
Constitution:
We The People.  Too much Good Cop v Bad Cop, White Lives v Black Lives, all that stupid crap.  We're all americans.  Except for the illegal aliens ("Undocumented Democrats" lol).  They should get that sorted out.
Me:
Still not gonna vote.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on December 24, 2015, 06:21:09 AM
If you actually think Sanders is a "socialist", you should see the nutjob in the Seattle city government and rethink your definition.

Also, what is your definition of "America", and better yet, "misguided"?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 24, 2015, 06:26:37 AM
If you actually think Sanders is a "socialist", you should see the nutjob in the Seattle city government and rethink your definition.

Also, what is your definition of "America", and better yet, "misguided"?
I realize that 2/3 of colonists didn't want to split from America, but the 1/3 that did felt like Britain was doing it wrong.  There's a reason America has the oldest government structure today and it's not because Europe is better at government.
Misguided means they think spending money that we don't have is a good idea.  I guarantee you that when you got a credit card your parents told you not to spend money you didn't have.  If they didn't, well, that means either you knew that already or they were terrible parents.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on December 24, 2015, 06:46:53 AM
I still find it absolutely astounding that if you mention any kind of socialism to an American their heads explode. Most modern iterations of socialism is democratic socialism where the government provides essential services (including education, health care and climate action) whilst remaining a mostly capitalist economy.

But that's none of my business...

*sips on affordable tertiary education and government which can utilise bipartisanship.*

*chokes on high taxes and unions*

*doesn't die due to free healthcare*
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on December 24, 2015, 07:03:21 AM
Cruz:
I guess this is the best guy, cause most of the conservatives from my hometown love him.

Loooooooooooooool

Me:
Still not gonna vote.

Good.

Other stuff:
I think people have commented about that already.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 08:23:01 AM
Here's a small list of 10 socialist programs that're already in America:
- The FBI
- The CIA
- The U.S. Military
- Unions
- Social Security
- Roads/Highways
- Food Stamps
- Police Departments
- Gov't funded hospitals
- Public Transportation
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 24, 2015, 08:30:39 AM
NASA too
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 08:57:55 AM
Don't worry. I know plenty about them. A friend of mine is always talking to me about politics and gives me the scoop on every debate (GOP and Democrat). :P

Refer to waddle's post because he already covers this subject well, but I'll give myself a shot at it as well.

You've just proven that you don't. Second hand information from a friend that's probably blueflower =/= knowing both sides. I've talked to blue a lot about the debates too, his opinion of the debates is usually "Rubio proves he's the best once again" and "The democrats were really stupid." Being a complete coincidence, this also perfectly aligns with his political views. I personally don't watch the debates (no one actually debates...), but I'm also self aware enough to not accept everything blue says about them as indisputable fact. If you wanna know what democrats want, don't ask someone who hates them, find (https://www.hillaryclinton.com/) out (https://go.berniesanders.com/page/content/splash) for yourself.

Quote
And, as I said, I agree with almost everything Rubio has to say.
I don't agree with most of what she says. She almost has the opposite views that I (and Rubio) have on a plethora of subjects.
Of course. I know what I think about on all of these issues and will probably vote accordingly.

Make sure your opinion on these subjects isn't founded upon misinformation. Hint: If it's based off of things friends and family told you it's probably wrong.

Quote
Hmmmm.....that's a toughy. I don't know if I'd like having Trump as a president and don't think I'd vote for him. I'll cross that bridge when I come to it if that is what it comes to. I don't think Trump can beat any Democrat running.

Btw, I'm glad how "cool" this is going. This is how conversations on controversial topics should be done! 👍

I mostly ask because it's shaping up to be Trump vs. Clinton.

My political views:
Conservatives:
They get it right.
Liberals:
They're misguided, but well-meaning.
My political views as a nonpartisan:
Conservatives:
2 decades behind in civil rights, hypocritical about economic issues. (Democrats spend too much money, so we're gonna cut taxes and spend money on the military!)
Democrats:
Seem to talk a lot and make very vague promises without doing much. At least they're progressive with civil rights, which is really the only reason I favor them.

Like seriously, I try to consider both sides fairly, but it's really hard when the entire cast of republicans has an entire portion of their campaign dedicated to why I'm not allowed to marry. Fiorina is the only one that doesn't make me feel like some kind of second class citizen subordinate to the rules of a religion I'm not even a part of.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 24, 2015, 09:08:15 AM
It's also worth noting I went to school in Minnesota and so my textbooks were probably liberal
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 09:11:17 AM
I don't think textbooks talk about politics much?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 09:11:25 AM
It's also worth noting I went to school in Minnesota and so my textbooks were probably liberal
Depends who your textbooks were written by. Keep in mind that, while there are opinions in even the most intellectual of textbooks, they primarily present facts as a teaching material.
That said, don't trust Texas textbooks regarding slavery..
I don't think textbooks talk about politics much?
They do if they're textbooks for social science classes, specifically US history classes or world history classes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 24, 2015, 09:14:19 AM
They do if they're textbooks for social science classes, specifically US history classes or world history classes.
Yup.  I just about went crazy when they started talking about what a hero FDR was
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 09:17:50 AM
He is in someways.
Title: Re: call me sartre
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on December 24, 2015, 09:22:56 AM
"but woodle bra"
Once I saw this, I started rabidly chuckling to myself.

A couple days ago I had the shocking realization that I'm going to be able to vote in the next election.  I most certainly will not.
As someone looking forward to voting, this makes me sad/angry. >_<
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 09:23:21 AM
Yup.  I just about went crazy when they started talking about what a hero FDR was
He did, you know, help us recover from the Great Depression (by closing down insolvent banks, creating thousands of decent jobs to help do things like plant trees and put out forest fires, and establishing labor laws including the minimum wage and labor hours).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on December 24, 2015, 09:43:03 AM
He did, you know, help us recover from the Great Depression (by closing down insolvent banks, creating thousands of decent jobs to help do things like plant trees and put out forest fires, and establishing labor laws including the minimum wage and labor hours).
he did all those things in parentheses, but none of those things really helped get out of the great depression.  He just took credit for it.
He also put all of us into debt
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on December 24, 2015, 04:19:16 PM
I mostly ask because it's shaping up to be Trump vs. Clinton.
Don't be too sure about that. I remember back in 2008 and Hillary had a huge lead over Obama for a majority of the election season. Anything wouldn't surprise me.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on December 24, 2015, 05:18:27 PM
With biden not being in I would be surprised if Bernie won anything.

I mean I'll still vote for whichever dem makes it tho.

This whole election is pretty much a choice between the less of two/fourteen evils imo
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on December 24, 2015, 05:22:17 PM
Generally, when textbooks (or journalism in general) are historically accurate, they are framed as "liberal" by wackjobs.  It is highly entertaining, but also moderately sad for the poor state of mental capacity such a large percentage seems to be in.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yug_Guy on December 24, 2015, 07:39:05 PM
This whole election is pretty much a choice between the less of two/fourteen evils imo
But then again, when has it never been about the lesser of two evils?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on December 24, 2015, 08:17:26 PM
Unless you actually want a certain person to win I guess it wouldn't be but that isn't the case for me this election.

Why would anyone even want to be president anyway... Seems like a shitty job.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 24, 2015, 08:21:53 PM
Don't be too sure about that. I remember back in 2008 and Hillary had a huge lead over Obama for a majority of the election season. Anything wouldn't surprise me.
This. Keep in mind that Bernie has more support now than Obama did at this same point in the election of 08.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on December 24, 2015, 11:37:15 PM
Eh, I'm really nervous that Bernie is the Trump of the democrats though. Like he'll get to the last stretch and won't be able to beat whatever republican is up because of 'Murica's socialism phobia.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on December 25, 2015, 03:40:56 AM
Except on actual policies, opinion polls show that the American public (including many republicans) agrees with him on just about every issue.. Also, he isn't saying stupid shit just for media attention. And his hairstyle is slightly better XD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Zunawe on December 25, 2015, 07:03:45 AM
Unfortunately, just showing that people's opinions line up with his does not mean people support him. FireArrow is right to some capacity. If you throw the word "socialist" around enough, it'll scare off plenty of people who don't really grasp what that means. I think Bernie would be a pretty good choice, but he would be a risky candidate for the democrats whereas Clinton has a pretty good chance of beating Trump and rivaling the other likely republicans.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on January 08, 2016, 09:33:34 PM
so... cruz?
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/01/07/theres-no-carrying-water-for-ted-cruz/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 09, 2016, 12:53:27 AM
"What I enjoy most about being a Ted Cruz supporter [is] I have not once had to make an excuse for something he has done. …Not once.
No justifying something stupid he’s said.”
How about the "No man who doesn't begin any morning on his knees is not fit to be commander in chief [of America]?" (Phrasing, by the way.)

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on January 09, 2016, 12:54:44 AM
how is that saying something stupid?
I mean, doesn't it show humility at least?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 09, 2016, 01:33:44 AM
He's saying that people who don't pray (read: atheists) aren't fit to lead this country.
And honestly if you're concerned about humility, why not just do your own best and let Sky Daddy help the starving kids in Africa?
Assuming he even cares about this rock; on the grander scale we're so insignificant I'd be surprised if he really cares only about the people on this planet and not the plethora of other planets likely to have life on them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on January 09, 2016, 01:43:19 AM
He's saying that people who don't pray (read: atheists) aren't fit to lead this country.
so he thinks atheists aren't fit to lead america.  Religious belief is a huge factor in what makes america america, so doesn't he have a point?  I don't see why anyone would have to apologize for a statement like that.
And honestly if you're concerned about humility, why not just do your own best and let Sky Daddy help the starving kids in Africa?
If you were humble, then wouldn't you do your best to help others be better, instead of bettering yourself only?
Assuming he even cares about this rock; on the grander scale we're so insignificant I'd be surprised if he really cares only about the people on this planet and not the plethora of other planets likely to have life on them.
Why can't he care about all of it?

Either way, you sound really salty right now.  I had no idea you had so much pent-up anger toward pious folk
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 09, 2016, 02:43:57 AM
people who don't pray don't have to be atheists ._.

so he thinks atheists aren't fit to lead america.  Religious belief is a huge factor in what makes america america, so doesn't he have a point?  I don't see why anyone would have to apologize for a statement like that.
What is "american", what are "american values", how can anyone find those values or tell what they are, if they even exist? Times change, values change, where can you draw the line where values shouldn't change? Point is, that's based on raw generalizations, so it's not a valid reason. Just because someone doesn't do something, it can't lower the potential of anything one can do. It's just flawed reasoning. A person is fit to lead America if people vote him as the leader, it's up to democracy. Wouldn't that tell you more about being capable of representing "american" values?

And honestly if you're concerned about humility, why not just do your own best and let Sky Daddy help the starving kids in Africa?
before you go any further, I just want to point out how you don't need to be unnecessarily disrespectful just to possibly hurt someone's feelings.
I mean, doesn't it show humility at least?
If you were humble, then wouldn't you do your best to help others be better, instead of bettering yourself only?
Yeah praying can show humility, but it also doesn't mean anyone who doesn't pray or is focused on improving themselves can't be more or just as humble.

Assuming he even cares about this rock; on the grander scale we're so insignificant I'd be surprised if he really cares only about the people on this planet and not the plethora of other planets likely to have life on them.
Why can't he care about all of it?
Literally no point in arguing to prove biased opinions frens, in fact that should be kept out when arguing

Either way, you sound really salty right now.  I had no idea you had so much pent-up anger toward pious folk
There's no need whatsoever to personally attack or flamebait like that, especially when you've been expressing a mineral-filled mind here like
Waddle Bro:
What the heck why is this guy so invested in American politics, seems fishy, not gonna listen to anything he says
x)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on January 09, 2016, 08:54:56 PM
so he thinks atheists aren't fit to lead america.  Religious belief is a huge factor in what makes america america, so doesn't he have a point?

"The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion..."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on January 10, 2016, 12:08:41 AM
pastafarians for president
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on January 10, 2016, 04:53:10 AM
WHO SAID TED CRUZ DOESN'T SAY OR DO STUPID THINGS?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on January 10, 2016, 05:00:35 AM
lmao I've never seen anything more american
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 10, 2016, 05:33:02 AM
Noc, I thought we're supposed to abide by the constitution? It makes it clear that no religious test is to be ever required for for office.
If anyone should be getting help from God, it certainly isn't the US. We dug ourselves into the trench we're in now with terrible policy.
The fact that you can say "eh he thinks atheists aren't fit for office because they're atheists" speaks much of your character. If you honestly think an atheist is less of a viable candidate purely because they lack God, look into this study;
http://fusion.net/story/228159/study-religious-kids-selfish/
Here's an exact quote:
"Researchers also found an inverse relationship between observance level and generosity — children from more religious homes were found to be more selfish than their less religious counterparts."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on January 10, 2016, 06:00:47 AM
http://fusion.net/story/228159/study-religious-kids-selfish/
I'm not sure if I have confidence in these results. (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3rnzi6/religious_kids_are_harsher_and_less_generous_than/cwq0hpi)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on January 10, 2016, 06:07:20 AM
Noc, I thought we're supposed to abide by the constitution? It makes it clear that no religious test is to be ever required for for office.
If anyone should be getting help from God, it certainly isn't the US. We dug ourselves into the trench we're in now with terrible policy.
The fact that you can say "eh he thinks atheists aren't fit for office because they're atheists" speaks much of your character. If you honestly think an atheist is less of a viable candidate purely because they lack God, look into this study;
http://fusion.net/story/228159/study-religious-kids-selfish/
Here's an exact quote:
"Researchers also found an inverse relationship between observance level and generosity — children from more religious homes were found to be more selfish than their less religious counterparts."

dude you're freaking out right now.  The statement he made REALLY doesn't need an "I'm sorry, he's confused" attachment by some other person like 80% of things Donald Trump has said, and that's all we're talking about.  You're starting to get really emotional about this aren't you
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on January 10, 2016, 06:10:43 AM
pastafarians for president
*Haruhiists
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on January 10, 2016, 06:36:15 AM
dude you're freaking out right now.  The statement he made REALLY doesn't need an "I'm sorry, he's confused" attachment by some other person like 80% of things Donald Trump has said, and that's all we're talking about.  You're starting to get really emotional about this aren't you
Never gave Trump a free pass, nor have I; but the article originally posted is absolutely stupid.
And no, I'm actually quite happy right now, so me "getting emotional" about this is me just not liking irrationality.
And yes, it does need an "I'm sorry, he's confused", just as if he attacked any other minority.
Imagine he had said something to the effect of "Jews aren't capable of being commander in chief since they don't believe in Jesus".
If someone said this exact same thing, but they were Muslim and constantly praised Allah like GOP candidates praise God and Jesus, they'd be called batshit by just about everyone. And you'd be right to call them that! But in the same respect, saying that people who simply don't believe in God (or anyone who doesn't pray, since, as Waddle pointed out, his comment wasn't specifically about atheists, but it's hardly ever that people think of Buddhists or Jains as immoral) is therefore an ineffective leader is just stupid, and dickish.
And yes, I don't care for you irrationally backing this up as you seem to have been doing.
I'm not sure if I have confidence in these results. (https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/3rnzi6/religious_kids_are_harsher_and_less_generous_than/cwq0hpi)
Responding with Reddit? Mkay..
They actually acknowledge in the thread that the experiment was controlled for the things the OP of that thread was talking about.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Bubbles on January 10, 2016, 07:06:12 AM
WHO SAID TED CRUZ DOESN'T SAY OR DO STUPID THINGS?
hi sfk :-)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on January 10, 2016, 01:58:53 PM
bruh sfk shows up and you all still care about politics

HI SFK I'VE MISSED YOU A LOT hope you'll show up more :]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SuperFireKirby on February 02, 2016, 08:10:57 AM
THE CANADIAN BEAT THE CLOWN BUT HE'S STILL A CANADIAN AND CAN'T BE PRESIDENT WHY DOES EVERYONE SEEM TO FORGET THAT?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 25, 2016, 02:54:45 AM
Continued from PYTOTMT
I think it's different in people's minds- cars are such an ingrained part of society today that taking them away would be highly improbable. Or not. There are some people who are opposed to the development of self-driving cars, which, if they worked right, could greatly reduce or eliminate crashes.
the joke was that you can't really just take away cars cancer and suicide, I wasn't lobbying to actually take away cars
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on February 25, 2016, 03:07:54 AM
So the Republican debate is happening in the Moores opera house tomorrow, and it is fucking up all of my classes. 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 03:42:33 AM
So the Republican debate is happening in the Moores opera house tomorrow, and it is fucking up all of my classes.
lol.....I know exactly how you feel. I was in Greenville, South Carolina the same day as the debate. Wow, It took me 30 minutes to drive two miles to my hotel xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 25, 2016, 03:56:20 AM
No need homie I got you cue the wiki links and since that is a literal textbook example it should be over before it can even begin

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring

I think though that the statement "cars are more dangerous than guns" can be drawn from the comparison of yearly deaths.  If the goal of taking away guns is to reduce gun related violence, that will absolutely work.  But reducing gun related violence won't actually do anything, will it.
FWIW I don't personally like guns, I think they're loud and crap, but I was talking to a guy who owned an AK-47 and I asked him why he would even need an AK.  He responded "why would you need a fancy car?  Besides, it's fun to shoot an AK-47."  The point being that whatever guns are, other stuff is worse about it.

So the Republican debate is happening in the Moores opera house tomorrow, and it is fucking up all of my classes. 

throw a carrot at Donald trump for me
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 03:59:17 AM
Here's my logic for being against Gun Control in one sentence:
The bad guys will always have guns. That is a 100% certainty. Gun control just takes away guns from the law abiding citizens and makes it harder for the good guys to get guns.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 25, 2016, 04:03:21 AM
That's what my grandpa told me too but the "law abiding citizen trying to protect him/herself" idea is overdone and liberals simply ignore it
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 25, 2016, 04:20:12 AM
I can't help but think that you guys waited for Waddle to go to bed before saying anything.

The bad guys will always have guns. That is a 100% certainty. Gun control just takes away guns from the law abiding citizens and makes it harder for the good guys to get guns.

Why does anyone need guns? Especially untrained hicks.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on February 25, 2016, 04:38:41 AM
fun fact : abused women are 5 times more likely to be killed if their partner owns a gun
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

=)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on February 25, 2016, 04:45:49 AM
I'd personally rather have like throwing knives or something than a gun.

More badass.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on February 25, 2016, 04:47:16 AM
I'd personally rather have like throwing knives or something than a gun.

More badass.

Less cowardly.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on February 25, 2016, 04:47:42 AM
Totes.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on February 25, 2016, 04:59:53 AM
fun fact : abused women are 5 times more likely to be killed if their partner owns a gun
http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-and-firearms-statistics/

=)
Does that suggest a direct correlation, though (i.e. is owning a gun the direct and only cause of this- like, "Would these people just not kill their partners if they didn't have a gun?" which seems improbable*- or is it something else, like the fact that people who are more likely to want to own a gun for no reason are more violent, or just the fact that so many people own guns that people will inevitably be able to find connections among unrelated things?).




*For example, the article says, "A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm," but if the abusers didn't have firearms, wouldn't they just threaten their partners with something else? Does the removal of firearms reduce any injury or instance of domestic violence? Should we be focusing on that (firearms) as a problem instead of getting to the root of the cause (while I agree that restricting access to certain weapons or places to people known to be violent is a good step, it won't prevent these people from being violent in the first place- only attempt to mitigate damage)?

Additionally, the article says that "applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married." Does the removal of firearms reduce the need for protective orders, or does it only make it more likely that someone will apply for one in cases of violence (i.e. motivate them more to apply for a protective order that they probably already need in the first place)?


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to be combative. I'd just like to have more direct and clear information on this subject.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 25, 2016, 05:03:16 AM
I'd personally rather have like throwing knives or something than a gun.

More badass.
And I'd rather use a bow to kill someone.  Your point?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on February 25, 2016, 05:05:08 AM
Knives are better. >:(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on February 25, 2016, 05:10:40 AM
Does that suggest a direct correlation, though (i.e. is owning a gun the direct and only cause of this- like, "Would these people just not kill their partners if they didn't have a gun?" which seems improbable*- or is it something else, like the fact that people who are more likely to want to own a gun for no reason are more violent, or just the fact that so many people own guns that people will inevitably be able to find connections among unrelated things?).




*For example, the article says, "A recent survey of female domestic violence shelter residents in California found that more than one third (36.7%) reported having been threatened or harmed with a firearm," but if the abusers didn't have firearms, wouldn't they just threaten their partners with something else? Does the removal of firearms reduce any injury or instance of domestic violence? Should we be focusing on that (firearms) as a problem instead of getting to the root of the cause (while I agree that restricting access to certain weapons or places to people known to be violent is a good step, it won't prevent these people from being violent in the first place- only attempt to mitigate damage)?

Additionally, the article says that "applications for protective orders were more likely to mention firearms when the parties had not lived together and were not married." Does the removal of firearms reduce the need for protective orders, or does it only make it more likely that someone will apply for one in cases of violence (i.e. motivate them more to apply for a protective order that they probably already need in the first place)?


EDIT: To be clear, I'm not trying to be combative. I'd just like to have more direct and clear information on this subject.

you're right about correlation =/= causation. that being said from my own experience i think this is one case where correlation does equal causation. for the same reason that people attacking schools meet more success when they use firearms than when they use knives or other such weapons, i think so too do people trying to attack their partners meet more success when they have firearms

also: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2014/02/having-a-gun-in-the-house-doesnt-make-a-woman-safer/284022/ women are not often able to protect themselves with guns in their houses in the case of domestic violence; 16% of abused but not murdered women had guns in their homes whereas 51% of murder victims had guns in their homes
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 05:18:47 AM
Why does anyone need guns? Especially untrained hicks.
Why not? I do think that everyone that owns a gun should know how to use it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on February 25, 2016, 05:20:48 AM
i dont think anyone would disagree with that, it's a matter of the fact that people who do know how to use them still do all kinds of horrendous shit

oh why do i even bother
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 05:26:17 AM
i dont think anyone would disagree with that, it's a matter of the fact that people who do know how to use them still do all kinds of horrendous shit
That's true.
My point is that the Gun Control Laws won't stop the criminals because they will always have guns. It will stop the law-abiding citizens from getting them.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on February 25, 2016, 05:30:11 AM
Honestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on February 25, 2016, 05:30:55 AM
Honestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.

imma agree heavily wit this
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: KefkaticFanatic on February 25, 2016, 05:31:24 AM
It makes it more difficult for the average psychopath or petty criminal to acquire weaponry as it isn't so readily available to enter either the legitimate or illegitimate market.  Outlawing guns will not result in random muggers suddenly getting top mafia sources.

I look forward to when the US can join the civilized world and deprecate the irrelevant clause that keeps this problem around.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 25, 2016, 05:33:01 AM
@mlf
Well, you're a law abiding citizen up until the point you shoot someone. There's no black and white "good guys" and "bad guys" - most of the shootings you hear about in the news are from people who would otherwise be unable to get a gun if we had better laws. They aren't criminals trained in the black market, they're emotionally distraught teens and young adults who can too easily obtain power.

Would you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 05:38:50 AM
Honestly, I think that in order to own a gun you first have to go through something like driver's ed. Like, you can't just sign up to be able to drive a car legally (I don't know how the whole licensing process for owning a gun goes, but there's obviously no class involved), and guns are hella more dangerous if used improperly. There should probably be some sort of class you need to take before purchasing a firearm, not to mention some sort of test.
A+. This would be the best solution.

Would you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?
Nah, that's different and you know it :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on February 25, 2016, 05:42:10 AM
It... really isn't.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 05:45:48 AM
Chemical weapons are much different than hand guns.....gas and all.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 25, 2016, 05:45:54 AM
Nah, that's different and you know it :P

How? They are both conduits for killing large amounts of people easily? In gun free countries like Japan, the idea of either of them are equally horrifying.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 05:54:23 AM
How? They are both conduits for killing large amounts of people easily? In gun free countries like Japan, the idea of either of them are equally horrifying.
I see your point, but I think Dudeman hit the nail on the head. Proper training and a having background check would be the best thing to do before acquiring a gun.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 25, 2016, 05:57:59 AM
I see your point, but I think Dudeman hit the nail on the head. Proper training and a having background check would be the best thing to do before acquiring a gun.

That's kinda what democrats want and conservatives are fighting against. I'll further that statement by assuming that Noc, the guy who started this, doesn't want further gun control laws. I don't think anyone is truly fighting for an outright ban on guns beyond semi-automatic assault weapons.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 06:03:39 AM
I guess so. I don't see a problem with certain gun control laws such as the requirement of having the proper training and/or getting a background check (which I think is actually a good idea). I just don't want people to have the right of owning a gun taken away :P
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 25, 2016, 06:06:01 AM
I guess so. I don't see a problem with certain gun control laws such as the requirement of having the proper training and/or getting a background check (which I think is actually a good idea). I just don't want people to have the right of owning a gun taken away :P

Well, I'm not sure what we are debating about in the first place then.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on February 25, 2016, 06:37:00 AM
It makes it more difficult for the average psychopath or petty criminal to acquire weaponry as it isn't so readily available to enter either the legitimate or illegitimate market.  Outlawing guns will not result in random muggers suddenly getting top mafia sources.

I look forward to when the US can join the civilized world and deprecate the irrelevant clause that keeps this problem around.
I somehow doubt that one would need "top mafia sources" to get illegal firearms. If it's in demand, people will always be willing and able to manufacture and distribute it (especially since people don't need assault rifles to commit gun crimes; and especially considering how many guns people already have). It's nice to think that it would be that easy, but given the track record, it wouldn't be.

They aren't criminals trained in the black market, they're emotionally distraught teens and young adults who can too easily obtain power.
That logic really stops people from getting, say, drugs.

Quote
Would you support the legalization of poorly controlled chemical weapons for the general public as well? I mean, "bad guys" that know their stuff can already get them, so why not let everyone have it?
Using chemical weapons isn't really an accurate comparison- it's like comparing the legality of fireworks to the legality of bombs.

I don't think anyone is truly fighting for an outright ban on guns beyond semi-automatic assault weapons.
I thought that was what the problem was in the first place?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 25, 2016, 06:58:25 AM
I don't personally care for guns all that much.  But a lot of people (especially once you come down here in Hickston, Hicksville) love using guns for sport, and I'm willing to accept that.  Imagine if you had to pass a background check to use piano music.  I think that's more accurate of a comparison
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on February 25, 2016, 07:00:51 AM
^I can understand like hunting guns but semi-automatic guns??
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on February 25, 2016, 07:05:43 AM
I don't personally care for guns all that much.  But a lot of people (especially once you come down here in Hickston, Hicksville) love using guns for sport, and I'm willing to accept that.  Imagine if you had to pass a background check to use piano music.  I think that's more accurate of a comparison
Now you're making me imagine people strategically dropping pianos on people down on the sidewalks. Tactical piano kill!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 25, 2016, 07:23:41 AM
I somehow doubt that one would need "top mafia sources" to get illegal firearms. If it's in demand, people will always be willing and able to manufacture and distribute it (especially since people don't need assault rifles to commit gun crimes; and especially considering how many guns people already have).
It's nice to think that it would be that easy, but given the track record, it wouldn't be.

You're under estimating the importance of ease of access. Of course it's not gonna 100% solve the issue, but it'll sure as hell help and is a much better option than sitting around doing nothing because "muh guns."

Quote
That logic really stops people from getting, say, drugs.

This isn't really comparable. Illicit semi-automatic weapons are only in demand for, ya know, people that wanna kill. Given that the majority of people don't want to do that, the black market for them isn't gonna penetrate into the public sphere nearly as much as drugs have.

Quote
Using chemical weapons isn't really an accurate comparison- it's like comparing the legality of fireworks to the legality of bombs.

If I were an adult, it would be easier for me to go out and buy a gun then it would be to buy one of those heavy duty industrial fireworks.

Quote
I thought that was what the problem was in the first place?

Ban semiautomatic guns and increase control for other guns (thorough background checks, required classes, tests, etc.) Is that unreasonable?

I don't personally care for guns all that much.  But a lot of people (especially once you come down here in Hickston, Hicksville) love using guns for sport, and I'm willing to accept that.  Imagine if you had to pass a background check to use piano music.  I think that's more accurate of a comparison

If finale was a deadly weapon, I would support background checks and training before installing it. I'm not sure how you can even say "Yeah, I think everyone should be able to collect deadly weapons without having to do horribly tedious stuff like get proper training."

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on February 25, 2016, 07:52:02 AM
You're under estimating the importance of ease of access. Of course it's not gonna 100% solve the issue, but it'll sure as hell help and is a much better option than sitting around doing nothing because "muh guns."
The point is that it's not going to stop the people who we need to stop from getting guns- only the people who don't have the motivations, ability, or desire to go through extra lengths.

Quote
This isn't really comparable. Illicit semi-automatic weapons are only in demand for, ya know, people that wanna kill. Given that the majority of people don't want to do that, the black market for them isn't gonna penetrate into the public sphere nearly as much as drugs have.
Or, anybody who currently owns guns, simply want to own guns- people who feel that their rights are being infringed upon- or any criminal- who probably don't care about the legality of their actions. If somebody wants to rob a bank, they're already doing planning on doing something illegal; chances are, they either already have a gun or won't be bothered by going through an extra step to get one.

Quote
If I were an adult, it would be easier for me to go out and buy a gun then it would be to buy one of those heavy duty industrial fireworks.
Really? Fireworks in general (not referring specifically to industrial strength ones, as that wouldn't be as accurate of a comparison) are much, much easier to obtain, especially around major events (like the 4th of July, and especially when compared to bombs, as you compared guns to chemical weapons, remember). And, guess what? People always use them in areas where it's illegal to, and nobody stops them!

Quote
Ban semiautomatic guns and increase control for other guns (thorough background checks, required classes, tests, etc.) Is that unreasonable?
Not at all. A complete ban of all guns is (which is what Kefka, for example, seemed to be suggesting; he used the phrase "Outlawing guns" without specifying).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 25, 2016, 08:35:27 AM
Really? Fireworks in general (not referring specifically to industrial strength ones, as that wouldn't be as accurate of a comparison) are much, much easier to obtain, especially around major events (like the 4th of July, and especially when compared to bombs, as you compared guns to chemical weapons, remember). And, guess what? People always use them in areas where it's illegal to, and nobody stops them!

Well if we're talking about the wimpy little ones then your comparison isn't too valid anyways. Chemical weapons and bombs are comparable, firearms however are much closer to the former two than tiny fireworks.

Quote
Not at all. A complete ban of all guns is (which is what Kefka, for example, seemed to be suggesting; he used the phrase "Outlawing guns" without specifying).

Your quarrel isn't with me then. I have nothing against outright banning guns, but I think it's unnecessary and given American ideals I'd much rather explore less dramatic solutions first.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 25, 2016, 08:38:34 AM
Firework laws vary from state to state.  So do gun laws.  In Minnesota you just had to be 18 with a driver's license to buy a rifle or shotgun from Walmart.  Out here in Utah you need to prove that you're trained in gun safety.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 25, 2016, 08:39:54 AM
Firework laws vary from state to state.  So do gun laws.  In Minnesota you just had to be 18 with a driver's license to buy a rifle or shotgun from Walmart.  Out here in Utah you need to prove that you're trained in gun safety.

wtf you can buy guns at walmart?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on February 25, 2016, 09:02:10 AM
Well if we're talking about the wimpy little ones then your comparison isn't too valid anyways. Chemical weapons and bombs are comparable, firearms however are much closer to the former two than tiny fireworks.
Most fireworks aren't "wimpy" by any means. Not only can people injure themselves if they don't know how to use them (you can injure yourself with a sparkler, so imagine the possibilities...), but they can also light fires if you're not careful (which is kind of a given). The availability of fireworks is also a hotly contested issue.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on February 25, 2016, 09:41:16 AM
Those snake things are wimpy

Unless it's like giant or something.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on February 25, 2016, 02:09:45 PM
You know what I find unsettling about Trump? The fact that he said approx. 2 years ago that "Republicans are so gullible, I could run as the republican candidate, and I'd win!"
Hmm... That seems dangerous.  :o
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on February 25, 2016, 02:32:48 PM
THAT'S what you find unsettling about him?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 25, 2016, 06:14:49 PM
how about everything else about him too for starters
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on February 25, 2016, 07:01:04 PM
Allow me to rephrase that:
MOST unsettling
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: JDMEK5 on February 25, 2016, 07:22:43 PM
Trump is going to win and we're going to have ourselves another holocaust. (Mexican this time though) His approach to deporting Mexicans as well as his attitude is literally exactly the same as Hitler's in WWII. Hitler originally only wanted to deport the Jews. He offered to send them to any country who would take them, "even on luxury ships". But Roosevelt (along with every other country leader) refused and so the massacre began. Let's just hope that the Mexicans don't have this same problem.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 25, 2016, 07:25:42 PM
Trump is going to win and we're going to have ourselves another holocaust. (Mexican this time though) His approach to deporting Mexicans as well as his attitude is literally exactly the same as Hitler's in WWII. Hitler originally only wanted to deport the Jews. He offered to send them to any country who would take them, "even on luxury ships". But Roosevelt (along with every other country leader) refused and so the massacre began. Let's just hope that the Mexicans don't have this same problem.
That would be terrible.....but highly improbable. 
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on February 25, 2016, 09:37:59 PM
I still don't think Trump can win. But it would help if people show up to vote, even in the nominations. About 1% of the population of Nevada ACTUALLY voted. (http://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2016-35651682)

I really don't get what people see in him, he just likes to sell the whole wealth idea. Do rich people buy Trump's clothing line or go to his casinos? Not as far as I know.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on February 25, 2016, 11:08:50 PM
The whole Nevada thing is just sad. And it's the fact that he talks a lot and says what everyone is thinking/wanting to hear (not necessarily about Mexicans, but everything in general). What worries me is that I'm not so sure that's he's all bark and no bite...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on February 26, 2016, 05:11:03 AM
You know what I find unsettling about Trump? The fact that he said approx. 2 years ago that "Republicans are so gullible, I could run as the republican candidate, and I'd win!"
Hmm... That seems dangerous.  :o

Well republicans are proving him right, if that's true...
Anyways, I personally find that statement comforting. It means all the horrible things he says are just a dance to make a worthless point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: ZeldaFan on February 26, 2016, 05:28:43 AM
wtf you can buy guns at walmart?
Absolutely you can, they're in the back next to sporting goods lol

I generally lean towards the Republican side, but I really hope Trump doesn't win... I have no respect for that guy whatsoever.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 26, 2016, 05:42:10 AM
I generally lean towards the Republican side, but I really hope Trump doesn't win... I have no respect for that guy whatsoever.
Tonight's display proves your point.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 26, 2016, 06:20:31 AM
Absolutely you can, they're in the back next to sporting goods lol

perhaps because they're a sporting good
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on February 26, 2016, 01:15:01 PM
Man, Trump got SLAMMED in last night's debate by both Rubio & Cruz! (Applause)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 26, 2016, 05:24:51 PM
Man, Trump got SLAMMED in last night's debate by both Rubio & Cruz! (Applause)
I'll drink to that.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on February 26, 2016, 06:19:39 PM
you actually won't
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on February 29, 2016, 06:16:39 AM
you actually won't
rekt


---

In all seriousness, the Marcobot is doing better. I specifically liked the line about "If Trump hadn't inherited a family fortune he'd be selling watches."
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on February 29, 2016, 04:04:12 PM
In all seriousness, the Marcobot is doing better. I specifically liked the line about "If Trump hadn't inherited a family fortune he'd be selling watches."
That was an A+ quote.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on February 29, 2016, 11:45:40 PM
One of the few times I agree with Marco Rubio.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on March 26, 2016, 11:59:09 PM
*sigh*

So, I'm not in favor of banning all guns (though I'm sure I've made it clear I'd like moderate regulation where it makes sense), but this is just stupid.

This guy blew his leg off shooting at explosives. http://www.usatoday.com/videos/news/nation/2016/03/24/82236326/

While I'm perfectly okay with RESPONSIBLE gun owners, this is a problem facing a lot of people; people being stupid with their guns. It's one thing to be a gun owner who locks up their guns when they aren't hunting, but this is an entire other kind of stupid.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on March 27, 2016, 12:59:54 AM
Honestly I'm just hoping the idiots kill each other before they can reproduce.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on March 27, 2016, 02:11:27 AM
Honestly I'm just hoping the idiots kill each other before they can reproduce.

They don't have to die, just shoot certain parts off...

The bad news is that these types then to reproduce early :(
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on March 27, 2016, 03:13:01 AM
and have like 20 kids
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on March 28, 2016, 02:14:04 AM
this sounds very stereotypical and stuff
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on March 28, 2016, 05:03:39 AM
sadly stereotypical people exist

I'm cool with the less stereotypical (read: majority of) pro-gun people.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on April 06, 2016, 09:44:34 AM
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-35912640

Quote
And - in what must count as two of the more bizarre statistics of this campaign - according to a recent study by dating site Match (formerly match.com) single Donald Trump supporters are 1,104% more likely to expect sex on a first date than Hillary Clinton supporters.
They are also 99% more likely to film themselves having sex. I think this means they are men.
Promoting your sexual prowess works well with men who feel threatened by the growing influence of women in the workforce, and by the realisation that women are now better educated than men.
those statistics... :o
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on April 06, 2016, 04:17:54 PM
At first I thought that said 1.104%,which surprised me because I thought Hillary supporters were used to waiting, but clearly they are.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on April 06, 2016, 05:07:22 PM
Quote
Promoting your sexual prowess works well with men who feel threatened by the growing influence of women in the workforce, and by the realisation that women are now better educated than men.

Quote
and by the realisation that women are now better educated than men.

Quote
women are now better educated than men.

Quote
women are now better educated than men.

i want to bold this for all of nsm to see :^) :^) :^) :^)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on April 06, 2016, 05:13:16 PM
yooo go women :]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on April 06, 2016, 05:24:50 PM
I'm... glad I'm not a Trump supporter?  idk

EDIT: apparently women have been more educated than men since march 2014, where "more educated" means more women in the workforce with college degrees than men, as well as being more likely to graduate from college than men.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on April 06, 2016, 09:32:31 PM
How do they get those statistics?

Hello trump supporter, can I ask you a couple questions? Do you think it's reasonable to expect sex on a first date? Yes, yes, I see... and if let's say you were in that situation would you try and film it? Ok, thank you for your time.

And at the end of the say I'm not gonna vote one way because of statistics on the sexual habits of supports. That just seems like mud slinging, even if it is trump at the receiving end.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on April 06, 2016, 09:35:43 PM
How do they get those statistics?

Hello trump supporter, can I ask you a couple questions? Do you think it's reasonable to expect sex on a first date? Yes, yes, I see... and if let's say you were in that situation would you try and film it? Ok, thank you for your time.

I'd wager either online surveys or surveys of the people who may have gone on dates with both sides.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on April 06, 2016, 09:36:41 PM
I'd wager either online surveys or surveys of the people who may have gone on dates with both sides.
ooh but in the case of an online survey wouldn't that mean a Clinton supporter could be more likely to lie D:
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on April 06, 2016, 09:38:47 PM
pfffft ok point taken
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on April 06, 2016, 09:55:59 PM
Lol I forgot to cross post it from skype yesterday so Dude did it for me xD Anyway, the study is from a dating site Match where they obviously have that kind of information from the user already...

Yes, educated does mean college degree or more.

Did a head count yesterday in a math elective class open to only majors/minors: 3 guys, 8 girls. My senior chemistry lab in college, 2 guys, 6 girls. Like most colleges, the gender ratio is 40% male, 60% female, but it seems that there are still more girls in STEM here than guys. I think only the communications and business majors are 50/50.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on April 06, 2016, 10:02:32 PM
Ur to slo
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on April 06, 2016, 10:55:44 PM
Ur to slo

Yeah :/ Been pretty busy, all I have to look forward to is Eurotrip #2 in May...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on April 14, 2016, 10:58:53 PM
www.trumpdonald.org (http://www.trumpdonald.org)

This is political enough I guess
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on April 15, 2016, 01:23:05 AM
Hey guys, loser.com now redirects somewhere new!
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BrainyLucario on April 15, 2016, 01:46:52 AM
Quote
women are now better educated than men.

This would explain why there are so many girls in my AP class. As for my reaction to this statement.......

Spoiler
Are you sure you're ready for this?
It get's pretty offensive..
still curious enough to see it?
Okay But you asked for it.
Prepare to be offended.
Here it is..
I don't care....good for you all.
[close]
[close]
[close]
[close]
[close]
[close]
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Latios212 on April 15, 2016, 01:51:46 AM
Did a head count yesterday in a math elective class open to only majors/minors: 3 guys, 8 girls.
What class was that? The math classes I've taken have varied, but I don't think I ever recall a majority female.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on April 15, 2016, 01:57:58 AM
What class was that? The math classes I've taken have varied, but I don't think I ever recall a majority female.

Linear Algebra. I did another count another day (apparently some students had some athletic event last week) but the final count is actually 4 guys and 11 girls.

I remember in my old Probability Theory (senior level) class had only about 2 guys and 6 girls...it was a slow year. I didn't recall any guys in my Differential Equations class? So it was just 5 girls then. Probably because the more popular professor wasn't teaching it that semester.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on April 15, 2016, 02:52:26 AM
Linear Algebra. I did another count another day (apparently some students had some athletic event last week) but the final count is actually 4 guys and 11 girls.
My calculus professor is a woman and Linear Algebra is her favorite subject to teach. Maybe it actually does trend that way.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Zeila on April 15, 2016, 04:16:11 AM
I'm currently taking linear algebra and can only think of one other person that's a girl (out of about 18 students). There was at least one other but she dropped
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on April 19, 2016, 06:15:57 PM
Australia's gettin' the Double D. Whoop whoop.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on April 28, 2016, 09:15:13 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-ted-cruz-is-lucifer-in-the-flesh-and-a-miserable-son-of-a-bitch/
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on April 28, 2016, 09:19:16 PM
I'm honestly to the point where I don't care who gets to be President anymore as all of the possible options suck monkeydick

Can it be over now, thx.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on April 28, 2016, 10:58:03 PM
I'd be fine with just having the elections right now. It would save us many months of misery.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yug_Guy on April 28, 2016, 11:38:51 PM
http://www.glennbeck.com/2016/04/28/john-boehner-ted-cruz-is-lucifer-in-the-flesh-and-a-miserable-son-of-a-bitch/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ghQDiGazLk
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 04, 2016, 09:15:45 PM
anyone else slightly worried by the increasing popularity of Donald trump?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 04, 2016, 09:30:08 PM
The final contest is going to be him versus somebody, probably Clinton. But I think that there's enough Republicans who hate him enough to support Clinton or Sanders instead, in addition to the fact that very few if any registered Democrats are going to be voting for him (regardless of whether Clinton or Sanders wins), that I don't know that he has any shot at winning the presidency over Clinton or Sanders.

RealClearPolitics (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html) suggests that Clinton wins by an average of 6.5 points in general election, and Sanders by an even larger margin. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html) Trump could maybe win if literally every Trump supporter in the US actually turned out to vote and enough Democrats were disillusioned by the choice of the Democratic nominee to not vote, but I'm not so sure about that, especially if this article (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/25/bombshell-poll-20-republicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html) is right that a whopping 20% of Republicans would support Hillary in the event of a (now guaranteed) Trump nomination.

I guess a factor that could weaken this, in addition to the aforementioned issue of disillusioned Democrats not coming out to vote/Trump supporters mobilizing greatly, would be if there are any more damning things about the Clinton email business. But, simultaneously, Trump's not free from media scrutiny either - the whole Trump University thing - so who knows?

Edit: It's kinda funny the way the nominees are polling. Sanders trails behind Hillary, but he stands more of a chance to beat any of the former Republican nominees (speaking Cruz, Kasich, Trump) in general election than Hillary: 13.4 points against Trump (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html) versus Hillary's 6.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html); 13.0 against Cruz (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html) versus Hillary's 5.4; (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html) winning against Kasich (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_sanders-5817.html) versus losing to Kasich. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html) And simultaneously, Kasich trailed both Cruz and Trump, but was also the party's best bet to defeat Clinton and come close to defeating Sanders. Funny how that works, isn't it?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Yug_Guy on May 04, 2016, 10:09:48 PM
Well, I really hate to be the one to say this, but Cruz dropped out last night, and it looks like Kasich is dropping out as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/04/politics/john-kasich-drops-out/
Meaning that unless something really crazy happens at the RNC, Donald Trump will be the Republican nominee.

Spoiler
(https://media.riffsy.com/images/6963d20d7b183c1f9f5ce2ac6de1039f/raw)
WELP, that's it folks, I think I'm done here. Let me know when it's all over.
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 04, 2016, 10:22:28 PM
gg GOP
Edit: It's kinda funny the way the nominees are polling. Sanders trails behind Hillary, but he stands more of a chance to beat any of the former Republican nominees (speaking Cruz, Kasich, Trump) in general election than Hillary: 13.4 points against Trump (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_sanders-5565.html) versus Hillary's 6.5 (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_trump_vs_clinton-5491.html); 13.0 against Cruz (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_sanders-5742.html) versus Hillary's 5.4; (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_cruz_vs_clinton-4034.html) winning against Kasich (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_sanders-5817.html) versus losing to Kasich. (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/general_election_kasich_vs_clinton-5162.html) And simultaneously, Kasich trailed both Cruz and Trump, but was also the party's best bet to defeat Clinton and come close to defeating Sanders. Funny how that works, isn't it?
the hipsters on my facebook are suggesting sabotage
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 04, 2016, 10:25:47 PM
the hipsters on my facebook are suggesting sabotage
how even are they suggesting this
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 04, 2016, 10:39:50 PM
"when everyone you know feeling the Bern but Hillary still winning"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 04, 2016, 11:37:42 PM
[snip]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 04, 2016, 11:54:06 PM
Unfortunately, Hillary is probably going to be the nominee in terms of pledged delegates. Bernie would have to win over 60% of the remaining delegates to secure it via pledged delegates (and not even counting superdelegates, which still might stick with Clinton to prevent an anti establishment candidate).
The more likely situation that has Bernie winning, unfortunately, is Hillary being indicted. Since Obama was bipartisan as to put a staunch Republican at the head of the FBI, with 12 agents investigating her actions in Libya, there's a good chance she might get indicted, either in the primary season or the general election.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 05, 2016, 05:25:07 AM
Eh don't get my hopes up, I saw that HuffPo article too. I see people trying to be neutral in terms of the Democratic candidates a lot, but I still can't stand the slogans being tossed around with Clinton's followers. I don't know if her campaign is the one that made them up, but they were things like "it's her turn" and "here comes #45" under her picture. That sounds sooo entitled. Also I don't agree with some of her stances on things and don't really believe she's that honest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/24/magazine/how-hillary-clinton-became-a-hawk.html (hope that link works)

I was talking politics with my professor the other day, who admitted she voted for Clinton based on her performance as senator of NY "back when you were in grade school so you probably don't remember." Then she told me the Scottish chemistry professor was "feelin' the Bern" and can't wait to vote for Sanders in the NJ primary. Then I also found out who voted for Trump in my school :O

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on May 05, 2016, 08:17:20 AM
I'm not so sure about that, especially if this article (http://www.politicususa.com/2016/04/25/bombshell-poll-20-republicans-vote-hillary-clinton-trump-wins.html) is right that a whopping 20% of Republicans would support Hillary in the event of a (now guaranteed) Trump nomination.
Right now, I'm not really convinced that a lot of Republicans would be willing to vote Democrat, especially with someone like Hillary Clinton; the same with the majority of current Bernie Sanders supporters (since it would be kind of contradictory with the reason they're probably voting for Sanders in the first place).
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 05, 2016, 09:27:16 AM
Right now, I'm not really convinced that a lot of Republicans would be willing to vote Democrat, especially with someone like Hillary Clinton; the same with the majority of current Bernie Sanders supporters (since it would be kind of contradictory with the reason they're probably voting for Sanders in the first place).

Pardon my bluntness, but anyone that votes Hillary over Trump is dumb. Yes, she has a shady past, is dishonest, and is likely to not get anything done once put it office. However, the country isn't gonna crumble into ruins with her in office - she's too standard of a polititian. Trump is gonna undo any progress we've made on civil rights, destroy all our foregin relations, etc. etc. Even voting for him becuase "well atleast he's more conservative than Hillary" is just blidnly following labels, because his policies are hardly conservative and are better described as "trump."

Sander supporters don't like hillary much either, but they'd still vote her over trump because in what world is voting for him a good idea? This is of course ignoring my suspicoun that Trump is actually a genius democrat, because I can't believe someone that succesful can be that... ugh.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 05, 2016, 02:13:37 PM
Pardon my bluntness, but anyone that votes Hillary over Trump is dumb.

Do you mean "Trump over Hillary"?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 05, 2016, 06:07:48 PM
I don't want Trump in office, but I still kind of doubt one person can do so much damage xD If his running mate is equally stupid, I think that impeaching Trump won't help this situation either.

Backup plans:

1) Go on vacation for 4 years in this other country I can legally reside in
2) You can guess what this one is if it doesn't involve Canada
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 05, 2016, 06:14:05 PM
Right now, I'm not really convinced that a lot of Republicans would be willing to vote Democrat, especially with someone like Hillary Clinton; the same with the majority of current Bernie Sanders supporters (since it would be kind of contradictory with the reason they're probably voting for Sanders in the first place).
actual conservatives would rather vote democrat than trump
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 05, 2016, 07:37:25 PM
Do you mean "Trump over Hillary"?

Ye
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on May 09, 2016, 05:32:56 PM
I don't know where else to put this, so it's going here. Australia's officially in a mammoth 8-week, Double D erection and it will be my first time voting. AND I live in a semi-swing seat.

So while you guys are voting for a fascist orangutan and a woman who REALLY wants to be president, I have to choose between a guy who does basically nothing (but he could do SOMETHING if re-erected), or the party that thinks that zingers are in the national interest. What fun.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on May 09, 2016, 06:08:32 PM
a mammoth 8-week, Double D erection
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 09, 2016, 06:45:26 PM
re-erected)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 09, 2016, 07:20:44 PM
I don't know where else to put this, so it's going here. Australia's officially in a mammoth 8-week, Double D erection and it will be my first time voting. AND I live in a semi-swing seat.

So while you guys are voting for a fascist orangutan and a woman who REALLY wants to be president, I have to choose between a guy who does basically nothing (but he could do SOMETHING if re-erected), or the party that thinks that zingers are in the national interest. What fun.

That was the first thing I noticed when I read the paragraph.

I don't know why my eyes went to that word first...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 09, 2016, 07:45:16 PM
For the record, erection does not mean election.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: braixen1264 on May 09, 2016, 08:45:45 PM
I hate erections they're so confusing
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Clanker37 on May 10, 2016, 08:19:20 AM
For the record, erection does not mean election.
It does in Australia. Everyone knows it's basically a huge wank.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 09:53:37 PM
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/oklahoma-abortion-criminalization/index.html?sr=fbpol051916oklahoma-abortion-criminalization0541PMVODtopLink&linkId=24677059
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 10:08:03 PM
that bill sounds incomplete to me.  In most cases, yes abortion is morally wrong, but in certain instances (read: rape) the woman may not feel comfortable with going through childbirth, and in the case of rape they didn't get a choice in the matter

EDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 19, 2016, 10:26:43 PM
it's like you guys want the forums to burn
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 10:39:28 PM
that bill sounds incomplete to me.
I think the Governor has to sign it or something. Not completely sure. I just posted the article because I found it interesting.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 10:41:34 PM
that bill sounds incomplete to me.  In most cases, yes abortion is morally wrong, but in certain instances (read: rape) the woman may not feel comfortable with going through childbirth, and in the case of rape they didn't get a choice in the matter

EDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either

what if birth control failed?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 10:42:24 PM
you didn't post it to foster discussion?  Doing it wrong
what if birth control failed?
7th grade health class man
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 10:46:04 PM
7th grade health class man

i dont get it

birth control can fail
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 10:47:55 PM
what, you never heard "the only birth control that always works is abstinence"?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 10:49:00 PM
no because i didn't go to a school that thought that was an intelligent thing to teach children :^)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 19, 2016, 10:53:13 PM
it's like you guys want the forums to burn
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 10:53:56 PM
yeah maybe i should get out if i dont want the forums to burn and just ignore all the dumb shit... thanks for reminding me i'm not helping
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 19, 2016, 11:00:00 PM
I mean I don't disagree with you, but I don't let their bad opinions bother me.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 11:17:08 PM
just ignore all the dumb shit
I don't let their bad opinions bother me.
Having a supercilious attitude is not becoming either, especially when I haven't given my opinion on the subject. Only Nocturne has.

I originally posted this article to spark some conversation on this interesting situation: Banning of abortion in a state. Surely in this day in age, you'd think that that wouldn't happen, which is why I thought of it as fascinating; however, it seems that you guys only want to chew over the morality of abortion itself.
Again, this is the politics thread, not the religion or the "this is what I think" thread.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 11:21:27 PM
Abortion is an issue that is often tied to religion, though, simply because attitudes toward abortion are often (not always) informed by religious attitudes. It's difficult to discuss abortion in a context without at all considering religious attitudes simply because they're tied together.

Plus, you didn't even post your views in the first topic... if you want people to discuss the actual passing of a bill that shouldn't be passed, then maybe point that out - otherwise it is incredibly easy for people (and that includes me) to misinterpret why you're posting it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 19, 2016, 11:21:53 PM
i mean it's not like we don't know what your opinion is, mlf
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 11:22:53 PM
no because i didn't go to a school that thought that was an intelligent thing to teach children :^)
fight me
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 11:25:06 PM
fight me

no items fox only final destination lets Go im waiting for u outside my house
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 11:26:10 PM
ill be there when panthers dont choke
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 19, 2016, 11:26:34 PM
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhh



EDIT: oh wait i was supposed to be supporting alti...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 11:28:42 PM
ill be there when panthers dont choke

jokes on you i dont actually care about the panthers due to have a pittsburgh-based family hahaha
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 19, 2016, 11:29:15 PM
EDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either

Let's punish men for sex. Such as, if he gets me pregnant I get one of his kidneys. Then I can sell it on the black market.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 11:30:52 PM
seriously though I feel like my school's sex ed was fine, it's not like they told us GO HAVE SEX AND STUFF THERE'S 0 CONSEQUENCES and they didn't tell us IF YOU HAVE SEX BEFORE YOU'RE AN ADULT YOUR LIFE WILL BE RUINED FOREVER GG
Let's punish men for sex. Such as, if he gets me pregnant I get one of his kidneys. Then I can sell it on the black market.
I knew someone would bring that up and I agree that men are responsible too but a kidney is going a bit overboard I think
as in the man fooling around with the woman is also responsible for that child's well-being
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 11:33:18 PM
Abortion is an issue that is often tied to religion, though, simply because attitudes toward abortion are often (not always) informed by religious attitudes. It's difficult to discuss abortion in a context without at all considering religious attitudes simply because they're tied together.
Indeed. That is usually the case with every topic discussed. No matter who you are, you usually start out with your own set of presuppositions even before said discussion begins.


i mean it's not like we don't know what your opinion is, mlf
You make an excellent point, but it isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 19, 2016, 11:35:58 PM
Most people have two kidneys so they'll still be alive. A uterus and a kidney are both organs so I think that's fair.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 11:37:34 PM
wait when a woman gets pregnant she loses her uterus?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 19, 2016, 11:40:28 PM
I think Ruto's saying that if the woman doesn't have a right to do what she wants with her uterus then the man shouldn't have a right to do what he wants with one of his kidneys
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 19, 2016, 11:46:03 PM
wait when a woman gets pregnant she loses her uterus?

That's possible if there are any complications with the pregnancy. Until she's sure, let's hold that kidney hostage.

I think you can sell a kidney for $20,000, but you can actually be a surrogate and get $50,000 for it. This is a really good deal for you.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 19, 2016, 11:48:58 PM
I'm still missing your point
living with one kidney also sucks

having sex is the choice though and every choice has its consequences, good or bad.  You're obligated to live with those consequences, just like with any other choice you make

bill has good intentions but I think it falls short of actually doing good rather than harm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 19, 2016, 11:50:30 PM
You make an excellent point, but it isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.
http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=6464.msg257974#msg257974

i mean this is an obvious distaste for it so...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 19, 2016, 11:56:29 PM
I'm still missing your point
Same. I'm not sure what kind of point she is trying to make other than that women are oppressed and men are evil.

having sex is the choice though and every choice has its consequences, good or bad.  You're obligated to live with those consequences, just like with any other choice you make
This is a good point.

http://forum.ninsheetmusic.org/index.php?topic=6464.msg257974#msg257974
i mean this is an obvious distaste for it so...
Perhaps, but
it isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 20, 2016, 12:10:11 AM
I don't get why you think opinions should be protected. Like if someone has a bigoted or hateful opinion it's not unreasonable to hate them for it and if someone has a dumb opinion it's not unreasonable to think they're dumb for it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 12:26:08 AM
I don't get why you think opinions should be protected. Like if someone has a bigoted or hateful opinion it's not unreasonable to hate them for it and if someone has a dumb opinion it's not unreasonable to think they're dumb for it.
There is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. There are only bigoted people who can't tolerate others' opinion. Being against abortion is not a bigoted or hateful opinion. If anything, it's the opposite of that, but that is beside the point. My point is, calling other peoples' opinions "bigoted" is a very hypocritical statement.
Shall we review the definition:

'Bigot'
"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Again, there is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. It's very simple to understand. You are either for something or against something. Neither view is bigoted. Take abortion for example. Johnny is for abortion and Susie is against abortion. Which one is bigoted? Neither. Because it is an opinion.

'Opinion'
"A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

I think the lesson we can learn here is to respect each others' opinions.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 20, 2016, 12:28:53 AM
or that oklahomans are bad at making wordy laws
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 20, 2016, 12:33:40 AM
Example of a bigoted opinion: "Black people are horrible because they are different from me."

Also that definition isn't even right lol

Full Definition of bigot
:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 20, 2016, 12:35:14 AM
Example of a bigoted opinion: "Black people are horrible because they are different from me."

this

besides, you're word policing. the idea isn't that you should deconstruct the sentence, it's that firearrow is more or less saying "if people HAVE OPINIONS that MAKE THEM A BIGOT it is not unreasonable to hate them for it"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 12:38:43 AM
So, since there's no such thing as a bigoted opinion, I take it you don't think the KKK or Neo Nazis are bigots?
Opinions can just as well be intolerant to other opinions. Take a look at any Abrahamic religion taken to its extreme(s).
@Abortion: Just thought I'd mention that until viability (~20 weeks or so), it's not a baby, it's literally just a clump of cells. There is no nervous system or sentient thought. IE: It's not a human yet, it's a fertilized egg.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 20, 2016, 12:41:18 AM
yes I be the word police I herd my services are required what may I do for you: today in porticulate?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 20, 2016, 12:42:23 AM
Noc, please troll elsewhere.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 20, 2016, 12:43:02 AM
dude to be fair he is actually making this less of a shitfest
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 20, 2016, 12:45:00 AM
But mlf isn't even here right now so the less activity, the better.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 12:49:17 AM
I won't actually comment, but instead post the actual rules.
- "What's this 'Spam' I keep hearing about? It sounds delicious." Spam, otherwise known as garbage or s***-posting, are posts that do not contribute to the conversation at hand."
 - "How do I know if I'm spamming?" Simple, does your post meet these requirements?
 - Am I actively contributing to the conversation? Can someone respond to what I'm saying? One word responses or posts that don't contain a coherent thought are not contributions to the discussion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 20, 2016, 12:51:59 AM
as word police I result that seabass shall be victor of wordfight: vanguard until the wheel turns and the new age begins henceforth and forever amen
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dudeman on May 20, 2016, 12:55:56 AM
Come now, Noc. Let's not dig ourselves deeper.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 20, 2016, 12:59:46 AM
blue sends his regards
Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/gg3CKVH.jpg)
vote bernie
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 20, 2016, 01:02:12 AM
There is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. There are only bigoted people who can't tolerate others' opinion. Being against abortion is not a bigoted or hateful opinion. If anything, it's the opposite of that, but that is beside the point. My point is, calling other peoples' opinions "bigoted" is a very hypocritical statement.
Shall we review the definition:

'Bigot'
"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Again, there is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. It's very simple to understand. You are either for something or against something. Neither view is bigoted. Take abortion for example. Johnny is for abortion and Susie is against abortion. Which one is bigoted? Neither. Because it is an opinion.

'Opinion'
"A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

I think the lesson we can learn here is to respect each others' opinions.

As dude pointed out, that's not the definition of a bigot. If you wish to play semantics, I'm bigoted against people with bigoted opinions.

Groups of people inherently deserve respect. Being prejudiced against people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, religon or lack thereof etc. is bigotry. Opinions do no deserve that same respect, otherwise science and progress would never get anywhere because we'd have to concede that the KKK is entitled to their opinion and that teaching photosynthesis is being inconsiderate towards people who believe is magical plant faries.

Disclaimer: I don't think being against abortion is bigoted.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 01:03:10 AM
The upper 1% in this country has over 70% of the chickens. We must stop the reckless behavior of the mega farmers on Animal Farm.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 20, 2016, 01:12:39 AM
blue sends his regards
Spoiler
(http://i.imgur.com/gg3CKVH.jpg)
vote bernie
[close]

he said he ragequit but now I see he's lurking

if he is:

(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01661/p_anne-chicken_1661204b.jpg)

haha
(http://i.imgur.com/LB764DT.jpg)
[close]
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 20, 2016, 01:48:27 AM
he's not a lurker, he has a skype
duh
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 01:56:02 AM
Example of a bigoted opinion: "Black people are horrible because they are different from me."

Also that definition isn't even right lol

Full Definition of bigot
:  a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially :  one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
I would have to agree with this definition, but I don't know if I agree that racists are bigots. I'll explain below.

As dude pointed out, that's not the definition of a bigot. If you wish to play semantics, I'm bigoted against people with bigoted opinions.
lol.....I guess Google should update that then.
Spoiler
(https://www.dropbox.com/s/7av0epzrnty1fon/Screenshot%202016-05-19%2019.20.55.png?dl=1)
[close]


Groups of people inherently deserve respect. Being prejudiced against people based on their skin color, sexual orientation, religon or lack thereof etc. is bigotry. Opinions do no deserve that same respect, otherwise science and progress would never get anywhere because we'd have to concede that the KKK is entitled to their opinion and that teaching photosynthesis is being inconsiderate towards people who believe is magical plant faries.
I would have to agree with you here. Personally, I don't see prejudices against people based on skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. as bigotry. I see it more as just plain cruelty.....if I may be perfectly honest. If you're gonna hate on someone that has a different skin color, religion (lack thereof), etc. then you're just being cruel and/or rude. I wouldn't call it bigotry though; however, I do think that peoples' opinions should be respected.....as long as they aren't openly racist, discriminating, etc.

So, since there's no such thing as a bigoted opinion, I take it you don't think the KKK or Neo Nazis are bigots?
Again, I don't think I'd call them bigots. Just plain malicious and cruel.

The Ku Klux Klan was really just a stupid secret society advocating only white people. I don't know if I'd call this bigoted since they didn't go out saying "I don't agree with other white people who think black people are equal to us!!" But instead they openly and actively suppressed African-Americans. I wouldn't call this act bigotry, but cruelty.

Similarly to the KKK, the Neo-Nazis were racist. Extremely racist. They also acted radically.

Personally, I've always believed that bigots were just big talkers who were all talk and didn't act on their opinions and were intolerant toward others opinions.....even rude and prejudice. I wouldn't put the Nazis and KKK in that category, but rather in the category of cruelty and self-righteousness.

That's just my opinion and I respect anyone that doesn't agree with me :P

he's not a lurker, he has a skype
duh
hi
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 01:58:58 AM

I would have to agree with you here. Personally, I don't see prejudices against people based on skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. as bigotry. If you're gonna hate on someone that has a different skin color, religion (lack thereof), etc. then you're just being cruel and/or rude. I wouldn't call it bigotry though; however, I do think that peoples' opinions should be respected.....as long as they aren't openly racist, discriminating, etc.
Sebastian cmon you're flipping your position faster than Donald Trump
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 20, 2016, 02:00:17 AM
Being a bigot is not mutually exclusive with being cruel and malicous. And generally google is the least reliable source for definitions.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 02:05:58 AM
Sebastian cmon you're flipping your position faster than Donald Trump
I don't follow.


Being a bigot is not mutually exclusive with being cruel and malicious.
Well, sure. I see what you mean.


And generally google is the least reliable source for definitions.
Good to know for the future xD
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on May 20, 2016, 02:14:45 AM
I don't follow.

I guess the text in that quote wasn't bold enough.

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 05:18:36 AM
IS THIS BOLD ENOUGH FOR YOU OLI/SEBASTIAN
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 20, 2016, 09:28:09 AM
I would have to agree with this definition, but I don't know if I agree that racists are bigots. I'll explain below.
holy shit the definition literally says "one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

I can't believe people like this exist.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Waddle Bro on May 20, 2016, 01:59:38 PM
smh 5 min analysis of the convo let's go


that bill sounds incomplete to me.  In most cases, yes abortion is morally wrong, but in certain instances (read: rape) the woman may not feel comfortable with going through childbirth, and in the case of rape they didn't get a choice in the matter

EDIT: however if the woman got pregnant by fooling around that's no excuse for abortion either
"morally wrong" how? you can't define that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument
you have a habit of being ignorant with your views by selling your highly assailable opinion as how things are, which is a common flamebaiter trait. it also speaks of not being capable of accepting other views or a rational conclusion if it's against your own.


birth control can fail


Having a supercilious attitude is not becoming either, especially when I haven't given my opinion on the subject. Only Nocturne has.

I originally posted this article to spark some conversation on this interesting situation: Banning of abortion in a state. Surely in this day in age, you'd think that that wouldn't happen, which is why I thought of it as fascinating; however, it seems that you guys only want to chew over the morality of abortion itself.
Again, this is the politics thread, not the religion or the "this is what I think" thread.
although it was hasty for dude to refer to you as a "guy who wants the forum to burn"(since you only posted a link), you and noc still failed to give any rational input to the conversation, which makes it justified to call a conversation it a dumb one, since all that was said was ignorant opinions and non-factual statements.
political issues can be moral issues and moral issues can be political issues, and abortion definitely belongs to both of those categories. this topic is also a place to argue, as long as you're capable of doing it instead of posting unnecessary and blatant shit like "thats wrong" without anything to back you up.


You make an excellent point, but it isn't fair to call someone out on their beliefs when they haven't shared them. That's like hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject.
no one specifically targeted you personally or your unshared beliefs(literally proven by the fact that you didn't even share them). it was about the conversation in general and i already said how a conversation without reasonable input can be considered as dumb. also "hating on someone because they have an opinion on a certain subject", i fail to see the correlation, please provide reasoning if you can. not that it's necessary because no one called out your unshared beliefs.


There is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. There are only bigoted people who can't tolerate others' opinion. Being against abortion is not a bigoted or hateful opinion. If anything, it's the opposite of that, but that is beside the point. My point is, calling other peoples' opinions "bigoted" is a very hypocritical statement.
Shall we review the definition:

'Bigot'
"A person who is intolerant toward those holding different opinions."
Again, there is no such thing as a bigoted opinion. It's very simple to understand. You are either for something or against something. Neither view is bigoted. Take abortion for example. Johnny is for abortion and Susie is against abortion. Which one is bigoted? Neither. Because it is an opinion.

'Opinion'
"A view or judgment formed about something, not necessarily based on fact or knowledge."

I think the lesson we can learn here is to respect each others' opinions.
there's a difference between having a justified opinion(an opinion that can be true and have reasoning behind it) and a "bigoted opinion"(let's call it that since that's the term you used) that is based on nothing factual and is factually/logically wrong, a bigoted opinion tries to sell itself as reality which it isn't. being against abortion isn't a "bigoted opinion" because it can be justified, but so far i haven't seen anyone on this topic defending the abortion ban with valid reasoning.
a justified opinion 101: an opinion done in "good faith" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_faith
you can't be expected to respect an unjustified opinion or even an opinion that's literally wrong, like racism.


why's blueflower lurking and asking people to shitpost on his behalf lol
login literally takes 2 seconds


who uses google word definition when you have merriam-webster just below it x)
I don't know if I agree that racists are bigots. I'll explain below.
what is this lmao if you only you read the merriam-webster definition
I would have to agree with you here. Personally, I don't see prejudices against people based on skin color, sexual orientation, religion, etc. as bigotry. I see it more as just plain cruelty.....if I may be perfectly honest. If you're gonna hate on someone that has a different skin color, religion (lack thereof), etc. then you're just being cruel and/or rude. I wouldn't call it bigotry though; however, I do think that peoples' opinions should be respected.....as long as they aren't openly racist, discriminating, etc.
Again, I don't think I'd call them bigots. Just plain malicious and cruel.

The Ku Klux Klan was really just a stupid secret society advocating only white people. I don't know if I'd call this bigoted since they didn't go out saying "I don't agree with other white people who think black people are equal to us!!" But instead they openly and actively suppressed African-Americans. I wouldn't call this act bigotry, but cruelty.
you said you'd "explain below" but all i see is you repeating how you don't want to call racism as bigotry instead of cruelty, yet you fail to reason what makes them different :x
Personally, I've always believed that bigots were just big talkers who were all talk and didn't act on their opinions and were intolerant toward others opinions.....even rude and prejudice. I wouldn't put the Nazis and KKK in that category, but rather in the category of cruelty and self-righteousness.

That's just my opinion and I respect anyone that doesn't agree with me :P
you're literally trying to justify justifying opinions with opinions
loool that sentence, but it's true though


holy shit the definition literally says "one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance"

I can't believe people like this exist.
not cool to be condescending towards him dude(with "people like this"), he just hasn't understood the concept correctly. we shouldn't assume malice from him when lack of knowledge will suffice.

edit that took 30 :[
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 02:21:19 PM
not cool to be condescending towards him dude(with "people like this"), he just hasn't understood the concept correctly. we shouldn't assume malice from him when lack of knowledge will suffice.
Honestly, this is the most condescending thing I think I've ever read.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on May 20, 2016, 02:24:43 PM
It's like you just ignored the entirety of that post.

Waddle ily
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 02:35:02 PM
To be honest, there isn't really any reason for me to argue it.

who uses google word definition when you have merriam-webster just below it x)what is this lmao if you only you read the merriam-webster definitionyou said you'd "explain below" but all i see is you repeating how you don't want to call racism as bigotry instead of cruelty, yet you fail to reason what makes them different :xyou're literally trying to justify justifying opinions with opinions
loool that sentence, but it's true though
Yes, it is my opinion. I did say at the end of that paragraph that it is my opinion, so yes. I did justify opinions with opinions...as you say.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 20, 2016, 02:47:31 PM
Sorry waddle, when someone is stupid I can't help but be condescending...

I mean in general, not just MLF.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 02:51:56 PM
Sorry waddle, when someone is stupid I can't help but be condescending...

I mean in general, not just MLF.
Gee, thanks.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 20, 2016, 02:54:11 PM
I mean, everyone has moments when they're dumb, some just have them more than others.


Wait that didn't help


See this is a time I'm being dumb!

Also I don't know why you reported that post as all I was saying was if someone is stupid I'll be condescending towards them...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on May 20, 2016, 03:06:08 PM
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: E. Gadd Industries on May 20, 2016, 03:25:38 PM
edit that took 30 :[
Respect. Utter respect.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: SlowPokemon on May 20, 2016, 03:29:24 PM
I skipped the last three pages and just read this one and I don't regret it
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 20, 2016, 04:51:34 PM
If you read the last3 pages you might not regret that
Also what's so unacceptable about calling abortion morally wrong, hmm
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 20, 2016, 06:48:09 PM
waddle i love you so much ugh
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 20, 2016, 10:37:07 PM
Also what's so unacceptable about calling abortion morally wrong, hmm
Because you then assume that all abortions are made A) on a basis of morality vs practicality and B) without any conscience thought.
To be honest, there isn't really any reason for me to argue with it
True, because you can't really argue the case against it.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 20, 2016, 11:02:49 PM
Because you then assume that all abortions are made A) on a basis of morality vs practicality and B) without any conscience thought
I'm sorry I'm really having trouble understanding what you mean
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 20, 2016, 11:27:36 PM
True, because you can't really argue the case against it.
If that makes you feel better than ok.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 21, 2016, 02:42:07 AM
I'm sorry I'm really having trouble understanding what you mean
Actually I realized that what I said had nothing to do with what you posted. I thought you had said something else. My apologies.
To respond though, to call abortion morally wrong, you have to define what is immoral about it. You have to determine if it's actually the taking of a life; which, until 23(ish) weeks, it is not.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 21, 2016, 05:16:23 AM
oh, that explains that
even if "technically not killing something" is morally justified (lol) there's still that potential for a life that you're taking away from someone
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 21, 2016, 05:23:18 AM
You do the same thing by eating chicken eggs, by using contraception, or by using hand sanitizer..
That you're taking away life from something which does not have it is a weak argument. Life is not inherently sacred because we say so.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 21, 2016, 05:37:33 AM
Life is not inherently sacred because we say so.
not because we say so, no
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: BlackDragonSlayer on May 21, 2016, 07:40:50 AM
You do the same thing by eating chicken eggs, by using contraception, or by using hand sanitizer..
These aren't the best examples to use if you're accusing Noc of having a weak argument...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 21, 2016, 08:22:37 AM
Well contraception is a valid comparison. You're killing off the sperm and egg that could otherwise make life, maybe even the person that cures cancer! Wish you didn't where that condom now huh?

Anyways that's besides the main point in pro-choice. No human has the right to a parasitic relationship with another without consent, though I think men including myself shouldn't have a say in this.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 21, 2016, 06:51:29 PM
You do the same thing by eating chicken eggs, by using contraception, or by using hand sanitizer..
That you're taking away life from something which does not have it is a weak argument. Life is not inherently sacred because we say so.
Chickens aren't humans. Organisms out of sanitizer are not humans.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 21, 2016, 07:05:59 PM
Can someone remind me how important an 18 year old white male's opinions are in the decision of a woman's reproductive rights?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 07:15:54 PM
Chickens aren't humans. Organisms out of sanitizer are not humans.

Neither are fetuses
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 21, 2016, 10:02:57 PM
Here are things that you do that destroy a "potential human"

1) Fap
2) "those kinds of dreams"
3) Wear skinny jeans
4) Mountain Dew???
5) Miscarry naturally (been told that a really good chance of pregnancy is close to 90% so 10% of time must be duds to begin with at least)
6) Zika
7) Herpes
8 ) Flu
9) Not eating enough folate
10) Booze
11) Sitting on a radiator or hot tub
12) ...etc

There are enough things to kill sperm/fetus/babby as it is but only one is evil?

Chickens aren't humans. Organisms out of sanitizer are not humans.

Organism killed by santizers*

Way to put your life above chickens...

Well contraception is a valid comparison. You're killing off the sperm and egg that could otherwise make life, maybe even the person that cures cancer! Wish you didn't where that condom now huh?

Don't you have to educate someone before they can cure cancer? What are the odds of that even happening...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: JDMEK5 on May 21, 2016, 10:27:53 PM
Because you then assume that all abortions are made A) on a basis of morality vs practicality and B) without any conscience thought.True, because you can't really argue the case against it.
I believe if we submit our morality to practicality then we forfeit our humanity. It would be better for the earth if the world population was lowered to a quarter million through mass genocide to make it as fast and effective as possible. (And there are those who do indeed desire this) To quote Alfred Molina: "Knowledge is not a privilege; it's a gift. And you use it for the good of all mankind." I was raised under the principle that practicality was supposed to coincide with morality.

Can someone remind me how important an 18 year old white male's opinions are in the decision of a woman's reproductive rights?
I don't mean to sound judgmental or anything when I say the following. But getting in bed with someone is a choice to take a risk. Frankly, if a woman isn't prepared for a kid, maybe she should avoid the bed. All choices have consequences be they good or bad.
Neither are fetuses
Well many of the fetuses that are aborted still manage to survive anyways. Babies are aborted later in conception than many when they are born prematurely and still live. Do fetuses survive being born before the scheduled abortion date? Because it has happened.

No human has the right to a parasitic relationship with another without consent, though I think men including myself shouldn't have a say in this.
It wasn't too long ago that a baby was one of the best things that could happen to a person, not a problem that needs to be fixed.

There are enough things to kill sperm/fetus/babby as it is but only one is evil?
I think it's more the deliberate waste of life that's the concern with these debates; not the method itself.

As I said, I'm not trying to be a bigot nor putting a ton of gas into my argument because I am a man. I'm just explaining my opinions and I'm open to being convinced of a contradictory argument if I can be persuaded.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 21, 2016, 10:30:30 PM
Can someone remind me how important an 18 year old white male's opinions are in the decision of a woman's reproductive rights?
if men and women are equal then their opinions should be just as important, no?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 21, 2016, 10:40:41 PM
It wasn't too long ago that a baby was one of the best things that could happen to a person, not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Are you suggesting unwanted pregnancies weren't a thing or are you suggesting that parents don't love their children anymore, because neither is true.

if men and women are equal then their opinions should be just as important, no?

If doctors and lawyers are equal than their opinions on eating right should be just as important, no?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 21, 2016, 11:01:57 PM
It wasn't too long ago that a baby was one of the best things that could happen to a person, not a problem that needs to be fixed.

Back before the mean old government said you have to feed and send your kids to school, right? Not just let them outside to collect scrap tin for money or work for free on your farm and pants factory? People don't think about how much it costs to raise kids at all, and of course, don't even help people with their kids. That one type of person that hates the government and whines about regulation and taxes are usually the ones to tell other people to shove off because they've got theirs.

if men and women are equal then their opinions should be just as important, no?

Wear this rasta-themed codpiece to school. Don't like that? Then don't tell other people what to do with their fashion sense or bodies -.-

But getting in bed with someone is a choice to take a risk. Frankly, if a woman isn't prepared for a kid, maybe she should avoid the bed. All choices have consequences be they good or bad.y argument because I am a man. I'm just explaining my opinions and I'm open to being convinced of a contradictory argument if I can be persuaded.

It's funny how you only say women should avoid beds. Women don't have the right to enjoy sex now? What if I said guys should avoid sleeping with others? I'm sure if a guy wanted out on the deal, he would be able to get out of it if it were not for those pesky DNA tests.

By stepping into a car you agree there's a chance your car will flip over and fall down a ravine...let's not drive to work because there's a chance that would happen la la la...Even with all the protective measures that exist. Sounds like a rubbish argument.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 11:19:26 PM
Quote
Well many of the fetuses that are aborted still manage to survive anyways. Babies are aborted later in conception than many when they are born prematurely and still live. Do fetuses survive being born before the scheduled abortion date? Because it has happened.

I do believe that there should be a cut-off date, because after a certain point it's like "ok ... really?". I won't deny that. But it should be around the time of viability, which I think is about 22/23 weeks iirc (what PDS was saying earlier). Anything before that is fair game. And actually anything after would be fair game if it turns out that something would direct put the mother's life in danger, because I think that no matter how far along the pregnancy is the woman has more of a right to her own, pre-established life, than she has an obligation to the fetus for its life that hasn't gone anywhere yet. No woman should be forced to die for offspring.

Also:
Quote
But getting in bed with someone is a choice to take a risk. Frankly, if a woman isn't prepared for a kid, maybe she should avoid the bed. All choices have consequences be they good or bad.

No, really, why is it only women? Why am I suddenly not allowed to do what I want simply because I'm on the other side of things? This is a straight up horribly sexist and offensive argument, I'm sorry... and this is part of the reason why I think abortion is one sex-difference issue where I believe men should have very little say.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 21, 2016, 11:32:59 PM
it's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want.  You guys are putting words into our mouths
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 21, 2016, 11:40:33 PM
Here are things that you do that destroy a "potential human"

1) Fap
2) "those kinds of dreams"
3) Wear skinny jeans
4) Mountain Dew???
5) Miscarry naturally (been told that a really good chance of pregnancy is close to 90% so 10% of time must be duds to begin with at least)
6) Zika
7) Herpes
8 ) Flu
9) Not eating enough folate
10) Booze
11) Sitting on a radiator or hot tub
12) ...etc

There are enough things to kill sperm/fetus/babby as it is but only one is evil?
lol
None of these things constitutes a baby or embryo or fetus or whatever the heck you wanna call it and none of these things will turn into a baby after how ever many months.
Abortion is ending a life, no matter how you look at it. If you didn't abort the baby, it'd be a male/female human in less than however many months.

Well many of the fetuses that are aborted still manage to survive anyways. Babies are aborted later in conception than many when they are born prematurely and still live. Do fetuses survive being born before the scheduled abortion date?
This so much.

No, really, why is it only women? Why am I suddenly not allowed to do what I want simply because I'm on the other side of things? This is a straight up horribly sexist and offensive argument, I'm sorry... and this is part of the reason why I think abortion is one sex-difference issue where I believe men should have very little say.
It isn't only women. That's not what he meant.

it's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want.  You guys are putting words into our mouths
^^
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 11:46:43 PM
it's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want.  You guys are putting words into our mouths

Sorry but I'm pretty sure "If a woman isn't prepared for a kid, she should avoid the bed" with no mention of men's place in the issue is kind of a tacit statement that men don't have to.

Ok but if it's still putting words in your mouth which it isn't let me rephrase it: Why should I have to avoid the bed because others have decided I don't have control over my body?

@MLF: What is the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 21, 2016, 11:51:52 PM
you don't have to "avoid the bed", you need to understand the consequences that can come with sex n stuff
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 21, 2016, 11:52:10 PM
@MLF: What is the difference between a sperm cell and a zygote?
The zygote has unique DNA.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 21, 2016, 11:54:14 PM
I'm not saying I don't. Putting words in my mouth, there. What I'm saying is there is a tacit implication that only women need to worry about the consequences and that only women should be ready for a kid if they are having sex. If you would like to explain to me how your argument applies to men too than I may retract my statements about calling out sexism but at the moment it doesn't look that way.

@mlf: ok? so? how does this make it any more worth saving than the sperm cell?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 22, 2016, 12:13:36 AM
you don't have to "avoid the bed", you need to understand the consequences that can come with sex n stuff

I'm sure a lot of women know that so don't assume no one does. There's birth control that lets people enjoy winking at each other, but there's a chance it doesn't work, just like how seatbelts are in your car to stop you from flying through the window in an accident. The seatbelts don't save your face every time but it's there to help.

The zygote has unique DNA.

Nice trying to science but the real answer is 46 chromosomes. Humans *can* have identical DNA even if they're not twins, it's just a ridiculously small chance.

It's so funny that you value a "human life" instead of all those chickens you ate and stuffed into cages. If you didn't abort, the fetus will still die if it's not viable (yes this is possible). It could also be born and have a horrible life, like breathing with machines...but you still have to feed it and bathe it. Babies also don't magically come out fine and healthy. Ever heard of having to feed a pregnant woman or she would miscarry?

@Alti
Clearly men don't understand that women should be able to enjoy sex. That's so 1900.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 12:43:28 AM
What if a baby is born and they live a shitty life in poverty, abuse, or is put up for adoption and moved around from house to house because no family can deal with them due to the kid's poor disposition or a disability. Is that any better?

I mean people say "oh they'll cure cancer" but is that really realistic?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 22, 2016, 12:57:30 AM
Clearly I'm not qualified to discuss this subject because of my religious beliefs.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 22, 2016, 02:10:06 AM
@"what if they have the cure to cancer" discussion

I know this may be a shock, but fetuses do not come into this world with advanced medical science implanted into their heads. Those kinds of people are created, not born. No fetus is particularly "destined" for anything.
If you actually want our society to discover the cure to cancer, probably the best way to do it is to allocate some money for the R&D thereof.
Clearly I'm not qualified to discuss this subject because of my religious beliefs.
Well, religion does tend to give a bias in this direction. But I/we are glad that you're recognizing your bias! :)
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 22, 2016, 02:13:43 AM
Well, religion does tend to give a bias in this direction. But I/we are glad that you're recognizing your bias! :)
So does lack of religion.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 22, 2016, 02:35:23 AM
oh shut up
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: JDMEK5 on May 22, 2016, 02:56:36 AM
Well, religion does tend to give a bias in this direction. But I/we are glad that you're recognizing your bias! :)
I was going to say that everyone has a religion. Everyone believes something. Everyone takes beliefs by faith. For example, evolution can't be proved; thus it's a religion just like any other. That's not a problem; it's just often mislabeled. Religion isn't bad. Everyone is religious in some form or another, even if they claim atheism.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 03:00:33 AM
Wrong thread buddy
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: JDMEK5 on May 22, 2016, 03:06:39 AM
Wrong thread buddy
Lol sorry. Though it wasn't for the purpose of derailing the subject. I was applying it to this.

No, really, why is it only women? Why am I suddenly not allowed to do what I want simply because I'm on the other side of things? This is a straight up horribly sexist and offensive argument, I'm sorry... and this is part of the reason why I think abortion is one sex-difference issue where I believe men should have very little say.
I don't mean to be offensive or anything. I'll just clarify a bit here. I'll acknowledge your reason that men shouldn't have much say in this topic, and to an extent I can agree with that. It is kinda one-sided in the way that you're saying and I understand that. But this:
it's funny, because I don't ever remember JDMEK saying that guys are allowed to have sex whenever they want.
Guys are as accountable to what I said as girls. Any real man will take responsibility for his actions and thus won't put a woman in a position where she has to make a hard decision. I slam guys just as hard; who get a girl pregnant and then ditch, leaving her with the baby and all the responsibilities.

you don't have to "avoid the bed", you need to understand the consequences that can come with sex n stuff
Yeah, sorry. That's what I meant. Didn't word it as well as you did.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 03:17:23 AM
NEW TOPIC AS EVERYONE'S OPINIONS ARE TERRIBLE: TRUMPDONALD.ORG

http://trumpdonald.org

Is this the best site or what.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Altissimo on May 22, 2016, 03:26:39 AM
I was going to say that everyone has a religion. Everyone believes something. Everyone takes beliefs by faith. For example, evolution can't be proved; thus it's a religion just like any other. That's not a problem; it's just often mislabeled. Religion isn't bad. Everyone is religious in some form or another, even if they claim atheism.

I don't think your terminology is correct there. I get what you're trying to say about evolution and atheism being faith-based, and while I personally disagree I don't think a belief in evolution is an example of a religion, since, well, according to dictionary.com:

"Religion: a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs."

Neither of these refer to a belief in evolution, or atheism. I get what you're trying to say but I think your words are wrong, and you'd be better off saying everyone has faith in some belief (which I don't agree with but is one of those things that's impossible to argue) - more like, "everyone has faith, but not everyone has religion".
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 04:13:17 AM
:|
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on May 22, 2016, 04:25:48 AM
NEW TOPIC AS EVERYONE'S OPINIONS ARE TERRIBLE: TRUMPDONALD.ORG

http://trumpdonald.org

Is this the best site or what.
What even is this.
And why was it put together by an advertising firm.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 04:34:20 AM
I heard it was because the domain wasn't taken at the time so they were like "why not"
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Ruto on May 22, 2016, 05:43:18 PM
I was going to say that everyone has a religion. Everyone believes something. Everyone takes beliefs by faith. For example, evolution can't be proved; thus it's a religion just like any other. That's not a problem; it's just often mislabeled. Religion isn't bad. Everyone is religious in some form or another, even if they claim atheism.

Holy shit, how the hell do you think you're qualified to give any sort of medical opinion???

derpderpderp
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 06:19:55 PM
guys I'm trying to change the topic so we don't fight about people's bad opinions. can you deal.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Maelstrom on May 22, 2016, 07:01:33 PM
I can deal.

So, I heard that Trump, against all odds, gained support while I was away.
Uhhhh.
Conversation?
Is it working?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 07:18:16 PM
I hate him but I hate Hillary more so...

I wanted kasich buuuuut...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 22, 2016, 07:20:49 PM
at least clinton is predictable and will be tied up by the majority-republican congress
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 07:43:26 PM
Are you, of all people, telling me to vote for Hillary?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Olimar12345 on May 22, 2016, 07:45:18 PM
Feel the bernnnnnnn
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 07:47:39 PM
I like him more than the other two but the chances he will make it don't seem very high...
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 22, 2016, 08:13:18 PM
I hate him but I hate Hillary more so...

I wanted kasich buuuuut...
Whoa, really? Interesting.

I'm curious, Dude, do you think Hillary is a criminal?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: mikey on May 22, 2016, 08:20:46 PM
do you think Hillary is a criminal?
can you stop with this lol
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Sebastian on May 22, 2016, 08:28:17 PM
can you stop with this lol
I'm just wondering what Dude thinks. You and I talked about it enough on skype :P
No need to go into it too deeply here.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 22, 2016, 09:25:29 PM
I would consider the email ordeal pretty bad, but unless the law says it led to illegal actions... idk

Letting classified information be out in the open isn't the best idea.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 22, 2016, 09:52:03 PM
IMO Hillary is better in that she's somewhat predictable and will listen to her donors. Trump is an egomaniac who won't listen to anyone, and might just randomly decide to invade Turkey or something because they make fun of his hands.
As far as her potentially illegal activity, she's got about a dozen FBI agents investigating her.. So I'll leave that to them. Most all investigations have come up empty handed, though.
Hillary though isn't actually a progressive by any means. She's Republican lite on economics, and somewhat liberal on social issues. She would, however, appoint a far better SCOTUS Justice, if the Republicunts in congress won't let Obama do his constitutional duty to appoint a new one.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 23, 2016, 02:24:49 AM
IMO Hillary is better in that she's somewhat predictable and will listen to her donors. Trump is an egomaniac who won't listen to anyone, and might just randomly decide to invade Turkey or something because they make fun of his hands.
As far as her potentially illegal activity, she's got about a dozen FBI agents investigating her.. So I'll leave that to them. Most all investigations have come up empty handed, though.
Hillary though isn't actually a progressive by any means. She's Republican lite on economics, and somewhat liberal on social issues. She would, however, appoint a far better SCOTUS Justice, if the Republicunts in congress won't let Obama do his constitutional duty to appoint a new one.

The president can't declare war by him/herself. Trump is bad but people over exaggerate how much of the "baddness" would actually affect us.

I'm just going hillarly becuase she isn't gonna try and undo any of the civil rights progress we've made, particularly gay marriage, and maybe lower my college tution and... that's all I really care about in politics.

edit: Bernie would be cool but I don't see it happening.
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 23, 2016, 02:51:29 AM
I'm just going hillarly
Hey E. Gadd, what's this adverb mean?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: FireArrow on May 23, 2016, 03:55:26 AM
I'll (http://names.whitepages.com/first/Hillarly) have (https://www.facebook.com/hillarly.nyadapaminga) you (https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLxrUA6Kjz4Cq7Bu7bKz0zuUyvT0jmepkR) know. (https://www.howtopronounce.com/hillarly/)

Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Dude on May 23, 2016, 04:04:31 AM
But you didn't capitalize it so it has to be an adverb.

Like, "This election is going hillarly."

Plus e. Gadd is the best at words, haven't you seen his topic?
Title: Re: Politics
Post by: Pianist Da Sootopolis on May 23, 2016, 06:00:24 AM
The president can't declare war by him/herself. Trump is bad but people over exaggerate how much of the "baddness" would actually affect us.

I'm just going hillarly becuase she isn't gonna try and undo any of the civil rights progress we've made, particularly gay marriage, and maybe lower my college tution and... that's all I really care about in politics.

edit: Bernie would be cool but I don't see it happening.
Hi