PDA

View Full Version : Politics



Pages : [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86

overpowered
January 8th, 2014, 09:53 PM
I'm not anti-gun but I am anti-incompetent-idiot.

The NRA actually started out as a gun safety organization. They really should be championing mandatory gun safety education for gun owners. After all, they are likely to be the ones providing the education.

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/01/08/lawmaker-fires-handgun-in-kentucky-capitol-i-am-a-gun-owner-it-happens/

Rare White Ape
January 9th, 2014, 04:41 AM
At least you've got guns.

We have a law that makes it illegal for certain people to be together in public. If caught, they are most likely denied bail and put into 23-hour solitary confinement for months while they await trial.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/australian-state-of-queensland-adopts-populist-hardline-laws-reminiscent-of-soviet-russia-and-hitlers-germany-9040144.html

By 'certain people' I mean they say they target bikies. And by 'law' I mean the quaintly named VLAD (Vicious Lawless Association Disestablisment Bill 2013). And if you read the 15-page document (https://www.legislation.qld.gov.au/Bills/54PDF/2013/VicLawAssDisB13.pdf) you will not see any mention of bikies, meaning this law applies to anyone the government deems worth targeting.

A new law in the wings will cause party hosts to be liable for $12,000 fines or jail time if their guests become out of control.

Welcome to Qld, where you get one hour of sunlight if you're lucky.

TheBenior
January 9th, 2014, 02:30 PM
We similarly limit associations of certain people in the US, but typically as conditions of parole for convicted felons. There's anti-gang loitering laws, but they're just municipal ordinances and require that they be in an area of high narcotic sales (like a couple square blocks, not a whole neighborhood), and be given a dispersal warning beforehand.

overpowered
January 10th, 2014, 07:28 AM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DysX45QQtyU

overpowered
January 13th, 2014, 03:20 PM
Here I am, a registered republican since 1981, and this happens:

http://www.isidewith.com/results/388853102

Tom Servo
January 14th, 2014, 09:02 AM
Well, I came up 99% democrat, so I guess I'm registered correctly.

Random
January 14th, 2014, 09:32 AM
I came up everything but Republican. Heh. http://www.isidewith.com/results/389622473

tigeraid
January 14th, 2014, 10:36 AM
I did not see that coming:

http://www.isidewith.com/results/389659652

I guess Green is like Liberal in Canada...

FaultyMario
January 14th, 2014, 11:57 AM
http://www.isidewith.com/results/389791001

Healthcare = Green
Social = Socialist
Immigration = Libertarian

Jason
January 15th, 2014, 04:49 PM
I dunno where to put this, but I'm spamming it everywhere.

I'm sure most of you have heard, but Net Neutrality has essentially been gutted. That's a bad thing.

So, sign the below petition, and hope the White House will notice it/put some pressure on the FCC.

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/restore-net-neutrality-directing-fcc-classify-internet-providers-common-carriers/5CWS1M4P

neanderthal
January 15th, 2014, 05:09 PM
Green Party 93%
Democrat 92%.

I thought as much.

George
January 16th, 2014, 08:13 AM
That's one of the better quizzes I've seen because it lets people choose other answers than a simple yes or no, and also give weight to their answers (although I didn't do that). There were still a couple answers I chose that didn't really tell my opinion fully, such as "Should the federal government continue to give tax credits and subsidies to the wind power industry?" I'd love to see the wind and solar power indutries expand greatly, yet I don't think the government should subsidize any private businesses, so it's assumed I am anti-wind power, when that couldn't be more incorrect.

But hey, it's just something to do on the internet, and I'm complaining about nothing, really. Here are my results, probably no suprise to anyone who remembers some of my incoherent rants around here over the years. I'm a Libertarian and cocky enough to think I understand why since I have an otherwise useless degree in Political Science.

http://www.isidewith.com/results/391442511

Fogelhund
January 16th, 2014, 10:41 AM
Green Party 93%
Democrat 92%.

I thought as much.

I was pretty much the same....

Green Party... hmmm interesting. What I do know for certain is that current politics and political parties suck. They've lost the plot and are more about self-serving interests than serving the Nation's peoples.

Jason
January 16th, 2014, 03:35 PM
Parties you side with...

99% Democrats
on economic, foreign policy, social, domestic policy, environmental, immigration, science, healthcare, and education issues.

97% Green Party
on economic, environmental, domestic policy, social, foreign policy, healthcare, science, and education issues.

66% Socialist
on social, healthcare, and science issues.

51% Libertarians
on immigration issues.

12% Republicans
no major issues.

Jason
January 16th, 2014, 03:36 PM
A bit disappointed, as I think both parties are super corrupt and bought out by corporations. :/

overpowered
January 17th, 2014, 03:09 PM
I'm not a fan of pot but she appears to have not observed actual people on pot:

https://fbcdn-sphotos-f-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn2/9838_442953915830963_1271686962_n.png

thesameguy
January 17th, 2014, 03:15 PM
Smoke weed = mellow
Inject weed = violent

?

George
January 17th, 2014, 03:22 PM
It's Reefer Madness all over again!

That reminds me...I need to go to the store.

(I miss the little laughing guy icon)

overpowered
January 17th, 2014, 03:34 PM
Smoke weed = mellow
Inject weed = violent

?Profit

overpowered
January 18th, 2014, 01:45 AM
https://scontent-b-pao.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/1557271_297832857032160_685432036_o.jpg

speedpimp
January 18th, 2014, 01:47 PM
Looks like I'm 85% Donkey (http://www.isidewith.com/results/393392244).

Tom Servo
January 19th, 2014, 07:26 AM
I think Jason and I must have answered the questions exactly the same.

Jason
January 19th, 2014, 09:38 AM
I feel dirty.

speedpimp
January 19th, 2014, 01:28 PM
As you should, you filthy, liberal, Socialist-Communist Democrat hippie bitch.

overpowered
January 20th, 2014, 08:52 AM
https://scontent-a-dfw.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/400607_10152535360024746_571106981_n.jpg

Fast As Possible
January 20th, 2014, 09:05 AM
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal.

I vote fiscally, so I vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, and I am a Harper supporter. :)

Fast As Possible
January 20th, 2014, 09:07 AM
As you should, you filthy, liberal, Socialist-Communist Democrat hippie bitch.

:up:

overpowered
January 20th, 2014, 03:14 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/20/opinion/krugman-the-undeserving-rich.html

overpowered
January 22nd, 2014, 06:11 PM
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/551305_809455305747785_222739106_n.jpg

overpowered
January 23rd, 2014, 01:57 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iXpwflzSF4M

overpowered
January 23rd, 2014, 03:38 PM
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/t31/1602092_240681566105822_224370788_o.jpg

MR2 Fan
January 25th, 2014, 07:06 PM
State of the Union address is Tuesday.....just found out that the GOP are planning THREE different official "responses" after the address.

Rob
January 26th, 2014, 03:34 AM
Susanne Atanus.

Is that like Man-At-Arms?

TheBenior
January 26th, 2014, 10:01 AM
FWIW, Atanus is running in a primary for a race against a strong Democratic incumbent where the local Republican party isn't even officially endorsing a candidate. They've actually since asked her to withdraw, as Republican party or not, this is still Northern Illinois.

Alan P
January 26th, 2014, 12:38 PM
It's actually quite scary how prominent religion is in your politicians despite the founding fathers specifically stating that religion has no real place in politics.

Freude am Fahren
January 26th, 2014, 02:41 PM
Yeah, it's bothersome as shit.

overpowered
January 26th, 2014, 03:08 PM
It's actually quite scary how prominent religion is in your politicians despite the founding fathers specifically stating that religion has no real place in politics.You have no idea how bad it really is.

George
January 27th, 2014, 09:11 AM
21st century Republicans should just go ahead and change their name to the Evangelical Christian Party and be done with it.

tigeraid
January 27th, 2014, 09:12 AM
Yup.

overpowered
January 27th, 2014, 09:18 AM
Sometimes I think we're heading for the Handmaid's Tale for real.

Fogelhund
January 27th, 2014, 09:18 AM
Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal.

I vote fiscally, so I vote for the Conservative Party of Canada, and I am a Harper supporter. :)

Fiscally Conservative, Socially Liberal.

I can't support Harper, wish the Conservative Party would kick him out. Abuses of power IMO, brutal to scientific community, corruption, brutal to the environment... and that is just a start.

No viable alternative in the other parties, fiscal views aside.

thesameguy
January 27th, 2014, 09:32 AM
I have always struggled with my outlook, being conservatively liberal, and fiscally social. eg, I'm really into bicurious chicks with a few piercings & tats and I am happy to treat them to a night at the strip club.

LHutton
January 27th, 2014, 01:24 PM
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/mccain-censure-latest-sign-gop-194100763.html


If there were any doubts that Republicans are in the throes of ideological fratricide that could threaten their prospects for success this fall, they were dispelled over the weekend in Arizona.
In a move both bizarre and ill-timed, Arizona Republican Party members voted to censure Sen. John McCain a highly-decorated Vietnam War hero, maverick conservative and 2008 Republican presidential nominee for being too liberal for their taste.

Jason
January 27th, 2014, 02:28 PM
Other than his Presidential run, McCain has often been seen as "too liberal" by many conservatives. This isn't really news... things are just getting back to normal, instead.

Drachen596
January 27th, 2014, 02:57 PM
McCain was criticized for that even DURING his presidential run. the group saying it wasn't as large as now but it was being said.

speedpimp
January 27th, 2014, 03:22 PM
Is it just me or does Susane Atanus look like a character from SNL or MadTV?

overpowered
January 27th, 2014, 03:26 PM
During his presidential run against Obama, McCain actually swung way right for a while, just to get the nomination. He was kind of slow to move back to his more moderate stances.

The GOP seems to be eating itself.

speedpimp
January 27th, 2014, 03:30 PM
As if that were a bad thing.

MR2 Fan
January 27th, 2014, 03:35 PM
That's one part of the narrative that has been pushed for years, that "liberal" is a bad word and "conservative" is a good word.

I only see that specific thing from the right though....I don't often hear left wing types criticizing "conservative" as a bad word....maybe "neo-con" though.

Jason
January 27th, 2014, 04:45 PM
Mostly just anti social conservatism. Fiscal conservatism, while not agreed with, is at least understood.

overpowered
January 28th, 2014, 07:48 AM
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-january-27-2014/exclusive---don-t-leave--sean-hannity

Alan P
January 28th, 2014, 06:11 PM
Watching the State of the Union address. Obviously it's Obama and Joe Biden on the left, who is the dude on the right who keeps wanting to bore a hole through Obama's head with his eyes? Biden obviously respects the man, this other dude looks like he'd kick Obama in the balls in a dark alley without a moments hesitation. Speaker of the House?

George
January 28th, 2014, 08:28 PM
Yes, that's John Boehner ("bay-ner"), Speaker of the House of Representatives.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boehner

Joe Biden is there because, as Vice-President of the United States, he is President of the Senate. That means he can vote in the Senate in case of a tie vote, but it's mostly a ceremonial thing, and a rather minor one at that. He's there tonight, along with Boehner, to show that the leadership of both houses of the legislature are present. Tradition.

Back when it looked like more fun:

http://binaryapi.ap.org/cccf46ee98c34ea3b8b828709cd7cdcd/460x.jpg

Random
January 29th, 2014, 08:59 AM
Back when that hippie commie liberal was president...

21Kid
January 29th, 2014, 10:03 AM
:lol:

21Kid
January 29th, 2014, 01:06 PM
Do people seriously believe this BS? Why would you vote for someone who told such bold face lies?!?


“I didn't threaten to shut down the government the last time. I don't think we should ever shut down the government. I repeatedly voted to fund the federal government,” Cruz said. “It was Harry Reid and President Obama.”

Alan P
January 29th, 2014, 06:41 PM
On my phone so can't go hunting for the clip but some guy called Grimm threatened a TV reporter in front of a camera that was still running. What a douchebag. Sad thing is it probably won't be the end of his political career when it really should be.

thesameguy
January 29th, 2014, 06:44 PM
Do people seriously believe this BS?

Absolutely. Yes they do.

Freude am Fahren
January 30th, 2014, 05:36 AM
Part of the reason that asshole wont have much repercussion is because the damn pussy reporter actually forgave and even defended Grimm's actions.

21Kid
January 30th, 2014, 07:27 AM
Absolutely. Yes they do.I don't understand how that's possible when he was so proud of it and is on record saying as much? How can people believe what he's saying now when it directly contradicts WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, not even a year ago?!? Even when he was in direct opposition with most of his own party?!?
I don't understand how... or why they would ignore his MAJOR role in the shutdown? It was almost all squarely on his shoulders!!! WTF!!!

DES MOINES, Iowa -- DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — Texas Sen. Ted Cruz says this month's partial government shutdown and his key role in it were a success: They got people talking.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) ended his marathon talking attack on President Obama’s health-care law Wednesday after 21 hours and 19 minutes — a feat of stamina that seems likely to complicate House GOP efforts to pass a funding bill aimed at averting a looming government shutdown.

Texas Senator Ted Cruz and a band of fellow travelers are promising to block the continuing resolution (in other words shut down the government) unless somehow the Congress passes (and Obama signs) a bill that would defund Obamacare.

In the end, the federal government opened back up, Obamacare stayed funded and Republicans took a beating in the polls.

But in the final hours of the fiscal crisis, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz was resolute and firm, declining to admit defeat and instead chastising the “Washington establishment” for waving the white flag on the health care law.
It's not like these things are hard to find... :?

MR2 Fan
January 30th, 2014, 08:16 AM
I don't understand how that's possible when he was so proud of it and is on record saying as much? How can people believe what he's saying now when it directly contradicts WHAT HE ACTUALLY DID, not even a year ago?!? Even when he was in direct opposition with most of his own party?!?
I don't understand how... or why they would ignore his MAJOR role in the shutdown? It was almost all squarely on his shoulders!!! WTF!!!

They believe it as much as they believe hearing lies that make them feel better, and they can continue to blame the marxist/nazi/commie/terrorist/muslim/Kenyan Obama for something.

21Kid
January 30th, 2014, 08:25 AM
Because living in a bubble and ignoring reality is so much better?

thesameguy
January 30th, 2014, 11:40 AM
Don't give the people that much credit. They don't remember what happened this morning in their own bedroom much less what some guy they don't know in another state said about some past event that they really didn't understand anyway. Unless you murder someone's puppy on their front lawn while they watch, you're golden. Plus, let's not forget that this guys entire constituency suffers from tragic selective perception - they aren't the most reliable group when it comes to making logical judgments about anything.

JoshInKC
January 30th, 2014, 11:41 AM
I think Cruz is approximating the von Clausewitz dialectic of saying- roughly, that the defender starts the war rather than the attacker. Basically it comes down to "The Democrats caused the government shutdown by not caving in and giving us exactly what we wanted."
In another context, "The Poles provoked us into invading by not just leaving when we said we wanted all of their land." Or, "The North Vietnamese started the war by continuing to be communists when we said we'd prefer they stop."
It's kind of a fun technique to use in an argument, but is largely useless unless your opponent is either a complete idiot or Poli-Sci/philosophy major.
I would guess in this instance, Cruz is attempting to score points with complete idiots- and it's probably working.

sandydandy
January 31st, 2014, 05:05 AM
Some Canadian politics...here in the province of Ontario they announced yesterday that minimum wage will be increased to $11 an hour. Effective June 1st.

Labour groups wanted $14.

overpowered
January 31st, 2014, 07:36 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2SiLnhquUo

https://www.change.org/petitions/lakewood-local-school-district-hebron-oh-do-not-hire-dave-daubenmire

21Kid
January 31st, 2014, 01:28 PM
Christie knew about lane closures (http://news.yahoo.com/christie-knew-bridge-lane-closures-ex-official-says-214352437--finance.html)
:shock: oh emm gee... no way... :|

Nobody is surprised by this.

overpowered
January 31st, 2014, 07:59 PM
Rob Ford just can't stop doing stupid shit.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/rob-ford-beating-claims-merit-police-probe-lawyer-says-1.2518792

sandydandy
January 31st, 2014, 09:43 PM
Love him!

LHutton
February 2nd, 2014, 10:16 AM
This is the Daily Mail but I actually read this story in the Sunday Times. This is the only online link I could find, so sorry about that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550391/Women-drink-alcohol-pregnancy-guilty-criminal-offence.html


Women who drink alcohol during pregnancy could be found guilty of a criminal offence if they damage unborn child

Legal test case claims brain damaged six-year-old girl is victim of crime

Argues she was 'poisoned' after her mother drank alcohol while pregnant

Case is being brought before Court of Appeals by local council in England

If successful, verdict could affect expectant mothers across the country

Comes as 7,000 babies are revealed to suffer problems due to alcohol

Jason
February 2nd, 2014, 10:31 AM
Some Canadian politics...here in the province of Ontario they announced yesterday that minimum wage will be increased to $11 an hour. Effective June 1st.

Labour groups wanted $14.

And here people are flipping out if it gets raised to anything higher than $7.25. Heh.

Jason
February 2nd, 2014, 10:33 AM
Christie knew about lane closures (http://news.yahoo.com/christie-knew-bridge-lane-closures-ex-official-says-214352437--finance.html)
:shock: oh emm gee... no way... :|

Nobody is surprised by this.

Nope.

Jason
February 2nd, 2014, 10:59 AM
This is the Daily Mail but I actually read this story in the Sunday Times. This is the only online link I could find, so sorry about that.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2550391/Women-drink-alcohol-pregnancy-guilty-criminal-offence.html

I'm a bit split on this. If a fetus gets rights, then abortion rights get thrown out the window. But at the same time, don't be a dick with what you put in your body while pregnant....

LHutton
February 2nd, 2014, 11:35 AM
I'm a bit split on this. If a fetus gets rights, then abortion rights get thrown out the window. But at the same time, don't be a dick with what you put in your body while pregnant....
I thought the same thing at first but then I considered that terminating a pregnancy isn't the same as bringing a child into the world with brain damage and the damage continues after the foetus is considered alive and affects the person after they are born.

Jason
February 2nd, 2014, 11:51 AM
I thought the same thing at first but then I considered that terminating a pregnancy isn't the same as bringing a child into the world with brain damage and the damage continues after the foetus is considered alive and affects the person after they are born.

I'm more thinking from a legal standpoint. If you can prosecute on behalf of the fetus, doesn't that open things up for abortion challenges?

LHutton
February 2nd, 2014, 12:13 PM
I'm more thinking from a legal standpoint. If you can prosecute on behalf of the fetus, doesn't that open things up for abortion challenges?
The prosecution is made on behalf of a living person suffering because of the mother's alcohol consumption whilst pregnant.

overpowered
February 4th, 2014, 02:05 AM
I haven't been able to verify that she actually said this but it sounds plausible.

https://scontent-b-lax.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/11585_10152571517739746_857759531_n.jpg

21Kid
February 4th, 2014, 05:28 AM
I thought she was religious???? :?

sandydandy
February 4th, 2014, 05:39 AM
That can't be a real quote...just can't.

EDIT - scratch that. Just read a bunch of her other famous quotes. Wow...she's really smart!

21Kid
February 4th, 2014, 06:07 AM
It amazes me that people voted for her in the first place. But, even more amazing is they then re-elected her. WTF? :? She's all kinds of ding-bat crazy. Luckily she won't be running again when her current term is up.

overpowered
February 4th, 2014, 06:31 AM
I thought she was religious???? :?Being religious doesn't mean that you know anything about your own religion.

However, I'm still not seeing any verification that she said that and I'm thinking it's probably a parody thing. It's hard to tell parody from reality with her.

Tom Servo
February 4th, 2014, 06:33 AM
I'm almost certain that the "Christians For Michele Bachmann" thing is a satirical Facebook group. I've been proven wrong in the past when I try to give her the benefit of the doubt, though.

Edit: Was a satirical Facebook group, that is. It appears to be gone now, if I try to go to it it just redirects me to my main page.

Jason
February 4th, 2014, 06:54 AM
Any confirmation on the quote?

overpowered
February 4th, 2014, 07:11 AM
I've been looking pretty hard and haven't been able to find any. I wanted it to be real because it's funny but I don't think it is. If it was real, I think it'd be getting posted about all over the net by now.

sandydandy
February 4th, 2014, 07:33 AM
Given her other brilliant quotes, this one is not that far-fetched.

FaultyMario
February 4th, 2014, 10:41 AM
Being religious doesn't mean that you know anything about your own religion.

However, I'm still not seeing any verification that she said that and I'm thinking it's probably a parody thing. It's hard to tell parody from reality with her.

I believe the other Bill (kid) was making a joke about the drugs.

Yw-slayer
February 4th, 2014, 07:24 PM
HTH, n00bz:

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=32;t=000448;p=1

http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003084.html

BTW, I agree that it's actually "liberals"/"the left" who should be peeved about the ad: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/02/03/liberals-should-be-upset-by-cokes-america-the-beautiful-ad/ It has no redeeming features as a beverage.

FaultyMario
February 4th, 2014, 07:50 PM
Saw that on Fb. The only thing worse than unsolicited xenophobia is disinformation.

Some idiot started abusing Adam over how the liberal rhetoric is in detriment of his "pursuit of happiness". You fucking dipshit, that's a 18th century euphemism for property rights.

LHutton
February 5th, 2014, 03:49 AM
Given her other brilliant quotes, this one is not that far-fetched.
I just did a quick diversion Google out of curiosity and English hadn't even been developed at the time.

Jason
February 5th, 2014, 05:42 AM
Pretty shitty of liberals to pass around fake quotes and misinformation to smear opponents.

sandydandy
February 5th, 2014, 05:48 AM
I just did a quick diversion Google out of curiosity and English hadn't even been developed at the time. Plus even if it was, I don't think Jesus even wrote the Bible.

21Kid
February 5th, 2014, 10:46 AM
That was more the point I was trying to make... #1 he didn't speaka da English and #2 he didn't write it anyway.

It is still pretty telling that it's that difficult to tell with her if it's fake or not. If we can't tell if something that whack is real or not, what does that say about her?

Jason
February 5th, 2014, 10:57 AM
That was more the point I was trying to make... #1 he didn't speaka da English and #2 he didn't write it anyway.

It is still pretty telling that it's that difficult to tell with her if it's fake or not. If we can't tell if something that whack is real or not, what does that say about her?

Which is why we liberals shouldn't bother making up fake quotes for her. She can dig her own grave easy enough. If we falsify things, all that does is vindicate her supporters.

LHutton
February 5th, 2014, 11:04 AM
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/05/showbiz/zimmerman-dmx-boxing-match/



Seems like the former neighborhood watchman has found yet another way to remain in the public limelight.

This time, he'll be stepping into a boxing ring to fight rapper DMX.

Zimmerman said the celebrity boxing match was his idea. Boxing was his hobby, he told Radar Online last month, even prior to the "incident."

Jason
February 5th, 2014, 11:15 AM
DMX is a douchebag. And I still want him to kick Zimmerman's ass.

FaultyMario
February 5th, 2014, 11:16 AM
I'd rather read about Slick Willie tingling Liz Hurley's vagina.

Yw-slayer
February 5th, 2014, 02:43 PM
I'd rather partake in the aforesaid tingling.

Tom Servo
February 5th, 2014, 03:55 PM
Pretty shitty of liberals to pass around fake quotes and misinformation to smear opponents.

FWIW, I see both sides not be able to recognize satire and pass it around as reality, need I remind people that the article on the Onion about the "Abortionplex" actually got legs and started making the rounds for a bit? It's stupid no matter who does it, though it is generally a sign of good satire if it can get so many people to believe it's true.

21Kid
February 5th, 2014, 05:46 PM
There's a fundamental difference between the two parties though. The left makes jokes (Daily Show, Bill Maher, Colbert, etc...) and the right is mean and spiteful (Rush, O'Reilly, Ann Coulter, Hannity, etc...)

TheBenior
February 5th, 2014, 06:45 PM
I would also say that the American left's extremist elements get ignored by the mainstream left.

In spite of right wing hyperbole up the contrary, no Democrats think that communism is a workable ideal. Meanwhile, Tea Party types think that pure libertarianism is actually plausible.

MR2 Fan
February 5th, 2014, 07:03 PM
I would also say that the American left's extremist elements get ignored by the mainstream left.

In spite of right wing hyperbole up the contrary, no Democrats think that communism is a workable ideal. Meanwhile, Tea Party types think that pure libertarianism is actually plausible.

Yep, it's the difference between mainstream and desperation.

neanderthal
February 5th, 2014, 07:09 PM
I would also say that the American left's extremist elements get ignored by the mainstream left.

In spite of right wing hyperbole up the contrary, no Democrats think that communism is a workable ideal. Meanwhile, Tea Party types think that pure libertarianism is actually plausible.

For those who believe there is no difference between the parties, there is that.

Jason
February 6th, 2014, 05:05 AM
FWIW, I see both sides not be able to recognize satire and pass it around as reality, need I remind people that the article on the Onion about the "Abortionplex" actually got legs and started making the rounds for a bit? It's stupid no matter who does it, though it is generally a sign of good satire if it can get so many people to believe it's true.

Just because "the other side" does something dickish, doesn't give one a free pass. Liberals constantly complain about the dishonesty of American conservatives, and then turn around and do the same shit. It's frustrating.

Mortavian
February 6th, 2014, 05:14 AM
Liberals constantly complain about the dishonesty of American conservatives, and then turn around and do the same shit. It's frustrating.

In the Game of Politics, you win or you settle for a moderately large salary and a comfortable lifestyle that's still better than your constituents. I can see why they're under a lot of pressure.

MR2 Fan
February 6th, 2014, 03:40 PM
Republicans making fake websites featuring their opponents now:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2014/02/06/national-republican-congressional-campaign-using-fake-democrat-websites-to-lure-voters/?hpt=hp_t1

In other news, a Republican lawmaker in Oklahoma is trying to ban marriage....entirely

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/01/25/3205541/oklahoma-lawmaker-ban-marriages-revival-jim-crow-tactic/

Yw-slayer
February 7th, 2014, 12:39 AM
Isn't banning marriage altogether even MORE unbiblical than allowing gay marriage? :lol:

overpowered
February 7th, 2014, 09:38 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/1601599_626627170732576_772577756_n.jpg

FaultyMario
February 14th, 2014, 06:16 AM
This is how a gay-lovin' marijuana -smokin' communist president lives. (http://www.excelsior.com.mx/global/2014/02/14/943692#imagen-1)

Crazed_Insanity
February 14th, 2014, 08:56 AM
Isn't banning marriage altogether even MORE unbiblical than allowing gay marriage? :lol:

Actually Bible never said that God said that Thou, or we all, shall get married! Plus, in heaven, there'll be no more marriages. So it's kinda sad that we're making such a huge deal about this.

Banning marriage isn't more or less biblical, it's just stupid.

Crazed_Insanity
February 14th, 2014, 08:57 AM
https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-frc3/t1/1601599_626627170732576_772577756_n.jpg

This is actually a very clever strategy! Reverse psychology just might work! :D

George
February 14th, 2014, 09:54 AM
The word "banning" with regard to marriage in that brief article linked above is used a journalistic tool to stir up controversy. Ceasing government recognition and sanction of marriage would not be a ban on marriage; quite the opposite. It would free consenting adults to marry whomever they choose.

George
February 14th, 2014, 09:57 AM
This is how a gay-lovin' marijuana -smokin' communist president lives. (http://www.excelsior.com.mx/global/2014/02/14/943692#imagen-1)

Wow.

TheBenior
February 14th, 2014, 10:35 AM
The word "banning" with regard to marriage in that brief article linked above is used a journalistic tool to stir up controversy. Ceasing government recognition and sanction of marriage would not be a ban on marriage; quite the opposite. It would free consenting adults to marry whomever they choose.
Except they're doing this precisely because their earlier attempts to discriminate were ruled unconstitutional, and they're not proposing to replace marriage for some with civil unions for all (which I'd be okay with). This is bigots acting like petulant children threatening to take their ball and go home.

Not only that, but legal marriage confers numerous legal rights and responsibilities recognized by government in one convenient swoop. I thought that even pure Libertarians didn't have a problem with government recognition of property rights.

overpowered
February 14th, 2014, 11:39 AM
They hate the idea of gay marriage being legally recognized so much that they would rather have everyone give up their legal status than let the gays have equal rights.

Of course, then you lose automatic recognition of joint property rights, various medical rights (visitation, care choices, ...), inheritance rights etc.

Oh, and of course, your taxes go up.

George
February 14th, 2014, 11:45 AM
TB, you're speaking of the intentions of specific politicians.

I'm am speaking of government in general as the PolySci nerd that I am.

I don't think people should have tax breaks and other benefits that single people don't. That's not equal protection under the law.

That may seem odd coming from someone who has been married since '97 and whose parents are still happily married since '67. I'm all for marriage. I just don't think there's any need for the government to be involved one way or another. Citizens should have the liberty to choose if and whom they marry without governmental consent.

thesameguy
February 14th, 2014, 11:49 AM
Citizens should have the liberty to choose if and whom they marry without governmental consent.

... or incentive.

Agreed.

George
February 14th, 2014, 11:50 AM
Oh, and of course, your taxes go up.

100% fine with me. I support an equal share flat tax for all.

The government should not treat one American differently than another (punishment for crimes, etc. obviously excepted).

I'll crawl back in my hole now before you guys start making fun of me instead of the Republicans. (insert big grin face from old board)

Edited to add:


...or incentive.

Yes. That word is important.

overpowered
February 14th, 2014, 11:59 AM
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc1/t1/1604475_823706450989337_386174441_n.jpg

thesameguy
February 14th, 2014, 12:06 PM
False.

Rand Paul believes gay marriage will lead to bestiality. I'll buy that. Thinks is giving that man way too much credit.

Jason
February 14th, 2014, 12:50 PM
Flat tax is the stupidest idea ever. You think income inequality is a problem now? It'd be even worse with a flat tax.

Crazed_Insanity
February 14th, 2014, 12:56 PM
At least flat tax is fair... and the rich won't be able to hire special accountants to find tax loopholes to evaded taxes.

As for the poor not making money, they won't be taxed at all!

Of course we won't be able to abolish the ridiculous tax codes anymore... surely accountant lobbyists won't have that. All these inefficient bureaucracy at least create jobs for lots of folks...

Jason
February 14th, 2014, 01:00 PM
Flat tax comes out of a rich person's luxury spending, while it comes out of a poor (and possibly middle class) person's survival spending. A flat tax may be "fair" in a numbers sense, but in the real world, it very much would not be "fair". It'd put a greater burden on middle and lower income earners than it would on the rich.

thesameguy
February 14th, 2014, 02:02 PM
You might be surprised how little taxes the actual wealthy pay. A flat tax - while still not fair - would probably result in the ultra-wealthy actually paying more than they do now. #sadtruth

Jason
February 14th, 2014, 02:09 PM
While they have certain loopholes sure, the fact is they are so rich, that they still pay way more into the system than the lower and middle classes do. The calculations I've seen floating around have been like 20-30% as a flat tax fee. Currently the lower and middle classes pay no where near that. I don't see how it's realistic to expect people making $5-45k to give up 25% of their income and be in good shape. Progressive tax systems work. It's just the loopholes that need to be closed.

FaultyMario
February 14th, 2014, 02:26 PM
So the rich contribute to 20~30% of national spending while owning 40~60% of all capital? (http://gini-research.org/system/uploads/443/original/US.pdf?1370077377#page=38&zoom=auto,68,771)

Sounds like great business

Jason
February 14th, 2014, 02:37 PM
Note quite:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2010_US_Tax_Liability_by_Income_Group_-_CBO.png

Top 1% pay almost 25% of Income Tax receipts.

Income taxes as a whole make up about 40% of Federal receipts.

The top 1% own about 35-40% of the nation's wealth according to reports.

Jason
February 14th, 2014, 02:39 PM
I pretty much always post this when this topic comes up, heh


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPKKQnijnsM

FaultyMario
February 14th, 2014, 04:23 PM
First decile in the U.S. owns around 60% of capital from most scholar reports I've seen, FFS you're third in highest inequality of OECD countries, just behind Russia and Mexico. And at the bottom when compared to nations with a similar Human Development Index.

Note however that I'm saying owning capital, not just having income. Like Jason said, apples and milk are not much use once eaten.

21Kid
February 17th, 2014, 06:29 AM
Income taxes as a whole make up about 40% of Federal receipts.

The top 1% own about 35-40% of the nation's wealth according to reports.Also, the top 1% generally don't receive much "income" technically. They receive stocks/bonds, interest, etc... So, they pay very little "income" tax.


It's just the loopholes that need to be closed.This x1billion.

LHutton
February 17th, 2014, 11:42 AM
I question whether a genuine democracy can exist with such a huge wealth gap given the role of money in politics.

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 11:48 AM
At least flat tax is fair...

You've said this before at the other place and it wasn't any more true there. Go research the term "regressive".

Jason
February 17th, 2014, 12:42 PM
I question whether a genuine democracy can exist with such a huge wealth gap given the role of money in politics.
Ding ding ding

Rob
February 17th, 2014, 12:49 PM
Well nobody who ever read anything would claim that the USA is a democracy.

Crazed_Insanity
February 17th, 2014, 01:09 PM
Yes, I can assure you guys that rich in the US would never agree to/allow a flat tax system... and the reason won't be because the rich people care about the poor people in the US.

neanderthal
February 17th, 2014, 01:44 PM
While they have certain loopholes sure, the fact is they are so rich, that they still pay way more into the system than the lower and middle classes do. The calculations I've seen floating around have been like 20-30% as a flat tax fee. Currently the lower and middle classes pay no where near that. I don't see how it's realistic to expect people making $5-45k to give up 25% of their income and be in good shape. Progressive tax systems work. It's just the loopholes that need to be closed.

<cue>just fast forward to 1:31<cue>

<object width="640" height="360"><param name="movie" value="//www.youtube.com/v/b0OeM6UUAoI?hl=en_US&amp;version=3"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="//www.youtube.com/v/b0OeM6UUAoI?hl=en_US&amp;version=3" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="640" height="360" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object>

neanderthal
February 17th, 2014, 01:46 PM
While they have certain loopholes sure, the fact is they are so rich, that they still pay way more into the system than the lower and middle classes do. The calculations I've seen floating around have been like 20-30% as a flat tax fee. Currently the lower and middle classes pay no where near that. I don't see how it's realistic to expect people making $5-45k to give up 25% of their income and be in good shape. Progressive tax systems work. It's just the loopholes that need to be closed.

<cue>just fast forward to 1:31<cue>

http://youtu.be/b0OeM6UUAoI

George
February 17th, 2014, 02:33 PM
You guys might enjoy reading Woodrow Wilson's biography "Wilson", by A. Scott Berg. Think rich vs. poor is bad today? Go back 100 years. I'm enjoying it (the book, not the rich vs. poor situation).

Jason
February 17th, 2014, 03:45 PM
Social programs and financial regulations didn't come for no reason...

TheBenior
February 17th, 2014, 05:17 PM
And yet I see wistful FB posts from libertarians about how great things were before the income tax.

Never mind the child labor, minimal recourse for employees crippled/killed on the job, apartment buildings that were death traps in emergencies, ubiquitous quack medicine, company police as hired goons to beat up/gun down labor activists, and institutionalized racism.

Then again, pure libertarians still argue that private segregation should be legal (presumably to be enforced by the government).

21Kid
February 18th, 2014, 05:12 AM
I truly think that they would prefer to live in the wild west... :|

Crazed_Insanity
February 18th, 2014, 07:17 AM
They just value personal liberties(choice) more than anything else. That doesn't mean that they're all FOR child laborers or against helping out the poor that may need help. They just think it should be up to them to give to the poor... not thru inefficient govt programs. People also should learn to self regulate rather than relying on stupid immoral govt to tell them what's the right thing to do. Seriously, why should we rely on the spineless politicians of the folks they appointed to regulate us? Or why should innovations be killed due to govt bureaucracies?

Of course, people don't always make good choices that's good for everyone, naturally pure libertarian society is probably impossible or it'll probably really end up as the wild wild west... Actually pure anyting -ian/-ism societies won't be possible. It's been proven that pure communism doesn't work. Neither does pure capitalism. Dictatorship doesn't work and neither does democracy. Just like driving a car, we just have to constantly make adjustments in order to not crash. We can't just always turn right or left or always pedal to the metal with gas nor brakes. There will always be folks who're more accustom to turning right or turning left or driving fast or driving slow... hopefully the sum of us will end up with the right balance...

overpowered
February 18th, 2014, 08:29 AM
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/1508599_826436560716326_398559510_n.png

Page 7-23:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf

LHutton
February 18th, 2014, 11:37 AM
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/1508599_826436560716326_398559510_n.png

Page 7-23:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf
If 26% of Americans put on much more weight, it probably will.

overpowered
February 21st, 2014, 06:42 AM
https://scontent-b-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/t1/1796518_828248913868424_864801273_n.jpg

21Kid
February 21st, 2014, 06:51 AM
Seriously?

Mr Wonder
February 21st, 2014, 07:29 AM
Yeah he's a giant dickbag. There was a big test the next day and he was asked for any last minute advice. He said he would never, ever, condone cheating, but lying to your fellow students that you knew what was on the test to make them over study one area in the hope that they under study the others so you can beat them is absolutely fine.

It's a nice window into the current republican mindset.

LHutton
February 21st, 2014, 11:54 AM
Fabulous misinformer.

GB
February 21st, 2014, 01:40 PM
When I was a sprinter, guys would always chit chat with each other while warming up. If asked, I would never tell the competition my true 100 or 200 times.

Concerning school tests, my standard answer was always, "Yeah, this test is gonna suck. I don't know any of this shit." When in fact tests are easy to me, and I never had to study much, or 'cram' for tests. I just wanted everyone else to stay up all night studying so they weren't sharp come exam time.

Misinformation can be useful.

Freude am Fahren
February 21st, 2014, 03:56 PM
The second is a terrible example (and more along the lines of what Paul was saying). You don't compete in tests. Why would you want others to do bad?

The first is an example of gamesmanship, and nothing wrong with that. But the governance of our country isn't a game. We're supposed to all be in it together.

FaultyMario
February 21st, 2014, 08:22 PM
https://scontent-a-sjc.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-frc3/t1/1508599_826436560716326_398559510_n.png

Page 7-23:

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind14/content/chapter-7/c07.pdf

Meanwhile Paul Zaloom (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beakman%27s_World) performs for tens of thousands in Mexico City.

Drachen596
February 22nd, 2014, 12:18 AM
Why would you want others to do badly on a test? Ever heard of teachers grading on a curve? Thats why you would.


show me a politician who hasnt ever used misinformation.

FaultyMario
February 22nd, 2014, 08:10 AM
Shorty, snatched. (http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/02/22/billionaire-drug-lord-el-chapo-guzman-captured-in-mexico/)

Wonder what they were gonna use him for. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/the_americas/obama-visits-mexico-for-annual-three-amigos-trade-talks/2014/02/19/53d6f088-99a6-11e3-80ac-63a8ba7f7942_gallery.html)

21Kid
February 22nd, 2014, 04:13 PM
But the governance of our country isn't a game. We're supposed to all be in it together.This.

And while it's fine to want to beat your opponent, purposely telling lies about them, just so you can win, is not cool.

Yw-slayer
February 22nd, 2014, 05:40 PM
Why would you want others to do badly on a test? Ever heard of teachers grading on a curve? Thats why you would.

It should only be done in those situations, although I suppose making everyone else look/seem dumber is likely to have a similar subconscious effect on the marker even if they aren't grading on a curve.

Crazed_Insanity
February 24th, 2014, 08:10 AM
Politicians are in direct competition with one another so naturally in order to survive, you must make your competition look bad. Our current political system is just NOT setup with working together in mind, but to check and balance one another.

Spreading truth is definitely the right thing to do, but it often won't help you win any population contests.

21Kid
February 24th, 2014, 09:10 AM
Would you vote for someone who openly admits to and preaches lying as one of his core principles?

Crazed_Insanity
February 24th, 2014, 10:23 AM
I don't know..., at least he's being opened and honest about it! Doesn't that count for something? Then again, perhaps he's being dishonest once again, which means he's actually spreading 'information' rather than 'mis-information'! ;)

I guess my point is that we probably should NOT take people's words at full value. We all can't keep all the promises that we give for one reason or another. Better to just look at a candidate's track record and let that be a gauge of a candidate's true character.

21Kid
February 24th, 2014, 11:02 AM
:? really?

I don't care who he/she is... if someone told me "yeah, sometimes you have to lie/cheat/steal..." there's no way I could vote for them to represent me and my interests. Because that is definitely not one of them.

MR2 Fan
February 24th, 2014, 04:42 PM
I don't know..., at least he's being opened and honest about it! Doesn't that count for something? Then again, perhaps he's being dishonest once again, which means he's actually spreading 'information' rather than 'mis-information'! ;)

I guess my point is that we probably should NOT take people's words at full value. We all can't keep all the promises that we give for one reason or another. Better to just look at a candidate's track record and let that be a gauge of a candidate's true character.

in other words

"Jack Sparrow: Me? I'm dishonest, and a dishonest man you can always trust to be dishonest. Honestly. It's the honest ones you want to watch out for, because you can never predict when they're going to do something incredibly... stupid."

MR2 Fan
February 25th, 2014, 10:16 AM
So Arizona might be passing a law allowing businesses not to serve gays, based on religious beliefs.

Stupid, stupid bill, but what's interesting is the whole can of worms that will happen if it does pass, and the question becomes how do you know someone is gay?

Are these businesses going to install gaydar?

Arizona's government really is one of the most backwards in the country it seems

thesameguy
February 25th, 2014, 10:22 AM
That is a really strange law. I guess if there is a law saying you can refuse service based on religious beliefs that that would fall under that umbrella, but what a weird law to start with. If you believe that homosexual is a choice, does that mean you could refuse service to anyone who makes choices you don't like? "You drive a Prius, you cannot eat here." If you believe homosexual is encoded genetically, does that mean you could refuse service to anyone who genes you didn't approve of? "You're Asian, you cannot eat here." It seems that regardless of the words of such a law, one could effectively refuse service to anyone for any reason. How exciting!

21Kid
February 25th, 2014, 11:33 AM
A law to reinforce prejudice? Good idea.




:angry:

LHutton
February 25th, 2014, 11:51 AM
"You drive a Prius, you cannot eat here."
You've got my vote.

Mr Wonder
February 25th, 2014, 01:24 PM
Its like Arizona and Florida are constantly competing for the title of Worst State in the Union. With Texas doing everything it can to catch up.

thesameguy
February 25th, 2014, 01:43 PM
I think Florida has the clear lead, personally. But what I find odd is that Texas and Florida both have some real redeeming value, whereas Arizona does not. If Arizona ultimately ends up winning that battle through legislation, it could very well go for the title of Worst Place on the Planet!

Freude am Fahren
February 25th, 2014, 02:45 PM
I'd love to open a resaurant that has a sign that says "No Christians allowed" and see what happens.

thesameguy
February 25th, 2014, 02:56 PM
With money to burn, we could open a restaurant in Scottsdale and put up a sign that says "No Arizonans Allowed."

I assure you, Arizona is against my religion.

Freude am Fahren
February 25th, 2014, 03:19 PM
:lol: It should do well.

21Kid
February 25th, 2014, 04:03 PM
:lol:

At a Tuesday campaign event for Democratic Kentucky Senate candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes, former president Bill Clinton said there are two courses of action politicians can take when government policy runs into problems: “Pout” because your party is not in the White House or actually fix the problem.
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has taken the first course, Clinton said, calling it a “dumb way to run a country.” :( Because it's true...

Mr Wonder
February 25th, 2014, 09:59 PM
I think we passed pouting a long way back. At this point they're lying in the middle of the street screaming and wailing so hard they're turning red.

Jason
February 26th, 2014, 04:08 AM
And to be fair, both sides are doing it. They are just sitting in a room yelling at teacher, whining that the other side started it.

I'm not sure how to fit "all while both sides rake in millions/billions from corporate lobbyists".

21Kid
February 26th, 2014, 05:32 AM
Jason, you sure do apologize for the right a lot. :finger: I try to be fair too, but I think it's gone well past that.


There is definitely more of it going on from one party, when people from other countries are even calling them out on it.

George
February 26th, 2014, 06:30 AM
"You drive a Prius, you cannot eat here."

Years ago, somewhere south of Toledo and driving north toward Detroit, I drove by a business that was probably a supplier to the Big 3 and saw a sign that said "Parking For American Cars Only".

By the time we got to Detroit and promptly got lost on the interstates in the city at 2:00 or 3:00 AM, I was really glad we were in my friend's GMC pickup.

I don't think I'd drive a Prius up that way these days.

21Kid
February 26th, 2014, 08:25 AM
Heh. That's funny. More "foreign" cars are American-made than "American" cars are.



What Are the Top American-Made Cars?
Cars.com's American-Made Index rates vehicles built and bought in the U.S. Factors include sales, where the car's parts come from and whether the car is assembled in the U.S. We disqualify models with a domestic parts content rating below 75 percent, models built exclusively outside the U.S. or models soon to be discontinued without a U.S.-built successor.

Rank Make/Model U.S. Assembly Location
1. Toyota Camry Georgetown, Ky.; Lafayette, Ind.
2. Honda Accord Marysville, Ohio; Lincoln, Ala.
3. Chevrolet Malibu Kansas City, Kan.
4. Ford Explorer Chicago
5. Honda Odyssey Lincoln, Ala.
6. Toyota Sienna Princeton, Ind.
7. Jeep Wrangler Toledo, Ohio
8. Chevrolet Traverse Lansing, Mich.
9. Toyota Tundra San Antonio
10. GMC Acadia Lansing, Mich.

Honda/Toyota make up 1/2 of that list.

neanderthal
February 27th, 2014, 12:21 AM
Heh. That's funny. More "foreign" cars are American-made than "American" cars are.




Honda/Toyota make up 1/2 of that list.

More importantly, you don't see good ol American pickups in that list either. Too much foreign content, or too much foreign assembly

Yw-slayer
February 27th, 2014, 12:38 AM
Speaking of which, Ford are going to start selling the Ranger in town soon. I'm keen to have a look at one in the flesh, if only out of curiosity.

Rob
February 27th, 2014, 02:09 AM
Speaking of which, Ford are going to start selling the Ranger in town soon. I'm keen to have a look at one in the flesh, if only out of curiosity.

They were talking about American pickups.

You are getting the smaller international vehicle which shares the Ranger nameplate and little else, although it looks like the US Ranger has been killed off even over there...

Rob
February 27th, 2014, 02:14 AM
I'd love to open a resaurant that has a sign that says "No Christians allowed" and see what happens.

You'll be convicted of some trumped up anti-constitution charge because somethingsomething Freedom FROM Religion.

Maybe even called a terr'ist.

Yw-slayer
February 27th, 2014, 06:41 AM
Yeah, I know. The Thai/Aus version. It should still be interesting to see how that goes.

Random
February 27th, 2014, 07:08 AM
I don't know what year Kid pulled his numbers from, but here are the 2013 rankings, for comparison:


Ford F-150, Dearborn, Mich. and Claycomo, Mo. 2
Toyota Camry, Georgetown, Ky., and Lafayette, Ind. 1
Dodge Avenger, Sterling Heights, Mich. —
Honda Odyssey, Lincoln, Ala. —
Toyota Sienna, Princeton, Ind. 4
Chevrolet Traverse, Lansing, Mich. 6
Toyota Tundra, San Antonio, Texas 7
GMC Acadia, Lansing, Mich. 9
Buick Enclave, Lansing, Mich. 10
Toyota Avalon, Georgetown, Ky. —

Crazed_Insanity
February 27th, 2014, 07:33 AM
Why did Honda Accord fall off the list?

Random
February 27th, 2014, 09:21 AM
Parts content would be my guess.

21Kid
February 27th, 2014, 09:29 AM
I don't know what year Kid pulled his numbers from, but here are the 2013 rankings, for comparison:
Mine was for 2014. BOOM! :finger:


No, just kidding. I have no idea. Google must have led me wrong. I didn't see a year mentioned in the article. I just assumed it was current. Still, not much difference. 50% furren cars

Crazed_Insanity
February 27th, 2014, 09:57 AM
Yeah, a quick google revealed that parts content for Accord and Malibu have indeed fell from the necessary 75% threshold... down to like 50% us Parts.

Interesting, wonder why the dramatic shift in such a short time.

Freude am Fahren
February 27th, 2014, 10:18 AM
Probably switching a supplier for some big set of parts (like electronics or something), and/or opening up new plants for those parts in other countries.

21Kid
February 27th, 2014, 10:40 AM
heh... this just in.

Ford moving medium-duty F-Series production from Mexico to Ohio (http://www.autoblog.com/2014/02/27/ford-f-series-medium-duty-production-ohio-mexico/)

TheBenior
February 27th, 2014, 12:38 PM
Another cop and Facebook friend just liked this page:
https://www.facebook.com/SmashCulturalMarxism

But there's nothing bigoted about worrying about Jewish global domination, the purity of the white race, or defining nationalism they way the Nazis did. I wouldn't be worried at all about this coming up in a civil lawsuit.

Mr Wonder
February 27th, 2014, 01:01 PM
That page makes my head hurt. Exactly what is Cultural Marxism?

Crazed_Insanity
February 27th, 2014, 01:26 PM
I guess it's only natural that people want to protect themselves from becoming extincted when faced with overwhelming # of folks of different color.

CA just recently passed a law SCA5 that allows universities to discriminate against students based on ethnicity. I think this is primarily aimed at reducing excessive asian students.

And speaking of white folks..., it is quite true that they have became the minority here in CA. Further, with the recent rise of a black president, I can kinda understand why they are beginning to worry... ;)

Considering that we can have black history month... gay pride parade, I don't see any problems with white people being proud of being white... as long as they didn't hurt anybody or promote hatred.

As for Jews, I think it's pretty clear in history that it is better to be with the Jews than against them. Hopefully people have learned their lessons. Those who seek to hurt or destroy Jews have always ended up being destroyed themselves.

Random
February 27th, 2014, 01:28 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism

The Wikipedia page makes my head hurt, too. Social scientists seem particularly adept at writing in English yet being completely incomprehensible.

I think the last bit is the key part, though:


Use by current Conservatives
In current politics, the term has also been associated by Conservatives with a set of values that, it is claimed, are in simple contradiction with traditional values of Western society and Christian religion. Undermining these [traditional values] is believed to be the true purpose of Political correctness and Multiculturalism, which are then identified with Cultural Marxism.

Random
February 27th, 2014, 01:40 PM
SCA5 is a proposed ballot measure to amend the CA constitution. Still has to pass the Assembly to even get on the ballot. Email your local representative. :)

Crazed_Insanity
February 27th, 2014, 01:55 PM
I'm uncertain how to react to such a measure. Clearly it's a measure against MY people, but I can also understand UCs don't want to end up with entirely asian student body which doesn't truly reflect the state's population.

Current laws clearly don't help UC student bodies to truly reflect the state's population. My nephew currently attending UC Irvine is shocked at how many asian students there. So I'm not sure if status quo is really the right way either.

If we truly want diversity, for sure current laws need to be tweaked a bit, but I'm not sure SCA5 is really the way to go... maybe schools just need to accept % of each ethnicity group that truly reflect the population? But then even that may be discriminatory... especially for white folks. See Obama is half white, but no longer considered as white. Once white folks breed with other color, white is basically gone! Diversity is sort of like 'genocide' for white folks! ;)

speedpimp
February 27th, 2014, 03:38 PM
Considering that we can have black history month... gay pride parade, I don't see any problems with white people being proud of being white.
I'd rather celebrate my "Polish/Scots-Irish/Alsatian" pride.

overpowered
February 27th, 2014, 05:24 PM
Or my Scots/English/Irish/Dutch/German/Cherokee pride?

overpowered
February 27th, 2014, 05:24 PM
Conservative Pundits Lose It Over Veto Of Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html)

neanderthal
February 27th, 2014, 09:38 PM
Conservative Pundits Lose It Over Veto Of Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html)

You gotta love it.

I wonder exactly what Bible these conservative pundits are reading. I consider myself a Christian. You wouldn't know it from how I impose my values on anyone, because I don't impose my values on anyone.

The Bible I read says I should worry more about my Christian walk than their waslk. That I should use my life as a light to shine, rather than to judge. Etc etc etc.

Jason
February 28th, 2014, 03:33 AM
Jason, you sure do apologize for the right a lot. :finger: I try to be fair too, but I think it's gone well past that.


There is definitely more of it going on from one party, when people from other countries are even calling them out on it.

It's not apologizing or defending "the right", it's understanding and recognizing that the system itself is broken, and that both sides are wholly corrupt. One side happens to align more with my social views when it benefits them, but that's about it.

Jason
February 28th, 2014, 03:34 AM
Conservative Pundits Lose It Over Veto Of Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html)


AZ: Gays suck, it's immoral, we should do something about it. But lets make sure we word it kinda sneaky like, so no one will bat an eye.

Sports: Well, we certainly can't bring our big money events to AZ now. We support equality, and anything less would damage our brand.

AZ: Oh.. uh... hahah, just kidding. We LOVE the gays! #lolfunnyjokes

Jason
February 28th, 2014, 03:39 AM
Considering that we can have black history month... gay pride parade, I don't see any problems with white people being proud of being white... as long as they didn't hurt anybody or promote hatred.

Sorry, but no. At least not in the way of "pride". White people have systemic power. Every day is a "pride" day. Every movie, every song, every corporation, every politician, is essentially a celebration of white power. So, no.. us white people don't get to do the same sort of thing. Black pride, gay pride, etc is about trying to celebrate a culture that's been shat on by straight white people. It's about trying to promote equality. If you celebrate whiteness, you're basically celebrating racism, xenophobia, appropriation, slavery, etc.

Rob
February 28th, 2014, 05:27 AM
Billi has no problem with slavery, remember? He said so openly.

Crazed_Insanity
February 28th, 2014, 06:43 AM
If you truly love your slave and he/she loves you back, then yeah, I have no problem with 'slavery'. But of course as we've discussed before, by today's standards, the kind of slavery most are talking about probably doesn't involve love. Most slave owners won't marry their slaves... there were a few cases of owners marrying slaves, but I'd agree those are the exceptions rather than the rule. So basically I'm talking about being okay with those exceptions. If you love one another, the love can even make 'slavery' relationships okay. Love will most likely break the chain of slavery. Hope you understand my position better now Robby?

Jason, reality is that white men ARE losing power. Yes, white men still are pretty dominating, but they no longer have a stronghold of the White House or CEO positions... and to be fair... I'm not really just talking about those elite 1% of top powerful white men. What about the 99% of the working class white men? Reality is that white population is shrinking in coastal states. I really do think affirmative action rules perhaps need to be changed to protect ALL minorities. Public schools should have student body that truly reflect the state's population. I'm okay with schools 'discriminating' against asians if the law is truly aiming to mimmick the state's diversity. I probably won't be okay with laws that gives the freedom for schools to discriminate freely. Anyway, my point is that since you being white wasn't a choice, I just don't think it's necessary equate whiteness to such negative terms. After all, I don't think white people invented racism or slavery or all those other bad things. Without white people, those things would still happen. Nothing to do with being white. Remember Hitler himself isn't as pure as he suppose to be.

Rob
February 28th, 2014, 07:58 AM
Limp snark, historical revisionism, mourning a race-related "loss of power" AND invoking Godwin's Law?

In a single post.

If you hadn't been around for so long, I'd swear you were a Poe.

GB
February 28th, 2014, 10:10 AM
Back to that Arizona Bill...

In addition to it being poorly written and completely based on bigotry, wasn't it redundant to begin with?

Private business owners reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time.

Hasn't this been brought up before? Americans have a right to be bass-ackwards ignorant racists and bigots.

You certainly won't be in business very long by doing it, but you CAN do it. You can kick rude people out of your business. You can kick dirty, foul-smelling people out of your business. You can kick motorcycle gangs out of your business. And even though it would be the death-knell for your business, you can kick people out based on color of skin or perceived gayness.

Don't nightclubs in big cities do this every night? It's the doorman's job to only let in good-looking people with money.

LHutton
February 28th, 2014, 11:28 AM
If you truly love your slave and he/she loves you back, then yeah, I have no problem with 'slavery'. But of course as we've discussed before, by today's standards, the kind of slavery most are talking about probably doesn't involve love. Most slave owners won't marry their slaves... there were a few cases of owners marrying slaves, but I'd agree those are the exceptions rather than the rule. So basically I'm talking about being okay with those exceptions. If you love one another, the love can even make 'slavery' relationships okay. Love will most likely break the chain of slavery. Hope you understand my position better now Robby?

Jason, reality is that white men ARE losing power. Yes, white men still are pretty dominating, but they no longer have a stronghold of the White House or CEO positions... and to be fair... I'm not really just talking about those elite 1% of top powerful white men. What about the 99% of the working class white men? Reality is that white population is shrinking in coastal states. I really do think affirmative action rules perhaps need to be changed to protect ALL minorities. Public schools should have student body that truly reflect the state's population. I'm okay with schools 'discriminating' against asians if the law is truly aiming to mimmick the state's diversity. I probably won't be okay with laws that gives the freedom for schools to discriminate freely. Anyway, my point is that since you being white wasn't a choice, I just don't think it's necessary equate whiteness to such negative terms. After all, I don't think white people invented racism or slavery or all those other bad things. Without white people, those things would still happen. Nothing to do with being white. Remember Hitler himself isn't as pure as he suppose to be.
Seriously Billy, seriously?

TheBenior
February 28th, 2014, 11:33 AM
Back to that Arizona Bill...

In addition to it being poorly written and completely based on bigotry, wasn't it redundant to begin with?

Private business owners reserve the right to refuse service to anyone at any time.

Hasn't this been brought up before? Americans have a right to be bass-ackwards ignorant racists and bigots.

You certainly won't be in business very long by doing it, but you CAN do it. You can kick rude people out of your business. You can kick dirty, foul-smelling people out of your business. You can kick motorcycle gangs out of your business. And even though it would be the death-knell for your business, you can kick people out based on color of skin or perceived gayness.

Don't nightclubs in big cities do this every night? It's the doorman's job to only let in good-looking people with money.
Wait, is segregation still legal were you live?

from Wikipedia:
Within US law, public accommodations are generally defined as entities, both public and private, that are used by the public. Examples include retail stores, rental establishments and service establishments, as well as educational institutions, recreation facilities and service centers. Private clubs and religious institutions are exempt. Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Now sure, places do it, but they also deny it when called out on it.

thesameguy
February 28th, 2014, 12:33 PM
Don't nightclubs in big cities do this every night? It's the doorman's job to only let in good-looking people with money.

Yes, because "monied" and "appearace" aren't protected classes. Especially in the case of "appearance" there is significant legal precedent allowing businesses to discriminate against ugly people both as employees and customers. Thank God my talent is on the back end*. I could never get a job as a receptionist.


* Giggity

thesameguy
February 28th, 2014, 12:41 PM
Sorry, but no. At least not in the way of "pride". White people have systemic power. Every day is a "pride" day. Every movie, every song, every corporation, every politician, is essentially a celebration of white power. So, no.. us white people don't get to do the same sort of thing. Black pride, gay pride, etc is about trying to celebrate a culture that's been shat on by straight white people. It's about trying to promote equality. If you celebrate whiteness, you're basically celebrating racism, xenophobia, appropriation, slavery, etc.

Which, really, is kinda fucked up. But your point is valid.

Besides, "white culture day" would neither be exciting nor tasty. I'm not ultimately sure what's notable about "white culture" except the aforementioned shitting on other groups of people. Well, maybe country music... we've got that. But I hate that, so I would not attend such a festival. Ummm... what about techno? I think that's probably a white thing. British or German, yeah? So, there's an upside. I am going to celebrate my white heritage by eating pancakes and listening to Kraftwerk tomorrow.

Jason
February 28th, 2014, 12:48 PM
I sometimes forget who I'm talking to. :|

Crazed_Insanity
February 28th, 2014, 02:20 PM
Seriously Billy, seriously?

Yeah, I think I was pretty serious about what I said. I just don't think white people need to be so shameful of themselves. Of course celebrating your ethnicity doesn't have to involve bashing other ethnic groups.

Or are you just appalled by the idea that a slave owner could actually fall in love with a slave girl and treat her lovingly and with respect?

Or do you think UC school doesn't have enough asian students and we should have more asians?

GB
February 28th, 2014, 08:03 PM
Public accommodation must be handicap-accessible and must not discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Now sure, places do it, but they also deny it when called out on it.

Yes, I didn't make myself very clear. I meant that you could conceivably deny service to someone, and claim that they were being disruptive or somehow harmful to your business, when in fact it is because you are an ignoramus.

LHutton
March 1st, 2014, 12:31 AM
Yeah, I think I was pretty serious about what I said. I just don't think white people need to be so shameful of themselves. Of course celebrating your ethnicity doesn't have to involve bashing other ethnic groups.

Or are you just appalled by the idea that a slave owner could actually fall in love with a slave girl and treat her lovingly and with respect?

Or do you think UC school doesn't have enough asian students and we should have more asians?
I was appalled at the fact you think slavery is okay under any circumstances and think the fact that masters sometimes fell in love with their slaves somehow excuses that. Then there's discriminating in order to reflect 'diversity'. Discrimination is discrimination either way you cut it.

As regards white shame, I don't have any because I've personally not done anything wrong in that regard but that doesn't mean I'm going to go tap-dancing on sensitive grounds and ignore the wrongs that have been committed in the past.

Jason
March 1st, 2014, 07:43 AM
Maybe he's referring to Dom/sub relationship sorts of "slaves", heh.

The pervert.

overpowered
March 1st, 2014, 03:05 PM
So this republican law maker actually suggested that if abortion is legal, then rape should be legal:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/28/lawrence-lockman-rape-_n_4874586.html

Mr Wonder
March 1st, 2014, 04:12 PM
Jesus H fucking Christ. Why are these people allowed to breathe our oxygen, let alone be allowed to spout this shit? Who is voting for these utter fucktards?

Billi - your stance on slavery is well know and also utterly disgusting. The notion that a slave owner could love a slave, while a plausible edge case, does not negate the subjugation of an entire race for the comfort of rich white people. Seriously. Just think about it. If you don't get angry at what has gone before then I'm not sure you fully understand the situation.
The fact that your stance on this riles people up is a subtle clue.

Freude am Fahren
March 1st, 2014, 04:21 PM
Other fucktards who think the same thing.

Rob
March 2nd, 2014, 01:01 AM
I'm still amused by an Asian guy arguing in favour of White Pride and pretending he knows what it actually means.

Feel free to voice your opinions in person to the modern White Pride exponents, Billi, but you might want to watch American History X first unless you like surprises.

overpowered
March 2nd, 2014, 10:17 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_China

21Kid
March 3rd, 2014, 06:12 AM
Conservative Pundits Lose It Over Veto Of Arizona's Anti-Gay Bill (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/02/27/conservative-pundits-arizona-bill_n_4865482.html)

The Daily Show (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-february-26-2014/gay-ban---arizona-s-preemptive-strike) hit it out of the park.

Jason
March 3rd, 2014, 08:23 AM
Oh man, conservatives are going to have a field day with Obama not going to war with Russia, heh.

Crazed_Insanity
March 3rd, 2014, 09:20 AM
Issue regarding slavery was brought up in the religious thread a while back. My point was that "love can cover up multitude of sins"... that nothing can be that bad/evil if genuine love is involved. Yes, this includes slavery, homosexuality or whatever other 'sins' there are. Now, I'm definitely not promoting we continue slavery nor does the bible promote slavery... (Just that, if I were to practice being a slave while my wife act as a dominatrix in our own bedroom with our own free will, why should that be any of your business? ;)) Anyway, just saying that the word 'slavery' in itself isn't "absolutely" evil. I'm sure some(few) slaves were treated with decency and not abused. It's the actual abuse of other human beings that's evil. Reason we banned slavery was because it's obvious most slaves were NOT being 'loved'.

In today's society, yes, we have abolished the word 'slavery'. We don't have slaves anymore, but guess what? We are still abusing one another in sweat shops. Yes, we abolished a dirty word to make us feel better about ourselves, but we haven't abolished the practice still. Such working conditions persist... and since it's not really called 'slavery', we feel better about ourselves.

Same applies to 'white'. The word 'White' itself shouldn't be so negative... and not having white pride parade doesn't really mean racism is finally be fixed. Anyway, even as an Asian, I do feel bad for the middle class white people. They don't have the money nor the power nor are they racists themselves, but often times these baggages are piled on them still. People of all colors can be proud of their race, except white people. White folks just has to be ashamed of themselves... even as they become minorities? I dunno. I just don't think that's fair. But hey, if you white people insist on comparing yourselves as Nazis and think it's dangerous to celebrate your white-ness, more power to you! ;) I'm definitely NOT encouraging you guys to tap dance on sensitive sore spots of others. Gay pride parade isn't about bashing hetero-sexuals, so why should a theoretical 'white pride parade' be always about bashing people of other races?

Anyway, these word definitions are probably so ingrained into people's consciousness that it'd be impossible to change. I know.

But I hope you guys understand that I'm not trying to promote slavery, racism, etc. Instead, I was trying to show you guys the true power of 'love' in the religious thread. What laws cannot achieve, love can. Love can make any sins 'OK'. (Ok, perhaps there will be some limitations..., it'd be kinda hard to justify getting wasted on drugs and end up doing horribly hurtful things in the name of loving yourself! ;) if you truly love yourself and truly want to be free, you'd join AA and stay sober.)

Sorry to go off topic, but felt the need to clarify. My points really were made in the religious thread. In a political thread, it kinda makes no sense... because I don't think politicians are capable of loving anybody..., they only love power and money. Of course, if we were to really have politicians who love his/her constituents, then, we'll have a blessed nation.

Mr Wonder
March 3rd, 2014, 09:22 AM
"You just don't invade another country on phoney pretext in order to assert your interests." Perhaps a poor choice of words from the US Secretary of State given, you know...previous form.

:)

thesameguy
March 3rd, 2014, 10:30 AM
He probably meant "... any more" or "... at this time." Some sort of temporal context.

Jason
March 3rd, 2014, 01:48 PM
The US doesn't have much room to condemn other countries and invasions... BUT, I will say, I think there's a difference between "installing democracy" (for oil, or as part of political dealings in the area), and simply taking a part of another country for your own.

Mr Wonder
March 3rd, 2014, 09:55 PM
I'm well aware that the two situations aren't the same, but that phrasing really stood out to me.

neanderthal
March 3rd, 2014, 10:50 PM
War mongering Conservatives doesn't have much room to condemn other countries and invasions... BUT, I will say, I think there's a difference between "installing democracy" (for oil, or as part of political dealings in the area), and simply taking a part of another country for your own.

Correction mine.

Although the Democrats fucking voted with them....

Jason
March 4th, 2014, 03:14 AM
We're involved in plenty of war/violence with Democrat representatives in power, as well. It's the American way.

FaultyMario
March 4th, 2014, 08:20 AM
But this isn't war this is causing social unrest to have a more favorable negotiating process.

I know Gui will not agree, but in a way Russia is doing in Crimea what the US hopes to do in Venezuela.

LHutton
March 6th, 2014, 11:38 AM
The US doesn't have much room to condemn other countries and invasions... BUT, I will say, I think there's a difference between "installing democracy" (for oil, or as part of political dealings in the area), and simply taking a part of another country for your own.
Kosovo.

http://www.itv.com/news/update/2014-03-05/leaked-conversation-claims-snipers-were-hired-by-ukrainian-opposition/


Leaked call claims 'snipers hired by Ukrainian opposition'

"Evidence shows that the people who were killed by snipers from both sides was the same snipers killing people from both sides," he is heard saying.

On the history side of things, Russia gave Ukraine the Crimea under the Soviet regime in 1954 in the first place.

Jason
March 6th, 2014, 02:10 PM
The US owns Kosovo now? Sweet.

overpowered
March 6th, 2014, 03:09 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aHPsPwVLBg

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/06/1282611/-Paul-Ryan-Poor-kids-should-go-hungry-so-they-know-they-re-loved

21Kid
March 7th, 2014, 06:10 AM
:smh:

He's so out of touch with reality...

Crazed_Insanity
March 7th, 2014, 09:55 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aHPsPwVLBg

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/03/06/1282611/-Paul-Ryan-Poor-kids-should-go-hungry-so-they-know-they-re-loved

I'm not a republican nor do I consider myself a conservative nor am I a supporter or Ryan..., but can you lefties see how Ryan's words are being twisted?

He did not say poor kids want to go hungry, he said American people want MORE than just free lunch.

I certainly agree with what he said... I see nothing wrong with his statement; however, the best government can do is to provide poor kids with free lunch. I don't understand how Ryan's gonna legislate love into the poor kids life.

I guess one way government could do it is to provide these services more covertly... so that it's not obvious to peers who's getting free lunches and who's not.

overpowered
March 7th, 2014, 10:04 AM
He's trying to argue that we shouldn't provide lunches for poor children. Maybe you missed that part?

He's waging an all out war against the poor in this country and has been for years. Anything that helps the poor is in his sights.

Crazed_Insanity
March 7th, 2014, 12:22 PM
Well, I didn't specifically hear or see that 'part' in the youtube clip nor was it included in the article. If I missed it, it was because it was left out.

If Ryan is really proposing a program that offers empty stomach and full of souls, I'd like to hear what he's proposing.

If he's only offering empty stomach and nothing else, then I'm sure nobody would support that... other than the rich people who don't want to pay more taxes.

Point is, political climate is polarizing enough already, no need to take a clip and then try to distort it out of proportion. I'm pretty sure Ryan in that clip did not say poor kids should go hungry nor did he say people don't want a full stomach. (Even if that's what he really meant to say! Or perhaps that's in the full original clip? If so, then it should've been included.)

People who dislike Ryan already disliked him. No need to try to make the same folks dislike him more and cause further polarization.

overpowered
March 7th, 2014, 12:25 PM
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/paul_ryan_school_lunch_never_happened

21Kid
March 7th, 2014, 12:48 PM
Well, I didn't specifically hear or see that 'part' in the youtube clip nor was it included in the article. If I missed it, it was because it was left out.If you missed it, then you didn't watch it at all. It's the very first line he says in the clip "What they're offering is a full stomach and an empty soul."


If Ryan is really proposing a program that offers empty stomach and full of souls, I'd like to hear what he's proposing.
That's the point. He doesn't offer a proposition. He simply thinks they don't want hand-outs. He doesn't realize that the reason that people NEED to take these hand-outs is because they can't afford a bag lunch. His solution seems to be to stop handouts and Love will all of a sudden create a brown bag lunch. :|

Crazed_Insanity
March 7th, 2014, 12:58 PM
"What they're offering is a full stomach and an empty soul" doesn't really equal to "poor kids should starve" or "people don't want a full stomach", right? That may be what he's implying, but for sure that's not what he said.

My point is that there's no need to further add fuel to a fire and cause further polarization between the 2 groups.

If Ryan has a better plan, let's hear it. If Ryan's only proposing empty stomach and nothing else, then it'd be self evident that he's only interested in protecting the rich and his speech is just full of shit.

I really have no problems with what he said, just wondering about how he might implement it better if he thinks the left got it wrong. Of course if he's only interesting in blocking the left with all the great talks but no plan of action, then of course he won't get any votes from me.

Whether that little boy's story is true or not, you have to agree it really should not just be about feeding the stomach and ignoring the soul, right?

MR2 Fan
March 7th, 2014, 01:25 PM
Maybe Paul Ryan thinks he has a good point, except he has a terrible way of stating the point, to the extreme that it seems like he wants to deprive kids of lunches.

LHutton
March 7th, 2014, 11:04 PM
The US owns Kosovo now? Sweet.
They let a part of a country determine its own future and supported that will militarily. The majority of the people of Crimea want to be part of Russia and some of the older ones were born in Crimea when it was part of Russia.

Rob
March 8th, 2014, 03:16 AM
you have to agree it really should not just be about feeding the stomach and ignoring the soul, right?

Actually, YOU have to agree that without food, anyone would starve and die. Simple proven fact.

Now please explain, with proof, why you fucking idiots are addressing an imaginary concept (soul).

Kids are hungry. Feed them. Keep your 'messages' to yourself.

neanderthal
March 8th, 2014, 09:53 PM
The problem with Ryan, Walker, and his ilk, is that their actions speak louder than words.

Their words pretend to be compassionate and caring. Their actions prove otherwise.

And I really admire how Billi pretends he hasn't seen their actions in other arenas. The self censored vision/ hearing/ reading is amusing.

Crazed_Insanity
March 10th, 2014, 08:26 AM
I don't know Ryan well. I only know of him during his VP run. I wasn't going to vote for Mitt and Ryan joining the campaign didn't change my mind. I wasn't particularly impressed with the guy based on the little that I know...

Now, if you're going to judge the guy's actions, go ahead and show his despicable actions. No need to show clips of his words and then try to twist them. By showing his poor actions, wouldn't that be more effective? Fact is that neither the clip nor the article showed anything about the guy saying kids should go hungry. It'd be better and more effective attack to show him trying to take away free lunch for poor kids, right?

Yes, I'm all for letting actions speaking louder than words. Conservatives already are playing plenty of word games. No need to sink to their same level. They need to DO something to get this nation moving forward.

21Kid
March 10th, 2014, 08:27 AM
It really amazes me how the Republican talking heads seem to try and paint Democrats as the ones unwilling to move forward and change... while they have been the ones fighting against inequality and equal rights.


Talking about the president's handling of Iran's nuclear capability, Palin said, "Mr. President, the only thing that stops a bad guy with a nuke is a good guy with a nuke."
Palin criticized the president on issues ranging from Obamacare to the response to the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, to the IRS scandal. She also accused Democrats of "demeaning women" with their policies.
"Hey Democrats! It's your leaders who are demeaning women," Palin said. "Liberals seem to think the women of America are cheap dates."
"I do believe that the eyes of America are open. Unfortunately though, some would want you to hit the snooze button and roll back over. Like 'Hush America, go back to sleep little lambs,'" Palin said.
"I do not like this Uncle Sam. I do not like his healthcare scam," Palin said. "I do not like these dirty crooks or how they lie and cook the books. I do not like when Congress stills. I do not like their crony deals. I do not like the spying man. I do not like 'Oh yes we can.' I do not like this spending spree. We're smart we know there's nothing free. I do not like reporters' smug replies when I complain about their lies. I do not like this kind of hope. And we won't take it, nope, nope, nope. Hat tip the Internet." :rolleyes: It's sad that people listen to this drivel. And even worse that most of the ones that do listen, believe it.

So, Democrats are demeaning women by trying to get them equal pay and Republicans are helping them by voting against it? And by reducing their control over birth control and abortions? :?

And, voting against the ACA over and over, trying to take us back to insurance companies running everything is progress in their opinion? :?

The Benghazi non-scandal and IRS non-scandal are really getting annoying. It's like they can't accept that there is no controversy, so they keep regurgitating the same stuff over and over hoping people start to believe it.

I'd like to say that I'm confused by this approach. But, really I'm not. :| It seems to be their standard MO.


I really would like to not align so much with the Democrats. I would prefer to be somewhere in the middle. But, the Republicans seem to be so out of control crazy lately it is difficult to believe anything they say.

JoshInKC
March 10th, 2014, 03:57 PM
Be fair: The insurance companies still run everything.

21Kid
March 10th, 2014, 04:36 PM
true

21Kid
March 11th, 2014, 08:40 AM
Of course, they only stand for specific principles when they benefit them directly.


Unfortunately, Monday we received news that Governor Christie's administration has gone back on its word to delay a proposed anti-Tesla regulation so that the matter could be handled through a fair process in the Legislature. The Administration has decided to go outside the legislative process by expediting a rule proposal that would completely change the law in New Jersey. This new rule, if adopted, would curtail Tesla's sales operations and jeopardize our existing retail licenses in the state. ... This is an affront to the very concept of a free market.

MR2 Fan
March 11th, 2014, 11:30 AM
from: http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/11/news/companies/tesla-new-jersey/index.html?hpt=hp_t2


Christie has the support of Jim Appleton, who is president of the New Jersey Coalition of Automotive Retailers, also known as NJ Car. Appleton said that Tesla never should have been approved to sell cars directly in New Jersey in the first place.

"Tesla is a wonderful product but unfortunately the company has chosen an unwise and in New Jersey unlawful distribution method," he said.

Appleton explained that dealers protect consumers because "an auto manufacturer is congenitally incapable of fully and faithfully honoring warranty and safety recall obligations."

What a load of utter B.S.

thesameguy
March 11th, 2014, 11:46 AM
I'm not sure I entirely disagree with that statement - I mean, there are plenty examples of manufacturers evading recalls and warranties, but to suggest that dealers are the cure to the problem is laughable. I don't recall NJ Car speaking out about the Prius unintended acceleration situation, or the more recent Cobalt ignition switch issue... where the fuck was Appleton for those consumers? Yeah, dealer associations are leverage against manufacturers, but certainly not for the consumer's well-being.

MR2 Fan
March 11th, 2014, 11:51 AM
Even when the manufacturers issue a recall, good luck trying to get the dealer to fix it! I had a rear latch problem with my scion tC....it was made of plastic and is prone to breaking....Scion/Toyota corporate finally issued a replacement bulletin, but the dealer still wouldn't honor it.

Random
March 11th, 2014, 11:54 AM
"Unwise [...] distribution method"...heh.

Thinking on our discussion in the OR about Toybaru dealers and their no-shits-given approach to selling the GT86 twins, one could pretty easily argue that manufacturer-direct retail is a better way to sell cars, from the manufacturer's perspective. Particularly for a car that is being constantly refined and revised, like the Tesla.