# Politics and News > Rants, Opinions, Observations >  I see it now, GOP establishment is progressive

## Trinnity

Damn, I get it now. The GOP establishment really _is_ progressive. They're just progressive _lite_.

They're attacking Rand Paul. I'll bet Carl Rove himself put the word out to discredit Rand. It really pissed me off that Lindsay Graham called Paul's filiblizzard message "ridiculous" and who was it, Boehner - yes it was Boehner who agreed with Obama that we don't have an immediate debt crisis. Bullshit! 

Why oh why are they determined to push Jeb Bush on us? He'd be a sure bet to lose. 
<I think I know why>
It's like they don't care if the R's don't get a man in the White House....maybe they think they can get the big govt, power, and control and let the dems get the label for it. But I've had it. 

Don't laugh at me - I really thought they deep down believed in the Constitution. Apparently not.
It's all just lip service to get us suckers to vote for them.

I'm doubling down. Not sure what my strategy will be, but I know the direction I'm headed. 
My Senators are gonna be hearing from me soon. I'm watching them.

----------

Mainecoons (03-24-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-24-2013),usfan (03-26-2013),zelmo1234 (03-25-2013)

----------


## Guest

I'm too sick to do this justice today, but "follow the money" and connections.

----------

Gemini (03-26-2013),The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

Me and a few others have been saying this for a while now.  Glad to see you come around.

----------



----------


## garyo

I gave up on them 4yrs ago, I'm voting for Rand Paul whether he runs or not.

----------



----------


## kilgram

GOP is neoconservative or neoliberal* as ever(well from the 50s). And in many points reactionary or also called socially conservative.

* From a point of view of European people.

----------


## ptif219

That is why I have been voting Constitution Party

----------



----------


## Roadmaster

I just have a hard time trusting any party. We need someone that believes in the Constitution.

----------

Fearandloathing (03-24-2013)

----------


## countryboy

> Damn, I get it now. The GOP establishment really _is_ progressive. They're just progressive _lite_.
> 
> They're attacking Rand Paul. I'll bet Carl Rove himself put the word out to discredit Rand. It really pissed me off that Lindsay Graham called Paul's filiblizzard message "ridiculous" and who was it, Boehner - yes it was Boehner who agreed with Obama that we don't have an immediate debt crisis. Bullshit! 
> 
> Why oh why are they determined to push Jeb Bush on us? He'd be a sure bet to lose. 
> <I think I know why>
> It's like they don't care if the R's don't get a man in the White House....maybe they think they can get the big govt, power, and control and let the dems get the label for it. But I've had it. 
> 
> Don't laugh at me - I really thought they deep down believed in the Constitution. Apparently not.
> ...


Please don't tell me you're just seeing the light with regards to Graham. I've had him in the same category as the "usual suspects" for a long time.

----------


## birddog

I will be happy to vote for Rand Paul as the nominee for the Republican Party.

----------

garyo (03-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I will be happy to vote for Rand Paul as the nominee for the Republican Party.


And if it is not him and it's Jeb Bush?

----------


## birddog

> And if it is not him and it's Jeb Bush?


I'm not silly enough to vote for anyone but the R nominee!  I don't want to waste my vote and help the Ds!  Geeez!

----------


## Network

Glovernment is naturally progressive in that it continues to grow and grow like _The Blob_ collecting power and engulfing everything in its path.

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> Please don't tell me you're just seeing the light with regards to Graham. I've had him in the same category as the "usual suspects" for a long time.


Sorry, he just wasn't that much in my radar. He is now.

----------


## Guest

> I'm not silly enough to vote for anyone but the R nominee!  I don't want to waste my vote and help the Ds!  Geeez!


^^What's wrong with this country and why we are failing to hold back progressives.  You'll vote for a known globalist, from a family of CFR members, obvious progressives because there is an (R) in front of his name.  

_And the devil that deceived them will come as an angel of light.
_
You realize people lie to get into power, right?

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## Network

Many true small government people (libertarians/anarchos) will vote for or at least prefer the dems to repubs because of war and social issues, mainly war.

Mr. Libertarian, Rothbard, preferred Lyndon Johnson to Goldwater, one of the most conservative repubs to ever run for president, because he was a foreign policy lunatic, and paraphrasing "the other policies don't really compare to the possibility of using nuclear weapons."  

Walter Block preferred Obama over Romney for the war reason.

----------


## The XL

> ^^What's wrong with this country and why we are failing to hold back progressives.  You'll vote for a known globalist, from a family of CFR members, obvious progressives because there is an (R) in front of his name.  
> 
> _And the devil that deceived them will come as an angel of light.
> _
> You realize people lie to get into power, right?


You're speaking a different language to him.  You're wasting your time.  Some people are lost causes.  If you've been of voting age for 5-6 decades and still haven't figured out that this is all smoke and mirrors, you have no hope.

----------

Gemini (03-26-2013)

----------


## Network

"The libertarian movement has coasted far too long on the intellectually lazy path of failing to make distinctions, or failing to discriminate, of failing to make a rigorous search to distinguish truth from error in the views of those who claim to be its members or allies. It is almost as if any passing joker who mumbles a few words about “freedom” is automatically clasped to our bosom as a member of the one, big, libertarian family. As our movement grows in influence, we can no longer afford the luxury of this intellectual sloth. It is high time to identify Milton Friedman *[substitute Rand Paul Here]* for what he really is. It is high time to call a spade a spade, and a statist a statist."
-From Economic Controversies; Section 7, Chapter 48: Milton Friedman Unraveled
Murray N. Rothbard


 :Hiding:

----------


## birddog

> ^^What's wrong with this country and why we are failing to hold back progressives.  You'll vote for a known globalist, from a family of CFR members, obvious progressives because there is an (R) in front of his name.  
> 
> 
> 
> _And the devil that deceived them will come as an angel of light.
> _
> You realize people lie to get into power, right?


I'm not a bit nieve.  I vote R because it's the only viable choice.  If a third party person showed great polling numbers, I might vote for them.  I voted for Perot in 92 which was a mistake because people like me let Clinton in.  I do believe that if Perot had not got in, then out, then back in again, it could have been different.  He could have got enough E votes to throw it to the House, and could have been elected.  If I think there's a possibility of that happening, I would vote for a good third party candidate.

----------

Canadianeye (03-25-2013),usfan (03-26-2013)

----------


## Guest

> I'm not a bit nieve.  I vote R because it's the only viable choice.  If a third party person showed great polling numbers, I might vote for them.  I voted for Perot in 92 which was a mistake because people like me let Clinton in.  I do believe that if Perot had not got in, then out, then back in again, it could have been different.  He could have got enough E votes to throw it to the House, and could have been elected.  If I think there's a possibility of that happening, I would vote for a good third party candidate.


And I'm asking you what makes Jeb Bush a Republican.  I can say I'm a Democrat to get elected in New York, but it doesn't make me one.  You're proving my point that labels are more important than substance, which is what is wrong with the country.

And Ross Perot could not have won because he was too short and funny looking.  People pick candidates for strange reasons.

----------


## Network

I didn't vote and let Bush the Younger into office.  

Then he increased the size, scope and spending of the Feddies more than nearly any president in history, rewrote the Bill of Rights, and started two pointless, costly and still ongoing wars.  And small government conservatives got the blame for all of this.

----------

usfan (03-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> I'm not a bit nieve.  I vote R because it's the only viable choice.  If a third party person showed great polling numbers, I might vote for them.  I voted for Perot in 92 which was a mistake because people like me let Clinton in.  I do believe that if Perot had not got in, then out, then back in again, it could have been different.  He could have got enough E votes to throw it to the House, and could have been elected.  If I think there's a possibility of that happening, I would vote for a good third party candidate.


What makes a Romney or a Bush preferable to Obama?

----------


## The XL

I hate to toot my own horn, but why is something so simple that I figured it out as a minor impossible for all of you Democrats and Republicans to figure out?

The game is rigged.  They're all bought puppets.  The 3 branches of government for the most part do not act on their own, they're all controlled by bankers and other special interests.  Democrats and Republicans wind up doing the same things, and usually vote in unison when they want to strike a critical blow to the Constitution.  I could go on and on.

Wake up.

----------

Gemini (03-26-2013)

----------


## Network

It's worth looking at the long-term implications of elections.  If there is very little difference between the two candidates/parties and you think one of them (both) are heading the wrong way, you want the blame to be placed on the party who at least admits that they believe in big government solutions, not the Trojan Horse representing the "Republic".

----------


## birddog

> What makes a Romney or a Bush preferable to Obama?


Silliest question I have been asked in a while!

First of all, I don't question the legality of either being eligible for the presidency.  I  would also prefer them making federal judge appointments.  I would more trust their protecting the Second Amendment.  I believe the military would appreciate them more as CIC.  I believe they would represent our country better on the world stage.  I believe they would be better at making us energy independent with our fossil resources. etc

----------


## kilgram

Do you know the term bipartidism? 

Do you know anything of the period called "Liberalism" that had many countries in Europe, for example Spain? There were two parties: The Liberals and the Conservative and some other period the Progressive and the Conservative. Do you sense any familiarity?

----------


## Network

> I hate to toot my own horn, but why is something so simple that I figured it out as a minor impossible for all of you Democrats and Republicans to figure out?
> 
> The game is rigged.  They're all bought puppets.  The 3 branches of government for the most part do not act on their own, they're all controlled by bankers and other special interests.  Democrats and Republicans wind up doing the same things, and usually vote in unison when they want to strike a critical blow to the Constitution.  I could go on and on.
> 
> Wake up.



Because you're part of the generation of the internet revolution where information pours in from every direction.  You haven't spent decades under the belief that there is really a war going on between two political factions in America, and watched every game and felt every defeat suffered by your team.

The better question is why are many/most of the younger people still statists?

----------

usfan (03-26-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Silliest question I have been asked in a while!
> 
> First of all, I don't question the legality of either being eligible for the presidency.  I  would also prefer them making federal judge appointments.  I would more trust their protecting the Second Amendment.  I believe the military would appreciate them more as CIC.  I believe they would represent our country better on the world stage.  I believe they would be better at making us energy independent with our fossil resources. etc


LOL. Energy independent with fossil resources? That is intelligence  :Smile: 

And when you finish the fossil resources...?

What to the countries are giving more independence are the renewable, that hated thing among conservatives. Imagine having your own production of electricity with solar panels...

----------


## birddog

> LOL. Energy independent with fossil resources? That is intelligence 
> 
> And when you finish the fossil resources...?
> 
> What to the countries are giving more independence are the renewable, that hated thing among conservatives. Imagine having your own production of electricity with solar panels...


Wishful thinking can be left to the liberals as far as I'm concerned.  Our oil, coal, and gas reserves can last us hundreds of years, and we can gradually work in alternatives over say the next 50 years.

----------

countryboy (03-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Silliest question I have been asked in a while!
> 
> First of all, I don't question the legality of either being eligible for the presidency.  I  would also prefer them making federal judge appointments.  I would more trust their protecting the Second Amendment.  I believe the military would appreciate them more as CIC.  I believe they would represent our country better on the world stage.  I believe they would be better at making us energy independent with our fossil resources. etc


1. Chief Justice Roberts--nuff said
2. The military of the Iraq and Afghan war generation, that would be people like my husband and @Ethereal, don't have a lot of respect for Bush and Cheney or any of the current crop of Republicans.  They voted in Ron Paul as their choice.  It is a whole different generation.  My husband started a conservative and came back a libertarian, as did @Ethereal, Bluespade, Anikdote, My Fing ID, etc 
3. Why didn't they do anything to secure it during their administrations or within the Congress?

Because they are globalists.  They don't care about the future of the United States because the entire Bush family is embedded into the idea of a New World Order.  They talked about it all the time, but keep plugging your ears.

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

> 1. Chief Justice Roberts--nuff said
> 2. The military of the Iraq and Afghan war generation, that would be people like my husband and @Ethereal, don't have a lot of respect for Bush and Cheney or any of the current crop of Republicans.  They voted in Ron Paul as their choice.  It is a whole different generation.  My husband started a conservative and came back a libertarian, as did @Ethereal, Bluespade, Anikdote, My Fing ID, etc 
> 3. Why didn't they do anything to secure it during their administrations or within the Congress?
> 
> Because they are globalists.  They don't care about the future of the United States because the entire Bush family is embedded into the idea of a New World Order.  They talked about it all the time, but keep plugging your ears.


This, pretty much.

----------


## kilgram

> Wishful thinking can be left to the liberals as far as I'm concerned.  Our oil, coal, and gas reserves can last us hundreds of years, and we can gradually work in alternatives over say the next 50 years.


Are you sure about that?

And why use toxic resources when you can use clean resources? Oh, yeah, you don't care about the future, just the present, typical of bad politicians and reactionary.

That is not wishful thinking, that is practical thinking. The renewable technologies in many areas are advanced and even have much better performance than pollutive resources like coal.

----------


## birddog

> Are you sure about that?
> 
> And why use toxic resources when you can use clean resources? Oh, yeah, you don't care about the future, just the present, typical of bad politicians and reactionary.
> 
> That is not wishful thinking, that is practical thinking. The renewable technologies in many areas are advanced and even have much better performance than pollutive resources like coal.


I believe myself to be MUCH more practical than you.  If you want to wallow in "pollyannyism," it's fine with me.

----------


## Guest

> I believe myself to be MUCH more practical than you.  If you want to wallow in "pollyannyism," it's fine with me.


But you're kinda doing that.  With all due respect, you seem to be looking the other way to every progressive, globalist, selling out the constitution and America thing the Republicans do and vote knee jerk (R).  It's like you believe no one ever lies to get you to do something they want.

You haven't looked at the Republican record at all.

I have said this before, but I'm really surprised more Republicans weren't knocked up after prom night because they seem to believe everything people tell them.

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## birddog

> But you're kinda doing that.  With all due respect, you seem to be looking the other way to every progressive, globalist, selling out the constitution and America thing the Republicans do and vote knee jerk (R).  It's like you believe no one ever lies to get you to do something they want.
> 
> You haven't looked at the Republican record at all.
> 
> I have said this before, but I'm really surprised more Republicans weren't knocked up after prom night because they seem to believe everything people tell them.



I disagree.  I must be smart because I don't believe everything you say. :Thinking: 
 :Smiley20:

----------


## Guest

> I disagree.  I must be smart because I don't believe everything you say.


Yeh, I'm not buying that.  

If you disagree and you know so much why don't you start throwing out some facts?  What did Bush do to limit the size of government?

Provide a few examples to support your point and I can do that same.

Wanna try this experiment?

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

Do any of these things sound conservative?

1.    Increased the budget for the Dept. of Education
2.    Designated three huge new marine preserve
3.    Cut taxes on the poor
4.    Cut taxes on the middle class
5.    Increased money for Medicare
6.    Signed McCain-Feingold into law
7.    Increased aid to Africa
8.    Steered us through the aftermath of 9/11
9.    Rebounded from the post-9/11 recession
10.    Kept interest rates low, helping lower-income borrowers
11.    Did more than any president before him to measure, track, and   invest in the achievement of black and Latino children.
12.    Advocated the importance of human dignity and freedom from repression
13.     Increased spending on Federal Government programs by 68%
14.    Increased help for rural farmers
15.    Increased government spending on healthcare 44%
16.    Increased spending on education by 47%
17.    Helped seniors pay for prescription drugs
18.    Never claimed the president has the power to assassinate American Citizens without any judicial review
19.    Teamed up with Ted Kennedy on No Child Left Behind
20.    More than doubled funding for poor schools
21.    Raised scores on standardized tests overall
22.    Lessened the achievement gap among whites and minorities on standardized tests
23.    Didn't go to war with hundreds of countries, including Iran or North Korea
24.    Improved information-sharing across agencies
25.    Set the timetable for exiting Iraq, which was then followed by the next president
26.    Iran didn't get a nuclear weapon under Bush, despite not invading Iran
27.    Spent new aid money specifically to fight Aids/HIV, Malaria, and TB across the world
28.    Led a bipartisan coalition, with the support of Democratic  Senator John Kerry, to create a program called the President's Emergency  Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR).
29.    Took a diplomatic lead in Sudan and secured a north-south peace agreement
30.    Did not privatize Social Security
31.    Deported fewer illegal immigrants than his successor
32.    Immigration proposal supported by Democrats
33.    Increased funding for the Land and Water Conservation Fund, which  purchases development rights or land in environmentally sensitive areas
34.    Did not rescind Clinton's directive requiring manufacturers of  heavy-duty trucks and buses to reduce diesel emissions by more than 90  percent and refiners to reduce sulfur in diesel fuel by 97 percent, to  15 ppm.
35.    Embraced a Clinton initiative to subsidize cleanup of "abandoned" urban toxic sites
36.    Sought $4.9 Billion for national parks
37.    "Clear Skies" initiative, which requires reductions of 70 percent  in emissions of three of the worst air pollutants (nitrogen oxides,  sulfur dioxide and mercury) by 2018.
38.    Allocated about $1.8 billion for the Hanford Nuclear Reservation Cleanup in Washington State
39.    signed a treaty under which the United States will share civil nuclear fuel and technology with India.
40.    Economic Stimulus Act of 2008
41.    The Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002
42.    Signed The Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act, co-authored by Democrat Ron Wyden
43.    Signed the do-not-call Implementation Act
44.    Signed the PROTECT Act of 2003 (Prosecutorial Remedies and Other Tools to end the Exploitation of Children Today Act)
45.    Signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act of 2003, the first United  States federal law passed dealing with the sexual assault of prisoners,  co-authored by Ted Kennedy, Diane Feinstein and Dick Durbin, and  supported by Human Rights Watch.
46.    Signed the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation  Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (Public Law 109-59; SAFETEA-LU) is a  funding and authorization bill that governs United States federal  surface transportation spending
47.    Signed the Pension Protection Act of 2006, which includes more  disclosures to workers about the performance of their pensions and  extends contribution limits to 401(k)'s
48.    Appropriated money for Katrina disaster relief
49.    Raised Federal minimum wage from $5.15/hour to $7.25/hour
50.    Signed The Energy Improvement and Extension Act of 2008 which  contained a new tax credit for plug-in hybrid electric vehicles, and  extended existing tax credits for renewable energy initiatives,  including cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel development, and wind, solar,  geothermal and hydro-electric power

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## The XL

Oh, I await this response.

----------


## Network

Sounds Conservative to Me!

It's what they do, so I guess that makes it conservative.

That's why I pee on conservatism.

----------


## birddog

Compared to what's been going on in the last four years, many of the examples are certainly comparably conservative.  I believe Bush spent too much, and should have been more conservative.  I'm in favor of across the board true cuts in the budget.

However, to imply that Obama is no worse than Bush or Romney is just downright silly IMHO.

----------


## Guest

> Compared to what's been going on in the last four years, many of the examples are certainly comparably conservative.  I believe Bush spent too much, and should have been more conservative.  I'm in favor of across the board true cuts in the budget.
> 
> However, to imply that Obama is no worse than Bush or Romney is just downright silly IMHO.


Cato is a conservative think tank

http://www.cato.org/publications/whi...-george-w-bush

Unfortunately, far from defending the Constitution, President Bush  has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on  federal power. In its official legal briefs and public actions, the Bush  administration has advanced a view of federal power that is  astonishingly broad, a view that includes

a federal government empowered to regulate core political speech—and  restrict it greatly when it counts the most: in the days before a  federal election;a president who cannot be restrained, through validly enacted  statutes, from pursuing any tactic he believes to be effective in the  war on terror;a president who has the inherent constitutional authority to  designate American citizens suspected of terrorist activity as “enemy  combatants,” strip them of any constitutional protection, and lock them  up without charges for the duration of the war on terror— in other  words, perhaps forever; anda federal government with the power to supervise virtually every  aspect of American life, from kindergarten, to marriage, to the grave.
 President Bush’s constitutional vision is, in short, sharply at odds  with the text, history, and structure of our Constitution, which  authorizes a government of limited powers.

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Compared to what's been going on in the last four years, many of the examples are certainly comparably conservative.  I believe Bush spent too much, and should have been more conservative.  I'm in favor of across the board true cuts in the budget.
> 
> However, to imply that Obama is no worse than Bush or Romney is just downright silly IMHO.


Obama would have ZERO to work with were it not for Bush.  They tag teamed each other, but...hey, keep on voting in progressives that stick together in the Congress because they're smart enough to put an (R) in front of their name.

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## birddog

> Obama would have ZERO to work with were it not for Bush.  They tag teamed each other, but...hey, keep on voting in progressives that stick together in the Congress because they're smart enough to put an (R) in front of their name.


Until something more viable comes along, I will do so.  I will now concentate on the basketball tournament, which makes more sense.

----------


## Network

That's right RD, you tell 'em.

Go ahead and vote for Judas Paul, who endorsed plastic man, speaks hardly any truth, and wants sanctions against the Iranian people because their leader will not capitulate to the Old World Order.

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Until something more viable comes along, I will do so.  I will now concentate on the basketball tournament, which makes more sense.


Well, thanks for voting for the rise of the global New World Order.

----------


## Guest

> That's right RD, you tell 'em.
> 
> Go ahead and vote for Judas Paul, who endorsed plastic man, speaks hardly any truth, and wants sanctions against the Iranian people because their leader will not capitulate to the Old World Order.


Here we go...

----------

The XL (03-24-2013)

----------


## Network

The message you're speaking to birddog is only your subconscious speaking to you.

I done went.

----------


## The XL

> Until something more viable comes along, I will do so.  I will now concentate on the basketball tournament, which makes more sense.


You can both not be a political retard and watch your basketball. 

I somehow manage to do it.

----------


## Guest

> The message you're speaking to birddog is only your subconscious speaking to you.
> 
> I done went.

----------


## Network

Tranny escape hatch for infiltrators.  I'm onto you.

Totally kidding.  I'm a neo-tea partier now, don't you know?

----------


## Guest

> Tranny escape hatch for infiltrators.  I'm onto you.
> 
> Totally kidding.  I'm a neo-tea partier now, don't you know?


Well, I'm not joining anything.  I'm looking at people right now who can help right now.  Honestly we don't have four years.

----------


## Network

> Well, I'm not joining anything.  I'm looking at people right now who can help right now.  Honestly we don't have four years.



No one can turn it around.  We're done.  Let the blame be placed on the correct cause.

I'm voting for Hillary.

----------



----------


## Fearandloathing

> I'm not silly enough to vote for anyone but the R nominee!  I don't want to waste my vote and help the Ds!  Geeez!


You do the Republicans no good by voting for a candidate that does not support your world view.  The United States will remain mired in an outdated two party system forever unless and until Americans stop idolizing the office of the president.

Here's the reality.  With about 25% of the popular vote, strategically placed you can elect enough reps and, over six years, enough senators to be able to veto anything.  It is called holding the balance of power; it has produced some of the best government in the history of the planet, especially in the parliamentary system where the governing party is in a minority.

The days of a Theodore Roosevelt or a Ronald Reagan riding out of the sunset are over.  The new reality is that democracy has to be waged, and waged in the trenches district by district.  

Then you will have recognition of the constitution as the president will be at the pleasure of congress; as it was intended by the founding fathers.

The way to prevent another little tin god like Obama is to take ownership of congress and make the White House accountable again.

----------



----------


## Network



----------



----------


## Mainecoons

No more bushes!

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Here's the problem with continuing to vote for the same party regardless of who the candidate is and what they support, @birddog. It's _not possible_ to just "hold" their "feet to the fire." You know why? Because they know that they can get you to vote for them no matter what as long as they can make you hate the Democrats more. They know that they could run Barack Obama as a Republican and *you would vote for him*. So why the hell should they put up someone that actually believes in you, rather than the other way around?

You are contributing not just to the election of bad Democrats like Obama, but the nomination of bad Republicans like McCain and Romney. 

No, sir. My vote for the Green Party is not a wasted vote, because I'm voting for what I believe. My vote for Ron Paul is not a wasted vote, because I'm voting for what I believe in. But you? You vote for a title, not principles. 

That is a truly wasted vote.

----------

Fearandloathing (03-25-2013),Mainecoons (03-25-2013),St James (03-25-2013)

----------


## birddog

> Here's the problem with continuing to vote for the same party regardless of who the candidate is and what they support, @birddog. It's _not possible_ to just "hold" their "feet to the fire." You know why? Because they know that they can get you to vote for them no matter what as long as they can make you hate the Democrats more. They know that they could run Barack Obama as a Republican and *you would vote for him*. So why the hell should they put up someone that actually believes in you, rather than the other way around?
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about, but that's your privilege.  
> 
> You are contributing not just to the election of bad Democrats like Obama, but the nomination of bad Republicans like McCain and Romney. 
> 
> No, sir. My vote for the Green Party is not a wasted vote, because I'm voting for what I believe. My vote for Ron Paul is not a wasted vote, because I'm voting for what I believe in. But you? You vote for a title, not principles. 
> 
> That is a truly wasted vote.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You don't know what you are talking about, but that's your privilege.


I know exactly what I'm talking about. You know what my evidence is? In this entire thread, not once have you defended - actually defended - your vote for the GOP. You just deflect, say we don't know what we're on about. In reality, we do, and you know we're right. You've just convinced yourself that it doesn't matter.

----------


## countryboy

> The renewable technologies in many areas are advanced and even have much better performance than pollutive resources like coal.


Examples?

----------


## birddog

> I know exactly what I'm talking about. You know what my evidence is? In this entire thread, not once have you defended - actually defended - your vote for the GOP. You just deflect, say we don't know what we're on about. In reality, we do, and you know we're right. You've just convinced yourself that it doesn't matter.


You sound like a Progressive yourself.  You don't appreciate another's opinion even though your evidence is sorely lacking also.  I'm not a defender of the Bushes, status quo, or whatever.  I am just practical, not a wide eyed idealist like some.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You sound like a Progressive yourself.  You don't appreciate another's opinion even though your evidence is sorely lacking also.  I'm not a defender of the Bushes, status quo, or whatever.  I am just practical, not a wide eyed idealist like some.


I hate modern progressives, actually. But no, I'm both an idealist and practical. However, I also recognize the inherent, PRACTICAL problems concerning voting. I would be more than happy to enlighten you as to what those are...but I suspect you may not be interested.

At any rate, I never claimed you were a Bush defender. I just pointed out that you will vote Republican regardless who the candidate is.

----------

Mainecoons (03-25-2013),St James (03-25-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

> Silliest question I have been asked in a while!
> 
> First of all, I don't question the legality of either being eligible for the presidency.  I  would also prefer them making federal judge appointments.  I would more trust their protecting the Second Amendment.  I believe the military would appreciate them more as CIC.  I believe they would represent our country better on the world stage.  I believe they would be better at making us energy independent with our fossil resources. etc


 The silliest question, really? LOfuckingL Where do I even start? Alright, how about this: Why is it that you choose to believe a guy like Romney when he says what you want him to say about issues such as abortion, gun control, healthcare, even though he's a politician (a defeater for the belief that he's telling the truth), he has a history of acting in a way, and enacting legislation that is contrary to what you want him to say (another defeater for the belief that he's telling the truth), and he only began to say those things while running in a Republican primary (a defeater for the belief that he was telling the truth at the time)?

A second question:

Why does it seem that you disregard all the issues on which Obama and Romney agree even though those issues greatly outnumber the ones on which they agree?

----------


## Maximatic

> Damn, I get it now. The GOP establishment really _is_ progressive. They're just progressive _lite_.
> 
> They're attacking Rand Paul. I'll bet Carl Rove himself put the word out to discredit Rand. It really pissed me off that Lindsay Graham called Paul's filiblizzard message "ridiculous" and who was it, Boehner - yes it was Boehner who agreed with Obama that we don't have an immediate debt crisis. Bullshit! 
> 
> Why oh why are they determined to push Jeb Bush on us? He'd be a sure bet to lose. 
> <I think I know why>
> It's like they don't care if the R's don't get a man in the White House....maybe they think they can get the big govt, power, and control and let the dems get the label for it. But I've had it. 
> 
> Don't laugh at me - I really thought they deep down believed in the Constitution. Apparently not.
> ...


This is just wonderful news, @Trinnity! You're on your way to becoming a great Voluntarist. For proper anarcho-capitalist education and indoctrination you can frequent mises.org. If you find the website disorganized, confusing and boring, you're not alone. Fortunately, there's always their youtube channel. If you find the lectures boring, just watch all the Tom Woods videos, he's not boring, he's funny, and he'll teach you about history, and something about Austrian Economics. Bob Murphy is not boring either, and he'll teach you more about economics.

Here are a couple of our popular and scholarly popularizers. Woods works on the scholarly and the popular fronts.

----------


## kilgram

> Examples?


For example wind energy. Has better performance than coal.

----------


## birddog

> The silliest question, really? LOfuckingL Where do I even start? Alright, how about this: Why is it that you choose to believe a guy like Romney when he says what you want him to say about issues such as abortion, gun control, healthcare, even though he's a politician (a defeater for the belief that he's telling the truth), he has a history of acting in a way, and enacting legislation that is contrary to what you want him to say (another defeater for the belief that he's telling the truth), and he only began to say those things while running in a Republican primary (a defeater for the belief that he was telling the truth at the time)?
> 
> A second question:
> 
> Why does it seem that you disregard all the issues on which Obama and Romney agree even though those issues greatly outnumber the ones on which they agree?


I have never said I believed everything ANY politician says.  Your second question makes no sense.  I will vote for the viable candidate that can defeat the Democrat.

----------


## countryboy

> For example wind energy. Has better performance than coal.


No, I mean actual examples. Can you be more specific?

----------


## Guest

> You sound like a Progressive yourself.  You don't appreciate another's opinion even though your evidence is sorely lacking also.  I'm not a defender of the Bushes, status quo, or whatever.  I am just practical, not a wide eyed idealist like some.


You are not practical.  There is nothing practical about wanting a salad for dinner, but eating a shit sandwich because someone said there is a little lettuce in there somewhere.

You vote for progressives.  Own it.

----------

littlejohn (03-25-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

I know one sure way that the modern liberal progressives will continually win as Democrats in this new era of voter fraud and shifting media sources of knowledge. (and everyone who hasn't just been following politics for the length of a good piss, *KNOWS* what the modern liberal progressives have done to many nations over the decades.)

*Split the conservative Republican base*, which happens to have some progs in it as well.

----------


## Guest

> I know one sure way that the modern liberal progressives will continually win as Democrats in this new era of voter fraud and shifting media sources of knowledge. (and everyone who hasn't just been following politics for the length of a good piss, *KNOWS* what the modern liberal progressives have done to many nations over the decades.)
> 
> *Split the conservative Republican base*, which happens to have some progs in it as well.


It has more than some, Canadianeye.  Look at the voting record, not what they say.  It's sad and pathetic.

----------


## Guest

It's a long read, but it is pretty much about the progressive infiltration of the Republican Party in Maine

http://undercoverporcupine.bangordai...ike-democrats/

----------


## Mainecoons

I'm come to the point where I've realized that supporting Democrat Lite is a form of insanity, voting the same way over and over again expecting a different result.  I'm with you TRAT.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> And why use toxic resources when you can use clean resources? Oh, yeah, you don't care about the future, just the present, typical of bad politicians and reactionary.


America is among the cleaner countries in the world.

----------


## kilgram

> No, I mean actual examples. Can you be more specific?


For example the Spanish production of electricity or the German. In Spain many times most of the production was by wind. That is an actual example, or not?

----------


## Fearandloathing

> You sound like a Progressive yourself.  You don't appreciate another's opinion even though your evidence is sorely lacking also.  I'm not a defender of the Bushes, status quo, or whatever.  I am just practical, not a wide eyed idealist like some.


With all due respect @birddog , we still haven't seen a defense of how your blind support of a party, regardless of candidate benefits anyone but the party and a corrupt system.

Sorry, but it this isn't junior high school, shouting "you don't know what you're talking about" doesn't cut it.  Either defend your position with in a clear manner or ...well you know the next too words.....

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I know one sure way that the modern liberal progressives will continually win as Democrats in this new era of voter fraud and shifting media sources of knowledge. (and everyone who hasn't just been following politics for the length of a good piss, *KNOWS* what the modern liberal progressives have done to many nations over the decades.)
> 
> *Split the conservative Republican base*, which happens to have some progs in it as well.


Some? Nigga please. Over half (and that's being charitable) of federally elected Republicans (and even some governors) are neo-progs.

----------



----------


## birddog

> With all due respect @birddog , we still haven't seen a defense of how your blind support of a party, regardless of candidate benefits anyone but the party and a corrupt system.
> 
> Sorry, but it this isn't junior high school, shouting "you don't know what you're talking about" doesn't cut it.  Either defend your position with in a clear manner or ...well you know the next too words.....


I believe I did defend them, Fed judges, Second amendment etc.  I trust any R more in several important areas then a D.  One or the other will be elected.  I prefer a slice of pie to a tiny sliver.

----------


## Guest

> I believe I did defend them, Fed judges, Second amendment etc.  I trust any R more in several important areas then a D.  One or the other will be elected.  I prefer a slice of pie to a tiny sliver.


You really didn't if those are your defenses.

Chief Justice Roberts is a progressive.

McCain is teaming up with Schumer on gun control.

I can cite many more examples, but its a waste of time because you choose not to be informed.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013),The XL (03-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I believe I did defend them, Fed judges, Second amendment etc.  I trust any R more in several important areas then a D.  One or the other will be elected.  I prefer a slice of pie to a tiny sliver.


But you're not defending them on that basis, you're just saying that it is your opinion that that is what they stand for. You don't offer a logical counter to the fact that Chief Justice Roberts is a progressive Republican appointed by a progressive Republican. You didn't offer a logical counter to the fact that multiple Republican Senators and Representatives are siding with Democrats on gun control.

You've been date raped, but are too infatuated with the guy to dump him.

----------



----------


## birddog

"I shan't cast pearls before swine!" comes to mind, but no offense intended.  My opinion is important to me, and I believe evidence supports it if you are open-minded to it.  I'm not trying to persuade anyone here to vote differently, but I do have the right to look at reality differently.  The end.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> "I shan't cast pearls before swine!" comes to mind, but no offense intended.  My opinion is important to me, and I believe evidence supports it if you are open-minded to it.  I'm not trying to persuade anyone here to vote differently, but I do have the right to look at reality differently.  The end.


I have done nothing to take that right from you. I'm merely suggesting that your perception of "reality" is wrong.

----------


## The XL

> "I shan't cast pearls before swine!" comes to mind, but no offense intended.  My opinion is important to me, and I believe evidence supports it if you are open-minded to it.  I'm not trying to persuade anyone here to vote differently, but I do have the right to look at reality differently.  The end.


It's fine if you feel that way, but you haven't really cited anything backing up your assertion.

----------


## Canadianeye

So, let's break down the options.

A vote for R is out.
A vote for D is out.
A vote for libertarian takes from the Rs.
Ds win.

Plan of attack is too have the non progressive small government victory.

But wait. The TPer grass roots movement is hated as well apparently...and they are small government. Hmmm.

So vote libertarian, and hope that it will morph into such a powerhouse party and wipe away the GOP, and eventually the voting fraud, minority voting plantation, big government union based  etc....DEMs as well, because they are suddenly going to get a conscience and their purchased media will as well I presume. (remember kids what they did to Doctor Paul)

Other than this being the Dems wet dream, is there some sort of time frame in mind that people have for this absolutely magical shifting of dynamics in America...that can't incorporate TPers who want exactly the same thing? (Really, really odd that) 2024? 2030? 2038? 2050?

Romney couldn't have been that bad in comparison to this completely out of control Obama admin. I mean...Rand Paul endorsed Romney, and he is a trusted one, _now_....correct?

3,575(for budgetary purposes) is *my* magic number. That is how many *warriors* are working for the Pharaoh on blogs, forums, twitter, facebook etc. With nics/aliases, more like 10,000 in appearance they approximate.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> So, let's break down the options.
> 
> A vote for R is out.
> A vote for D is out.
> A vote for libertarian takes from the Rs.
> Ds win.
> 
> Plan of attack is too have the non progressive small government victory.
> 
> ...


I can simplify it for you: vote for principle, regardless of party. If everyone did that, there would be no Obamas, or McCains, or Grahams, or Bushes, or Clintons. There would be Pauls, Steins, Kuciniches, Johnsons (as in, Gary, not Lyndon), etc. 

Unless you believe conservative voters actually want progressives...

----------

kilgram (03-25-2013),littlejohn (03-25-2013)

----------


## The XL

Rand Paul endorsing Romney is one of the reasons why I'm not sold on him yet.

You know what?  Most of the country is statist.  Republicans could have nominated Ron Paul, but they went for Romney.  How the fuck can you basically call Obama the AntiChrist and nominate someone identical to him?

The only voting blocks worth a damn in the Republican party is 18-29 and to a lesser extent, 30-40.  Most of the 40+  year old Republicans are progressives who vote for fuckheads like Romney.  Lost causes, the lot of you.

Growing older hasn't made most of you wiser, at all.

----------


## kilgram

> Rand Paul endorsing Romney is one of the reasons why I'm not sold on him yet.
> 
> You know what?  Most of the country is statist.  Republicans could have nominated Ron Paul, but they went for Romney.  How the fuck can you basically call Obama the AntiChrist and nominate someone identical to him?
> 
> The only voting blocks worth a damn in the Republican party is 18-29 and to a lesser extent, 30-40.  Most of the 40+  year old Republicans are progressives who vote for fuckheads like Romney.  Lost causes, the lot of you.
> 
> Growing older hasn't made most of you wiser, at all.


Growing older has made you become more conservative. That is what they say. And conservative means keep the status quo.

----------

littlejohn (03-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Growing older has made you become more conservative. That is what they say. And conservative means keep the status quo.


Yeah, but that quote is about as bullshit as the statistic that conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1.

----------


## Guest

> So, let's break down the options.
> 
> A vote for R is out.
> A vote for D is out.
> A vote for libertarian takes from the Rs.
> Ds win.


A vote for libertarian takes away from progressives.  Progressives are both R and Ds.  I think maybe you don't get this living in Canada, but the Republicans here act like progressives.  I have presented evidence over and over, but its that damn mind control single point propaganda that sticks in people's brains.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013),The XL (03-25-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Growing older has made you become more conservative. That is what they say. And conservative means keep the status quo.


Not at all.  Status quo now is Big Brother, Orweillian state--for our own good, of course, forced tolerance to the point of criminal offense for saying the wrong word (just like in Demolition Man), half your paycheck being taken by the government to fund their corporatist state.

You are living in 1918 if you think that conservative means status quo.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Damn, I get it now. The GOP establishment really _is_ progressive. They're just progressive _lite_.
> 
> They're attacking Rand Paul. I'll bet Carl Rove himself put the word out to discredit Rand. It really pissed me off that Lindsay Graham called Paul's filiblizzard message "ridiculous" and who was it, Boehner - yes it was Boehner who agreed with Obama that we don't have an immediate debt crisis. Bullshit! 
> 
> Why oh why are they determined to push Jeb Bush on us? He'd be a sure bet to lose. 
> <I think I know why>
> It's like they don't care if the R's don't get a man in the White House....maybe they think they can get the big govt, power, and control and let the dems get the label for it. But I've had it. 
> 
> Don't laugh at me - I really thought they deep down believed in the Constitution. Apparently not.
> ...



...conservative views and female/women don't go together...so if you want to remain in power and make it through the power change going on in the US (from males to females) then you better smarten up and go with the flow...the only person I know of that even admits this is going on is Rush, but even he is still vauge enough not to loose certain listeners...times are a changing...it makes me laugh when Lars Larson screams bloody murder about liberals taking over yet he won't mention the root cause, male vs female ideals...

----------


## Guest

> ...conservative views and female/women don't go together...so if you want to remain in power and make it through the power change going on in the US (from males to females) then you better smarten up and go with the flow...the only person I know of that even admits this is going on is Rush, but even he is still vauge enough not to loose certain listeners...times are a changing...it makes me laugh when Lars Larson screams bloody murder about liberals taking over yet he won't mention the root cause, male vs female ideals...


Yeh, no!



The majority of our Congress and all our presidents have been men.  Progressive men.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...conservative views and female/women don't go together...so if you want to remain in power and make it through the power change going on in the US (from males to females) then you better smarten up and go with the flow...the only person I know of that even admits this is going on is Rush, but even he is still vauge enough not to loose certain listeners...times are a changing...it makes me laugh when Lars Larson screams bloody murder about liberals taking over yet he won't mention the root cause, male vs female ideals...


Lol. Joe, I can always rely on you for a good laugh. You so silly.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yeh, no!
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of our Congress and all our presidents have been men.  Progressive men.


Gawd, you're such a woman. Grow a dick like Joe and lissen. Female/woman isn't referring to actual physical women.

----------


## Guest

> Gawd, you're such a woman. Grow a dick like Joe and lissen. Female/woman isn't referring to actual physical women.


Is he referring to wimmin?

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

> Lol. Joe, I can always rely on you for a good laugh. You so silly.


No kidding. There has been no massive feminizing of western cultures, that (as_ it doesn't_ happen) stands in stark contrast, with impact on ME/African nations...and their predominant "religion". /chuckle.

You crazy guy Kabuki Joe, saying such things about gender shifts and political impacts...and stuff. LOL

----------


## Guest

I don't agree there is a feminizing of men.  Women were told to be more masculine, take on masculine traits.  There is a shift to transhumanism and gender-neutral, if anything.

----------


## littlejohn

> Growing older has made you become more conservative. That is what they say. And conservative means *keep the status quo*.


I think growing older makes you more careful, and possibly more thoughtful. Those two traits could be, and maybe typically are considered as conservative traits. The older you are, the more you have seen. A natural skepticism results from that amount of experience. 
Thus, an older,  careful and thoughtful person takes longer to accept new things. They like to be very sure of things. 

We never knew why our parents behaved the way they did, but now we know.

----------


## The XL

> I think growing older makes you more careful, and possibly more thoughtful. Those two traits could be, and maybe typically are considered as conservative traits. The older you are, the more you have seen. A natural skepticism results from that amount of experience. 
> Thus, an older,  careful and thoughtful person takes longer to accept new things. They like to be very sure of things. 
> 
> We never knew why our parents behaved the way they did, but now we know.


For a smart person, I think growing older is a good thing.  For a dumb person, however, it makes you even worse than when you were younger, because you believe yourself to be wiser, when in reality, it isn't so, and it makes you more hard headed.

I mean, how many fucking decades will it take for the older Republican base to not vote for progressives like Romney, Bush, McCain, and yes, even Reagan?  Who's next?  Jeb Bush?

For Gods sake older Republicans, get your shit together.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Is he referring to wimmin?


Of course. Wimmin is entirely different than female/woman. He's not sexist.

----------


## kilgram

> Not at all.  Status quo now is Big Brother, Orweillian state--for our own good, of course, forced tolerance to the point of criminal offense for saying the wrong word (just like in Demolition Man), half your paycheck being taken by the government to fund their corporatist state.
> 
> You are living in 1918 if you think that conservative means status quo.


Conservative means status quo. And yeah, many old people what they want is to keep their status quo. So yes. 

For me, conservative is keeping the system that now exists, no changes, even reactionary, opposing to changes that the society has.

For me conservative and any European is that. And I have to say that I don't see many differences between American and European conservative. 

All that of free market, and things like that are purely accessory ideas, that not form part of the real core of the conservatism. Just to make it more beautiful.

PS: You are not conservative in any way. Conservative is the government of Spain, for example. That is an example of conservative government with members of the Opus Dei and other Christian sects and that they apply reactionary laws like reintroducing religion as in the education, defending the "toros"...

----------


## kilgram

> No kidding. There has been no massive feminizing of western cultures, that (as_ it doesn't_ happen) stands in stark contrast, with impact on ME/African nations...and their predominant "religion". /chuckle.
> 
> You crazy guy Kabuki Joe, saying such things about gender shifts and political impacts...and stuff. LOL


???
I laugh of this.

How many nonsense. And what is keeping masculine treats? The sexist treats that many times had the men? The Christian idea that the woman is a mere possession of the man?

----------


## Guest

> Conservative means status quo. And yeah, many old people what they want is to keep their status quo. So yes.


Status quo is now secularism and progressivism.

----------


## kilgram

> Status quo is now secularism and progressivism.


That is not status quo.

Status quo is keeping the religion in power.

Secularism is prgressivism, but not status quo. Status quo never can be progress. And secularism is advancing to a more equal society, with more rights.

Progressivism that is progress as the society advances never can be status quo.

PS: Progressivism also would be going to a more liberal or libertarian form of government. That is progressivism. For example getting more individual freedoms that is progress, it is progressivism.

That the government use the word of progressivism freely as the word democracy and makes dirty both words, you have not to take that use as the only right.

----------


## Guest

> That is not status quo.
> 
> Status quo is keeping the religion in power.


LOL, again, I think you live in the first part of the twentieth century.  Religion hasn't been in power since maybe the 80s--maybe, and probably not in full force since the 1950's.  You need to come to the US and see for yourself.  I think you're getting bad information over there.

----------


## kilgram

> LOL, again, I think you live in the first part of the twentieth century.  Religion hasn't been in power since maybe the 80s--maybe, and probably not in full force since the 1950's.  You need to come to the US and see for yourself.  I think you're getting bad information over there.


Well, I see the opinions of the American conservative, and religion is important. However they don't dare to reintroduce it.

And I see the conservative in Europe, and they are terribly religious and as I said they want to reintroduce religion in education and make the religion stronger, like the Spanish government. For me that is conservatism.

And I see many influences of the religion in USA, for example, the creationism and how it grows. That is conservatism or reactionary. And don't tell me that is not true? Or are you saying me that Creationism is losing again ground?

----------


## Guest

> Well, I see the opinions of the American conservative, and religion is important. However they don't dare to reintroduce it.


We live in a secular state, people are religious but we live in a secular state so not much can be done about it.  Therefore there is no status quo that conservatives are maintaining.

----------


## kilgram

> We live in a secular state, people are religious but we live in a secular state so not much can be done about it.  Therefore there is no status quo that conservatives are maintaining.


MMM, theoric secular state.

God bless America. It is not secular.

I don't know, the image that we see in Europe is of a country extremely religious with old candidatures to Presidency of extremist candidates. That is what it is observed from Europe. Maybe exxagerated, but that is the image of USA that we have. An extremely religious country, where the religion is also relatively strong in national level, mainly in some states, where the conservatism is majority, like Texas and other states of the red-belt.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Lol. Joe, I can always rely on you for a good laugh. You so silly.




...50 years ago homosexuality was pretty much illegal and now it isn't...why?...50 years ago, Animal rights weren't important and now it is...why?...50 years ago welfare was very small, now it's not...why?...50 years ago religion was very strong in the US culture, and now it's not...why?...50 years there was never a thought of women going into combat, and pretty soon they are...why?...these are just a few things I came up with off hand and go ahead and prove me wrong...please, anyone show me this "progressive trend" in US policies IN NOT driven by women's/feminist ideals?...I've been waiting for 5+ years for that to happen while pedophaelia is being changed from a mental disorder to sexual preference...I remember people saying my views on pedophaelia were at best stupid and it's going along with what I said many years ago...prove it, right now, right here...

----------


## Guest

> MMM, theoric secular state.
> 
> God bless America. It is not secular.
> 
> I don't know, the image that we see in Europe is of a country extremely religious with old candidatures to Presidency of extremist candidates. That is what it is observed from Europe. Maybe exxagerated, but that is the image of USA that we have. An extremely religious country, where the religion is also relatively strong in national level, mainly in some states, where the conservatism is majority, like Texas and other states of the red-belt.


Again, you'd need to live here.  It really isn't.

----------

kilgram (03-25-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> ...50 years ago homosexuality was pretty much illegal and now it isn't...why?...50 years ago, Animal rights weren't important and now it is...why?...50 years ago welfare was very small, now it's not...why?...50 years ago religion was very strong in the US culture, and now it's not...why?...50 years there was never a thought of women going into combat, and pretty soon they are...why?...these are just a few things I came up with off hand and go ahead and prove me wrong...please, anyone show me this "progressive trend" in US policies IN NOT driven by women's/feminist ideals?...I've been waiting for 5+ years for that to happen while pedophaelia is being changed from a mental disorder to sexual preference...I remember people saying my views on pedophaelia were at best stupid and it's going along with what I said many years ago...prove it, right now, right here...


LOL Only that I can answer.

Do you want to recover the things as were 50 years ago?

----------


## kilgram

> Again, you'd need to live here.  It really isn't.


Maybe you convince me that USA is not that so horrible place to lvie that I have in mind  :Smile: 

Well, I believe, I am sure that there are really nice places and nice people like you and other Americans that I met. But my anti-Americanism is even strong, and I have to admit that probably I am bit prejudiced against USA.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Yeah, but that quote is about as bullshit as the statistic that conservatives outnumber liberals 2:1.



...this is one of the few things you've said that I can agree with...I talk politics with a lot of women face-to-face and they always vote heart over logic...my boss's wife is "supposedly" a hardcore Jehova's Witness and she's pro gay...really?...but it says in the bible....but they have rights too...nuff said...

----------


## Canadianeye

> ...50 years ago homosexuality was pretty much illegal and now it isn't...why?...50 years ago, Animal rights weren't important and now it is...why?...50 years ago welfare was very small, now it's not...why?...50 years ago religion was very strong in the US culture, and now it's not...why?...50 years there was never a thought of women going into combat, and pretty soon they are...why?...these are just a few things I came up with off hand and go ahead and prove me wrong...please, anyone show me this "progressive trend" in US policies IN NOT driven by women's/feminist ideals?...I've been waiting for 5+ years for that to happen while pedophaelia is being changed from a mental disorder to sexual preference...I remember people saying my views on pedophaelia were at best stupid and it's going along with what I said many years ago...prove it, right now, right here...


There ain't no slippery slope Joe...the libs keep telling me that for decades now. I believe 'em...cuz they and their purchased media say so.  :Headbang:

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-25-2013)

----------


## Guest

Women are maternal by nature, so we tend to embrace the underdogs.  This is why historically more women support gay rights.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Yeh, no!
> 
> 
> 
> The majority of our Congress and all our presidents have been men. Progressive men.


...in today's society you will not gat any play unless you are supportive to women and their views...flat out won't...you wil get labeled a "biggot" (like me) or at the very least insensitive and uncaring...I don't care...but the good thing for you is most men are are more concerned with getting laid regular then not liking what they see in the mirror...I don't push my principles aside for anyone...

----------


## Guest

> ...in today's society you will not gat any play unless you are supportive to women and their views...flat out won't...you wil get labeled a "biggot" (like me) or at the very least insensitive and uncaring...I don't care...but the good thing for you is most men are are more concerned with getting laid regular then not liking what they see in the mirror...I don't push my principles aside for anyone...


You're saying I withhold sex because someone's political views are different than mine or that--gasp!--they voted differently?

Dude, you're crazy.  When people agree all the time that is boring as hell.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> Romney couldn't have been that bad in comparison to this completely out of control Obama admin. I mean...Rand Paul endorsed Romney, and he is a trusted one, _now_....correct?


That was my thing....no one can be as bad as Obama.




> 3,575(for budgetary purposes) is *my* magic number. That is how many *warriors* are working for the Pharaoh on blogs, forums, twitter, facebook etc. With nics/aliases, more like 10,000 in appearance they approximate.


I don't doubt it one bit. Cigar is very likely one of them.




> If everyone did that, there would be no Obamas, or McCains, or Grahams, or Bushes, or Clintons. There would be Pauls, Steins, Kuciniches, Johnsons (as in, Gary, not Lyndon), etc.


If

IF

*IF*

This is the dilemma I keep coming back to  - vote for 3rd party is a vote for the dems. Vote for R is to continue the lesser of two evils. 
WE can't make up our minds and that's why we're stuck.
*Stay Republican or Go 3rd Party?*

----------


## Guest

> That was my thing....no one can be as bad as Obama.
> 
> I don't doubt it one bit. Cigar is very likely one of them.
> 
> If
> 
> IF
> 
> *IF*
> ...


Well, you're stuck.  To me it is a vote for (R) or (D) is a 90% or better chance that you're voting for a progressive.  They've infiltrated the GOP and people are still so afraid to take a chance on something better.

No matter what you do when you vote knee jerk (R) or (D) you are getting a progressive.  Look at their records, not the (R) and tell me what you see.

We need to vote for good people regardless of the label.

----------



----------


## Fearandloathing

> I believe I did defend them, Fed judges, Second amendment etc.  I trust any R more in several important areas then a D.  One or the other will be elected.  I prefer a slice of pie to a tiny sliver.


Oh, I see.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That was my thing....no one can be as bad as Obama.
> 
> I don't doubt it one bit. Cigar is very likely one of them.
> 
> If
> 
> IF
> 
> *IF*
> ...


My vote for a third party is only a vote for Dems if I would have voted for the Republican, and that's true for every voter. If Bob Robertson votes for Jill Stein (G), his vote is for Jill Stein, unless he would have voted for Romney had Stein not been running.

----------


## Maximatic

> That was my thing....no one can be as bad as Obama.
> 
> I don't doubt it one bit. Cigar is very likely one of them.
> 
> If
> 
> IF
> 
> *IF*
> ...


All you can do is focus on the Republican nominations and, of course, the culture. If the Republican nominations keep going the way they've been going, there's no point in voting in the general, in fact it's counterproductive because it reaffirms the course they've been on. That party needs to either move to the right or die, because the way they've been doing things hasn't done us any good. It hasn't done them any good either; they've been loosing voters in droves, and I guarantee you that most of those voters are right wingers like myself who have just given up on them. I honestly don't think there is any hope for this government, but, for some reason, I still get involved in the primaries. It's irrational, I know, but, whatever.

Young people who want smaller government need to be convinced to become involved in the primaries. They also need to be taught how to do it. Those primaries have to be taken over, that's the only... "hope". Oh, and of course the cultural climate needs to change, and the only tool we have to affect that with is the internet.

----------


## Trinnity

Left/Right isn't gonna cut it. Libertarian is the Constitutional path, imo. That's the real problem; neither party has it right and neither party is following the Constitution.

----------

Fearandloathing (03-25-2013)

----------


## The XL

> ...50 years ago homosexuality was pretty much illegal and now it isn't...why?...50 years ago, Animal rights weren't important and now it is...why?...50 years ago welfare was very small, now it's not...why?...50 years ago religion was very strong in the US culture, and now it's not...why?...50 years there was never a thought of women going into combat, and pretty soon they are...why?...these are just a few things I came up with off hand and go ahead and prove me wrong...please, anyone show me this "progressive trend" in US policies IN NOT driven by women's/feminist ideals?...I've been waiting for 5+ years for that to happen while pedophaelia is being changed from a mental disorder to sexual preference...I remember people saying my views on pedophaelia were at best stupid and it's going along with what I said many years ago...prove it, right now, right here...


Well.....homosexuality should have never been illegal, and animals absolutely deserve basic rights.  The fuck is wrong with either of those things?   I'm no progressive, but nothing is wrong with either of those two things.

Welfare shouldn't exist, I agree, but religion in culture is a double edged sword, anyway.

----------


## Calypso Jones

well America is not a religious country or culture. Actually, in the grand scheme of things we are a pagan nation.

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> well America is not a religious country or culture. Actually, in the grand scheme of things we are a pagan nation.


No, we are secular.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> No, we are secular.


hardly.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> hardly.


Uh, no, exactly. We have nothing religious going on in government, it's all secularism.

----------


## Maximatic

> Left/Right isn't gonna cut it. Libertarian is the Constitutional path, imo. That's the real problem; neither party has it right and neither party is following the Constitution.


You don't even want to ask me what I mean by left and right?

----------


## Guest

> Uh, no, exactly. We have nothing religious going on in government, it's all secularism.


The principles are secular.  The folks at the top are luciferians.  I'm not kidding.  They are.  Nuff said.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> The principles are secular.  The folks at the top are luciferians.  I'm not kidding.  They are.  Nuff said.


Luciderian, secularist, whatever. Same poison.

----------


## ptif219

> Uh, no, exactly. We have nothing religious going on in government, it's all secularism.


  I  would say many have politics as their religion.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-25-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> You don't even want to ask me what I mean by left and right?


Tell me.

----------


## Maximatic

> Tell me.


Government has as much control as a government can have on the left. There is no government on the right. Everything else is somewhere in between. I usually assume this when I talk to conservative or libertarianish Americans. They usually sort of see it that way. Other one dimensional spectra aren't really helpful.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> LOL Only that I can answer.
> 
> Do you want to recover the things as were 50 years ago?



...you aren't getting the point, the point is 50 years ago I wasn't forced to accept homosexuality as normal...or told that guns are bad...or told I can't eat meat...etc, etc, etc...men don't f'ing care what you did as long as it wasn't illegal...pedofaelia at present is illegal but that will change here in the next few years when it's considered a "sexual preference"...I mean you can't hold someone's sexual preference against them can you?...it works with homosexuality...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...you aren't getting the point, the point is 50 years ago I wasn't forced to accept homosexuality as normal...or told that guns are bad...or told I can't eat meat...etc, etc, etc...men don't f'ing care what you did as long as it wasn't illegal...pedofaelia at present is illegal but that will change here in the next few years when it's considered a "sexual preference"...I mean you can't hold someone's sexual preference against them can you?...it works with homosexuality...


Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to accept homosexuality as normal?

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Women are maternal by nature, so we tend to embrace the underdogs.  This is why historically more women support gay rights.



...you need to expand on that because I mentioned more then gay rights...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> You're saying I withhold sex because someone's political views are different than mine or that--gasp!--they voted differently?
> 
> Dude, you're crazy.  When people agree all the time that is boring as hell.



...I don't know you personally so I can't say you do but look what happened to Tiger Woods, his wife stopped giving up the booty and he went elswhere and it ruined his life...fyi, he's ranked #1 again as of today and I don't think he'll ever let another woman take his mojo again...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Who is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to accept homosexuality as normal?



...really?...that all you got?...what are you 12 years old?...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...I don't know you personally so I can't say you do but look what happened to Tiger Woods, his wife stopped giving up the booty and he went elswhere and it ruined his life...fyi, he's ranked #1 again as of today and I don't think he'll ever let another woman take his mojo again...


Yes, because despite being the one to cheat on his wife, he's the innocent victim in all of this.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...really?...that all you got?...what are you 12 years old?...


Nice deflection mixed with an insult. Seriously though, you said you were "forced" to accept homosexuality as normal. 

So, who is holding the gun to your head?

----------


## Calypso Jones

Who is holding the gun to our heads? The supreme court with the backing of the left. See, homosexuality and same sex marriage is generally rejected when people get to vote on it. It takes the SC to ram it down our throats so to speak. 

As for woods not letting another woman take his mojo....he doesn't deserve another decent woman. He'll likely end up an old lonely man and whether he admits it or not, he'll regret his treatment of his little wife. He's cute now and his bad boy habits make him attractive to bad girls...but there's gonna come a day in the not too distant future when he's not gonna be that young...and cute.....and bad BOYish...and women aren't gonna find his behavior so attractive in an aging, viagrad, penis pumping rich boy in an old guy's body. You can always buy sex though and you don't have to be the least bit attractive...just ask RObert Menendez.

----------


## Maximatic

> Who is holding the gun to our heads? The supreme court with the backing of the left. See, homosexuality and same sex marriage is generally rejected when people get to vote on it. It takes the SC to ram it down our throats so to speak. 
> 
> As for woods not letting another woman take his mojo....he doesn't deserve another decent woman. He'll likely end up an old lonely man and whether he admits it or not, he'll regret his treatment of his little wife. He's cute now and his bad boy habits make him attractive to bad girls...but there's gonna come a day in the not too distant future when he's not gonna be that young...and cute.....and bad BOYish...and women aren't gonna find his behavior so attractive in an aging, viagrad, penis pumping rich boy in an old guy's body. You can always buy sex though and you don't have to be the least bit attractive...just ask RObert Menendez.


I think it's a good idea to go ahead and reject state sanctioned marriage. 

What did the SC say?

----------


## zelmo1234

> Who is holding the gun to our heads? The supreme court with the backing of the left. See, homosexuality and same sex marriage is generally rejected when people get to vote on it. It takes the SC to ram it down our throats so to speak. 
> 
> As for woods not letting another woman take his mojo....he doesn't deserve another decent woman. He'll likely end up an old lonely man and whether he admits it or not, he'll regret his treatment of his little wife. He's cute now and his bad boy habits make him attractive to bad girls...but there's gonna come a day in the not too distant future when he's not gonna be that young...and cute.....and bad BOYish...and women aren't gonna find his behavior so attractive in an aging, viagrad, penis pumping rich boy in an old guy's body. You can always buy sex though and you don't have to be the least bit attractive...just ask RObert Menendez.


I think that a billion dollars will make you young forever!  But I have almost the oppisite story to tell, my ex wife cheated on me and we divorced back when I was in my 30's  and broke. and now well, she is with a new guy that is just as broke as I ever was.  And I have a young and eautiful wife, that works side by side with me!

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Who is holding the gun to our heads? The supreme court with the backing of the left. See, homosexuality and same sex marriage is generally rejected when people get to vote on it. It takes the SC to ram it down our throats so to speak.


52% approve of gay marriage and 40% disapprove. But that's not the point. Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage as normal. That's nothing but hysterics from the usual suspects. I live in Tennessee. Trust me, people still rail about "homos" in broad daylight, loud and proud, with no repercussions.

----------


## Calypso Jones

I don't believe your stats.   Now if the polling entity asks, 'should gays be able to do their thing'?  I would answer sure, just do it out of my sight.   If the question is, 'Is marriage between a man and woman only?' then Americans are gonna say yes.   How were those poll questions asked?

----------

birddog (03-25-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't believe your stats.   Now if the polling entity asks, 'should gays be able to do their thing'?  I would answer sure, just do it out of my sight.   If the question is, 'Is marriage between a man and woman only?' then Americans are gonna say yes.   How were those poll questions asked?


Should gays have the right to get married I guess. I don't know. Gay marriage is not an important issue to me.

----------


## birddog

> Should gays have the right to get married I guess. I don't know. Gay marriage is not an important issue to me.


Giving opinions and quoting numbers without proof or substance is something you criticize others of as a deflection.  Shame, shame for doing the same or worse.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Giving opinions and quoting numbers without proof or substance is something you criticize others of as a deflection.  Shame, shame for doing the same or worse.


Uh-huh. Right. And how does that make you feel?

----------


## birddog

> Uh-huh. Right. And how does that make you feel?


Doesn't bother me.  I know there's hypocrisy everywhere.

----------


## Guest

> ...I don't know you personally so I can't say you do but look what happened to Tiger Woods, his wife stopped giving up the booty and he went elswhere and it ruined his life...fyi, he's ranked #1 again as of today and I don't think he'll ever let another woman take his mojo again...


How do you know she stopped giving up the booty?  Were you in their bedroom?

----------


## Calypso Jones

no woman with small children is going to put up with the mistress texting her husband while he is in his home.    This is part of the stuff that should show all of us that these 'rich and famous slebs' are whacked.

----------


## Guest

> no woman with small children is going to put up with the mistress texting her husband while he is in his home.    This is part of the stuff that should show all of us that these 'rich and famous slebs' are whacked.


The thing is Tiger is homely as hell.  I would pretty much want him out of the house as much as possible.  Same thing with Donal Trump.  If I were his wife I'd pay women to do my job.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Nice deflection mixed with an insult. Seriously though, you said you were "forced" to accept homosexuality as normal. 
> 
> So, who is holding the gun to your head?


You enjoy being obtuse? As my Supreme Court just rendered a decision about hate speech...and as your country is going in leaps and bounds in the social democracies, anti freedom of speech direction, I will say this in an equally obtuse fashion.

The practices of Islam are not all bad, on certain issues.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> You enjoy being obtuse? As my Supreme Court just rendered a decision about hate speech...and as your country is going in leaps and bounds in the social democracies, anti freedom of speech direction, I will say this in an equally obtuse fashion.
> 
> The practices of Islam are not all bad, on certain issues.


I'm not being obtuse at all. I really don't see what's so hard to get about this. Nowhere, anywhere in the U.S., can anyonr present an example of anyone being forced to view homosexuality as normal. I won't even get into how such a thing is impossible to begin with.

----------


## Guest

Yes, people aren't forced, but they are coerced.  You just have to avoid succumbing to televised mind control then you can dislike homosexuals all you want.

This is why I like being a libertarian, I don't even have to acknowledge males, females, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc because we're not collectivist; we're all about the individual.

----------

littlejohn (03-26-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-26-2013),The XL (03-26-2013)

----------


## littlejohn

> Yes, people aren't forced, but they are coerced.  You just have to avoid succumbing to televised mind control then you can dislike homosexuals all you want.
> 
> This is why I like being a libertarian, I don't even have to acknowledge males, females, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc because we're not collectivist; we're all about the individual.


Well said

----------


## Canadianeye

> Yes, people aren't forced, but they are coerced.  You just have to avoid succumbing to televised mind control then you can dislike homosexuals all you want.
> 
> This is why I like being a libertarian, I don't even have to acknowledge males, females, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc because we're not collectivist; we're all about the individual.


Nope. Wrong.

Here, put it to the intellectual test, because I know you will not do it real life.

You said previously, that you are in good standing with your firm. Stand outside with a placard and a bullhorn, stating that you do not believe in gay marriage and that homosexuality, in your opinion in not normal.

Should even _local_ media get hold of it...what do you think will happen to you and your career, whether you are a libertarian or not?

Coerced? Not forced. Hardly Rina. You are forced into not speaking your opinion. Coercion exists in the mix as well, but not regarding freedom of speech and the tactics of some.

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-26-2013)

----------


## littlejohn

> Yes, people aren't forced, but they are coerced.  You just have to avoid succumbing to televised mind control then you can dislike homosexuals all you want.
> 
> This is why I like being a libertarian, I don't even have to acknowledge males, females, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc because we're not collectivist; we're all about the individual.


its not just the television mind control. it is every corporate  HR department, all government agency administrations, public school systems, and a significant number of private individuals

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-26-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

> I'm not being obtuse at all. I really don't see what's so hard to get about this. Nowhere, anywhere in the U.S., can anyonr present an example of anyone being forced to view homosexuality as normal. I won't even get into how such a thing is impossible to begin with.


With all due respect, the Common Core curriculum is being pushed and adopted all over the country and it teaches homosexuality as normal. I don't care what homos do in private, but it's not normal.

Folks, be aware of the common core curriculum in your state. If you already have it, fight to get rid of it. If you don't have it, fight to keep it out. Leftism on a national scale is indoctrinating your kids and this is one of the ways they're doing it.



*States highlighted in green* have adopted the Common Core State Standards. 
*States highlighted in blue* only adopted the Common Core State Standards for English language arts.

http://www.ascd.org/common-core-stat...ption-map.aspx

Where were we when this happened? I didn't even know about it til recently. 
<leftism by stealth, right in front of us>

"One size fits all" curriculum for every student, every school in every state. Centralize all the elementary and secondary education under the federal govt~
It takes away the freedom from states, teachers, and parents to decide what the kids are taught.

----------


## Guest

> Nope. Wrong.
> 
> Here, put it to the intellectual test, because I know you will not do it real life.
> 
> You said previously, that you are in good standing with your firm. Stand outside with a placard and a bullhorn, stating that you do not believe in gay marriage and that homosexuality, in your opinion in not normal.
> 
> Should even _local_ media get hold of it...what do you think will happen to you and your career, whether you are a libertarian or not?
> 
> Coerced? Not forced. Hardly Rina. You are forced into not speaking your opinion. Coercion exists in the mix as well, but not regarding freedom of speech and the tactics of some.


Yes, but say I believed that, really believed it, and I chose not to say anything because of my career then I have no balls.  --OR, my principles have a price tag, and in either case I would be an unrespectable person.

There are things I say and do all the time which is anethema to New Yorkers, but I say and do it anyway.  I have said quite loudly that I don't believe that the state should be involved in marriage and no "group" should receive benefits.  I have said even to my gay friends that they just want to be a part of a supergroup that leaves out single people and polygamous families.

Do I use a bullhorn?  No, I don't need to be all flashy, but if you think that I stfu about issues because of my job you're mistaken.

Granted, my life is a lot different now.  Four years ago I learned a HUGE lesson about what is to be valued in life and while it was not something I would wish on anyone in this world it certainly unchained me.

----------


## kilgram

> Yes, people aren't forced, but they are coerced.  You just have to avoid succumbing to televised mind control then you can dislike homosexuals all you want.
> 
> This is why I like being a libertarian, I don't even have to acknowledge males, females, heterosexuals, homosexuals, etc because we're not collectivist; we're all about the individual.


Yeah, that is nice. But far from reality. Because we live in a classist system, and as classist system it creates classes of everything, workers, non-workers, employers, high-class, homosexuals, heterosexuals,... And there are groups that don't have the same rights.

It is nice to consider individuals, but if some individuals don't have the same rights as other individuals you have a clear discrimination. And you are making classes of individuals. It is not about collectivism, it is about equality and having all the individuals the same opportunities.

The idea of individuals is that all are equal and have the same conditions, right? It should be the ideal. And as a Libertarian you should defend that all individuals receive the same treatment? So, about homosexuals, the most logic would be talk about person+person, not male+female, where you are already doing a distinction between individuals, and making groups  :Smile:

----------


## Guest

> Yeah, that is nice. But far from reality. Because we live in a classist system, and as classist system it creates classes of everything, workers, non-workers, employers, high-class, homosexuals, heterosexuals,... And there are groups that don't have the same rights.


Again, I don't think you really have an accurate view of the US.  All of those groups are protected groups in the US.  You have no idea the legislation here.  Someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding by law is required to, so I'm not sure you're keeping up with the times.

I don't believe in groups so I don't think people should have special treatment of any kind.  I am an individual, first.  Being female is just one aspect of my being.




> It is nice to consider individuals, but if some individuals don't have the same rights as other individuals you have a clear discrimination. And you are making classes of individuals. It is not about collectivism, it is about equality and having all the individuals the same opportunities.


Like 50 years ago maybe.  It's really not like that now.

----------


## kilgram

> Again, I don't think you really have an accurate view of the US.  All of those groups are protected groups in the US.  You have no idea the legislation here.  Someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding by law is required to, so I'm not sure you're keeping up with the times.
> 
> I don't believe in groups so I don't think people should have special treatment of any kind.  I am an individual, first.  Being female is just one aspect of my being.
> 
> 
> 
> Like 50 years ago maybe.  It's really not like that now.


The groups exist. Humans are social and we tend to socialize with others and we make congregations of people that have similar affiliations to us.

What I argumented was a theoric postulation, not a practical. If you want to talk about individuals, you have to have all the individuals in the same position and not divided in groups. From the moment that you have the individuals divided in groups and not treated as individual you must to have laws of protection to each group of individuals. That was my argumentation.

My point is that to speak of individuals all individuals must have the same opportunities, and not all individuals are equal, or individuals have different features that force you to give them a different treatment to achieve the goal that they have the same opportunities than other individuals.

I was not saying that in USA that is not done. I was saying that is necessary if you want to have that all individuals have the same opportunities.

----------


## countryboy

> Again, I don't think you really have an accurate view of the US.  All of those groups are protected groups in the US.  You have no idea the legislation here.  Someone who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding by law is required to, so I'm not sure you're keeping up with the times.
> 
> I don't believe in groups so I don't think people should have special treatment of any kind.  I am an individual, first.  Being female is just one aspect of my being.
> 
> 
> 
> Like 50 years ago maybe.  It's really not like that now.


How many times will you need to point this out before you realize there is nothing more here than an agenda being pushed? Facts be damned.

Hope you're feeling better btw.  :Smile:

----------


## Guest

> The groups exist. Humans are social and we tend to socialize with others and we make congregations of people that have similar affiliations to us.


Yes and no.  There are melancholy temperaments who don't like to hang in groups, and there are people whose groups are very different than they are.

I'm a female.  My best friend happens to be another female, but all the rest are dudes.  I'm heterosexual, but I have gay friends.  I'm a Catholic, but I have a crapload of Jewish and Muslim friends.  

When people cluster and self-segregate they run towards a dangerous group think and echo chamber effect.




> What I argumented was a theoric postulation, not a practical. If you want to talk about individuals, you have to have all the individuals in the same position and not divided in groups. From the moment that you have the individuals divided in groups and not treated as individual you must to have laws of protection to each group of individuals. That was my argumentation.


No, you really don't.  Just enforce the Bill of Rights and respect Natural Law.




> My point is that to speak of individuals all individuals must have the same opportunities, and not all individuals are equal, or individuals have different features that force you to give them a different treatment to achieve the goal that they have the same opportunities than other individuals.
> 
> I was not saying that in USA that is not done. I was saying that is necessary if you want to have that all individuals have the same opportunities.


The way our welfare system was set up we are well past the point of return and fixing things.  People are now multigenerational welfare recipients and no longer have the tools to get ahead on their own.

----------


## Guest

> How many times will you need to point this out before you realize there is nothing more here than an agenda being pushed? Facts be damned.
> 
> Hope you're feeling better btw.


I feel like dirt and nothing tastes good but orange gatorade.   :Frown:

----------


## kilgram

> Yes and no.  There are melancholy temperaments who don't like to hang in groups, and there are people whose groups are very different than they are.
> 
> I'm a female.  My best friend happens to be another female, but all the rest are dudes.  I'm heterosexual, but I have gay friends.  I'm a Catholic, but I have a crapload of Jewish and Muslim friends.  
> 
> When people cluster and self-segregate they run towards a dangerous group think and echo chamber effect.
> 
> 
> 
> No, you really don't.  Just enforce the Bill of Rights and respect Natural Law.
> ...


Natural Law? What do you mean. And sorry, but we are not animals. We are humans and we have humanity over anything else, and that means protecting the weak, and helping the people who cannot improve by themselves, even that would be inside the Natural Law inside what we know as mutual aid. I help you now and in the future if it was necessary you help me... (Really simplified example)

Yeah, my point about the groups and all that, is that people don't treat the other people as individuals, independing what group they could be. If you are homosexual many people will try to discriminate you, the same if you are atheist, muslim, catholic or whatever.

We can start to speak about individuals when we see individuals independently if they are homosexuals, atheists... or whatever. That we will behave equally front of any behaviour. If we see two men kissing we won't overreact, just ignore them and continue with our lifes as nothing passed. That is my argumentation. Or if I go naked in the street just you will pass on, as if you see me with clothes... That is being an individual.

If there is a law of marriage, should be of two persons, not between a man and a woman. That is the road to individual freedom.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Nope. Wrong.
> 
> Here, put it to the intellectual test, because I know you will not do it real life.
> 
> You said previously, that you are in good standing with your firm. Stand outside with a placard and a bullhorn, stating that you do not believe in gay marriage and that homosexuality, in your opinion in not normal.
> 
> Should even _local_ media get hold of it...what do you think will happen to you and your career, whether you are a libertarian or not?
> 
> Coerced? Not forced. Hardly Rina. You are forced into not speaking your opinion. Coercion exists in the mix as well, but not regarding freedom of speech and the tactics of some.


So if I stand outside my workplace with a sign and bullhorn declaring my opposition to, say, conservatism, am I being forced/coerced into silence if my boss fires me?

----------


## kilgram

> So if I stand outside my workplace with a sign and bullhorn declaring my opposition to, say, conservatism, am I being forced/coerced into silence if my boss fires me?


Yeap, and that is the normal in many corporations.

----------


## Canadianeye

> So if I stand outside my workplace with a sign and bullhorn declaring my opposition to, say, conservatism, am I being forced/coerced into silence if my boss fires me?


Dig up Anita Bryant and ask her, I'm just about through today with your refusal to see certain realities that exist, while asking inane questions to obfuscate.

You think Rina wouldn't get fired/character assassinated for doing what I suggested. Good. Hold that completely unreality position.

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> Natural Law? What do you mean. And sorry, but we are not animals. We are humans and we have humanity over anything else, and that means protecting the weak, and helping the people who cannot improve by themselves, even that would be inside the Natural Law inside what we know as mutual aid. I help you now and in the future if it was necessary you help me... (Really simplified example)


I'm too tired and ornery to explain Natural Rights, but @Maximatic can.




> Yeah, my point about the groups and all that, is that people don't treat the other people as individuals, independing what group they could be. If you are homosexual many people will try to discriminate you, the same if you are atheist, muslim, catholic or whatever.


I don't care who you are someone will not like you in life and they will try to discriminate against you.  That's just how things are.  Life is filled with challenges and storms.  It is how you weather those storms that define you.




> We can start to speak about individuals when we see individuals independently if they are homosexuals, atheists... or whatever. That we will behave equally front of any behaviour. If we see two men kissing we won't overreact, just ignore them and continue with our lifes as nothing passed. That is my argumentation. Or if I go naked in the street just you will pass on, as if you see me with clothes... That is being an individual.


Most people don't want to see anyone walking around naked and most people don't want to see other people kissing.  Whether this is jealousy or just a sanitary thing...I don't know.  I don't really think about it until someone is having sex on the subway.




> If there is a law of marriage, should be of two persons, not between a man and a woman. That is the road to individual freedom.


It should be between any persons, not just two.  This is not a state issue.  No state can condone who you love or choose to form a family with.

----------


## Guest

> Dig up Anita Bryant and ask her, I'm just about through today with your refusal to see certain realities that exist, while asking inane questions to obfuscate.
> 
> You think Rina wouldn't get fired/character assassinated for doing what I suggested. Good. Hold that completely unreality position.


Why would I use a bullhorn?  That is ME trying to force my beliefs on others by drowning out their thoughts.  I certainly have an opinion on issues and because I can articulate them in a way that people understand that I'm not "coming for them" or trying to hurt them, I've yet to have any problems.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Dig up Anita Bryant and ask her, I'm just about through today with your refusal to see certain realities that exist, while asking inane questions to obfuscate.
> 
> You think Rina wouldn't get fired/character assassinated for doing what I suggested. Good. Hold that completely unreality position.


Actually, my question confirms that she WOULD get fired for doing that, since the whole point of the question is that she would also get fired for screeching against conservatives through a bullhorn in front of her workplace. 

Now, would the media come down hard on her? Likely. But so would Fox if she screeched against conservatives.

And anyway, where the hell do you get off, telling me YOU know more than *I* about what goes on in America? Are you forgetting that *I* live here? *I* pay Obama's taxes? *I* fund all our living former Presidents' lifestyles until they die? *I* have to put up with foreigners who love to sit from the safety of their borders and criticize me and my country? 

No offense, but I'm starting to wonder why the fuck you even care what the hell goes on here.

----------


## Guest

> Actually, my question confirms that she WOULD get fired for doing that, since the whole point of the question is that she would also get fired for screeching against conservatives through a bullhorn in front of her workplace. 
> 
> Now, would the media come down hard on her? Likely. But so would Fox if she screeched against conservatives.
> 
> And anyway, where the hell do you get off, telling me YOU know more than *I* about what goes on in America? Are you forgetting that *I* live here? *I* pay Obama's taxes? *I* fund all our living former Presidents' lifestyles until they die? *I* have to put up with foreigners who love to sit from the safety of their borders and criticize me and my country? 
> 
> No offense, but I'm starting to wonder why the fuck you even care what the hell goes on here.


I had to take a course when I started work about interpersonal communications.  The objective of the course was to teach you how to talk to anyone about anything.  I took away a lot from it and usually I think those things are New Age crap.  However, I use it every day.  

I have no problem sharing my political views anywhere because I understand how to communicate them effectively and in a way that is nonthreatening to others.

Everyone should take it.  We'd all get along much better.

----------


## The XL

Communicating nicely and effectively?  Ain't nobody got time for that.  Or patience.

----------


## Guest

> Communicating nicely and effectively?  Ain't nobody got time for that.  Or patience.


Well, its what makes me good at my job.  I recommend it.

--clean your inbox

----------


## Canadianeye

> Actually, my question confirms that she WOULD get fired for doing that, since the whole point of the question is that she would also get fired for screeching against conservatives through a bullhorn in front of her workplace. 
> 
> Now, would the media come down hard on her? Likely. But so would Fox if she screeched against conservatives.
> 
> And anyway, where the hell do you get off, telling me YOU know more than *I* about what goes on in America? Are you forgetting that *I* live here? *I* pay Obama's taxes? *I* fund all our living former Presidents' lifestyles until they die? *I* have to put up with foreigners who love to sit from the safety of their borders and criticize me and my country? 
> 
> No offense, but I'm starting to wonder why the fuck you even care what the hell goes on here.


No offense taken. Everyone wonders about lots of things...it's healthy, and part of human nature. I didn't realize it was exclusively an America forum, and no, I am not forgetting you allege to live in America, and pay taxes etc.

Of course you have to put up with foreigners, whether they criticize you or your country. As do I. Do you think you have, yet again, some special privilege to not be criticized? I know I don't. Lot's of people criticize Canadians, quite often actually, usually from American posters.

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Well, its what makes me good at my job.  I recommend it.
> 
> --clean your inbox


You must have the patience of a saint.  I don't, obviously.  Even when I try to be nice, it doesn't work, anyway.  All these statists are brainwashed.

----------


## Guest

> You must have the patience of a saint.  I don't, obviously.  Even when I try to be nice, it doesn't work, anyway.  All these statists are brainwashed.


Yes, I know that you have zero patience.   :Smile:   You are a bull in a china shop.

----------


## The XL

> Yes, I know that you have zero patience.    You are a bull in a china shop.


I can only handle so much bullshit, then the gloves come off.

I just wish people in general were smarter.  Then we wouldn't have these problems.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No offense taken. Everyone wonders about lots of things...it's healthy, and part of human nature. I didn't realize it was exclusively an America forum, and no, I am not forgetting you allege to live in America, and pay taxes etc.
> 
> Of course you have to put up with foreigners, whether they criticize you or your country. As do I. Do you think you have, yet again, some special privilege to not be criticized? I know I don't. Lot's of people criticize Canadians, quite often actually, usually from American posters.


I have no problem with foreigners criticizing American politics, and in fact encourage it when those politics directly threaten their nation.

What I don't much care for is foreigners criticizing America on issues that don't affect their lives, and then trumpeting around like they know what goes on in America better than the people that live there, or acting like they are qualified to judge an American's patriotism.

Can you? Yes, absolutely. I won't stop you. But don't be surprised when I tell you exactly what I think about it.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> 52% approve of gay marriage and 40% disapprove. But that's not the point. Nobody is forcing you to accept gay marriage as normal. That's nothing but hysterics from the usual suspects. I live in Tennessee. Trust me, people still rail about "homos" in broad daylight, loud and proud, with no repercussions.


...yet again, if the majority approved of it, then there'd be no concerns with voting it in...just majority vote in right in...but alas not even in the liberal stronghold of California does the majority approve of it...you are just another member of the gaystappo that non-challently passes on false info as fact in the hopes that just 1 person a week believes you and later passes on this false info as fact, kind of like you...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...yet again, if the majority approved of it, then there'd be no concerns with voting it in...just majority vote in right in...but alas not even in the liberal stronghold of California does the majority approve of it...you are just another member of the gaystappo that non-challently passes on false info as fact in the hopes that just 1 person a week believes you and later passes on this false info as fact, kind of like you...


"Gaystapo," you mean? At least spell your insults right.

----------



----------


## Guest

> ...yet again, if the majority approved of it, then there'd be no concerns with voting it in...just majority vote in right in...but alas not even in the liberal stronghold of California does the majority approve of it...you are just another member of the gaystappo that non-challently passes on false info as fact in the hopes that just 1 person a week believes you and later passes on this false info as fact, kind of like you...


He's not a member of the gaystappo.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Yes, because despite being the one to cheat on his wife, he's the innocent victim in all of this.



...this is a fact, his wife didn't keep his needs met and he had to get them met somewhere else...if you don't keep your man happy, someone else will...you feminists don't like this, better get a taste for clam then because that's what you'll end up living off of, clam...and maybe some imitation salami...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> He's not a member of the gaystappo.


I dunno, depends on the uniform. If it's fashionable, I might join.

----------

Gemini (03-26-2013)

----------


## countryboy

I thought it was, gay-stop-OH!

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> ...yet again, if the majority approved of it, then there'd be no concerns with voting it in...just majority vote in right in...but alas not even in the liberal stronghold of California does the majority approve of it...you are just another member of the gaystappo that non-challently passes on false info as fact in the hopes that just 1 person a week believes you and later passes on this false info as fact, kind of like you...


There should be no benefits for married couples, gay or straight.  Get government out of marriage.

And I love that you pretty much say anything is ok if a majority approves.

----------

Gemini (03-26-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> How do you know she stopped giving up the booty? Were you in their bedroom?



...I'm a man and I know how men work better then you do, wanna bet?...

----------


## Guest

> ...this is a fact, his wife didn't keep his needs met and he had to get them met somewhere else...if you don't keep your man happy, someone else will...you feminists don't like this, better get a taste for clam then because that's what you'll end up living off of, clam...and maybe some imitation salami...


I think that either the women in your life are boring, dowdy trolls or you are.  There is a level of bitterness that runs through your posts that tells me that you probably had to bang women with mustaches.

Sorry bout it.

----------


## Guest

> ...I'm a man and I know how men work better then you do, wanna bet?...


I think I know more about it than you do.  How many men have you slept with?

----------


## The XL

> ...I'm a man and I know how men work better then you do, wanna bet?...


I'm a man too, and I'm certain when I say that you have no clue what you're talking about. 

Tiger seems like a dog.  She very well could have, and probably was, sleeping with him.  Dude didn't have one chick on the side, he had dozens, including a porn star and a stripper.

----------



----------


## The XL

> I think I know more about it than you do.  How many men have you slept with?


I'm not sure I'd go there.  He may very well have slept with quite a few men.  Usually those with irrational contempt for gays are closet gays themselves.

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...this is a fact, his wife didn't keep his needs met and he had to get them met somewhere else...if you don't keep your man happy, someone else will...you feminists don't like this, better get a taste for clam then because that's what you'll end up living off of, clam...and maybe some imitation salami...


I happen to be a guy, jsyk.

----------


## Canadianeye

> I have no problem with foreigners criticizing American politics, and in fact encourage it when those politics directly threaten their nation.
> 
> What I don't much care for is foreigners criticizing America on issues that don't affect their lives, and then trumpeting around like they know what goes on in America better than the people that live there, or acting like they are qualified to judge an American's patriotism.
> 
> Can you? Yes, absolutely. I won't stop you. But don't be surprised when I tell you exactly what I think about it.


That doesn't even make sense. You criticize Franco, I have praised Franco...yet neither of us are from Spain. Other nationalities express opinions about other nationalities all the time, on patriotism etc.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Why would I use a bullhorn? That is ME trying to force my beliefs on others by drowning out their thoughts. I certainly have an opinion on issues and because I can articulate them in a way that people understand that I'm not "coming for them" or trying to hurt them, I've yet to have any problems.



...man, you can't see the forrest because the trees are in your way...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> That doesn't even make sense. You criticize Franco, I have praised Franco...yet neither of us are from Spain. Other nationalities express opinions about other nationalities all the time, on patriotism etc.


Yeah, now I have to ask...are you even reading my posts? I said repeatedly that you can and I won't stop you. Jesus, man.

----------


## Guest

> ...man, you can't see the forrest because the trees are in your way...


Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.  I don't live my life chained to the opinions and expectations of others.  I'm also not a grade A whiner pants like a lot of people.

If you don't like gay marriage then go start a nonprofit, but do something and quit whining about the gaystapo and women.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I can only handle so much bullshit, then the gloves come off.
> 
> I just wish people in general were smarter. Then we wouldn't have these problems.



...the utter arrogance in this made me smile, you're a wow thug aren't you?...

----------


## The XL

> Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about.  I don't live my life chained to the opinions and expectations of others.  I'm also not a grade A whiner pants like a lot of people.
> 
> If you don't like gay marriage then go start a nonprofit, but do something and quit whining about the gaystapo and women.



You're also a rational, intelligent human being. 

 It's too much to expect that from most people, sadly.

----------


## The XL

> ...the utter arrogance in this made me smile, you're a wow thug aren't you?...


What, exactly, is a wow thug?

----------


## Canadianeye

> I'm not sure I'd go there.  He may very well have slept with quite a few men.  Usually those with irrational contempt for gays are closet gays themselves.


That load of hilarious bunk again. LOL. Just taking the education system of the US through the 20s, 30s, 40s, 50s, with hundreds of thousands of schools, with upon millions millions of children, K to 12 for decade upon decade.

They *beat* gays, ridiculed gays, mocked gays...and had irrational contempt for gays, males and females alike. So...all those children, are closet gays?

So America is really a completely gay nation. Gotcha.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> He's not a member of the gaystappo.



...oh, my bad, he's a libertarian?...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> What, exactly, is a wow thug?


Probably a World of Warcraft crack.

----------


## The XL

You know, back then, there was so much disinformation and propaganda, it made more sense.  It was still disgusting then, but a bit more understandable.

In the year 2013, where we a society should be a little smarter and more informed, there really isn't much of an excuse.

----------


## The XL

> Probably a World of Warcraft crack.


Lol, I barely play video games at all anymore, and have never played Wow once.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...oh, my bad, he's a libertarian?...


I'm whatever you want me to be, baby.

----------



----------


## The XL

> ...oh, my bad, he's a libertarian?...


Something wrong with libertarians, Mr. Joe?

----------


## The XL

> I'm whatever you want me to be, baby.


Watch it, you might turn him on.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-26-2013)

----------


## Guest

I think people need to elevate their discourse on this thread because it's gone beyond stupid.  Personal attacks, generalizations, etc.

It is a sign of someone who can't make their argument.

----------


## The XL

> I think people need to elevate their discourse on this thread because it's gone beyond stupid.  Personal attacks, generalizations, etc.
> 
> It is a sign of someone who can't make their argument.


I admit, I've stooped to his level to some degree, but intelligent arguments don't work with people like him, so their isn't any alternative, really.  Aside from ignoring him, I suppose.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

My discourse is fine, I think. I don't think I've insulted anyone ir been particularly rude.

----------


## The XL

> My discourse is fine, I think. I don't think I've insulted anyone ir been particularly rude.


Yeah, you've been fine.

----------


## Guest

> I admit, I've stooped to his level to some degree, but intelligent arguments don't work with people like him, so their isn't any alternative, really.  Aside from ignoring him, I suppose.


Well, he has yet to produce an intelligent argument.

----------

The XL (03-26-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yeah, you've been fine.


For once  :Tongue:

----------

The XL (03-26-2013)

----------


## The XL

> Well, he has yet to produce an intelligent argument.


This is true.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I think that either the women in your life are boring, dowdy trolls or you are. There is a level of bitterness that runs through your posts that tells me that you probably had to bang women with mustaches.
> 
> Sorry bout it.



...but of course...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I think I know more about it than you do. How many men have you slept with?



...just because you suck &*(% doesn't mean you know men or how they think, it just means you suck &*(%...secondly, while I have never had this done to prove it, I've had gay men tell me that no chic can suck &*(% as good as a gay man...ewwwwwwww...anyway, you OK with being 2nd place?...

----------


## Guest

> ...just because you suck &*(% doesn't mean you know men or how they think, it just means you suck &*(%...secondly, while I have never had this done to prove it, I've had gay men tell me that no chic can suck &*(% as good as a gay man...ewwwwwwww...anyway, you OK with being 2nd place?...


LOL.  So a gay man "told you" that no chick can suck cock as good as a man.  Sure.   :Smile:

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I'm a man too, and I'm certain when I say that you have no clue what you're talking about. 
> 
> Tiger seems like a dog. She very well could have, and probably was, sleeping with him. Dude didn't have one chick on the side, he had dozens, including a porn star and a stripper.



...of course you know more then me about being a man, I mean your mommy calls you "littleman"...so "littleman" if you are right and I'm wrong, why did Tiger give up the player life and marry someone when he was a dog?...I'll tell you why "Littleman", chics change after you marry them...don't believe me?...just ask around...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I'm not sure I'd go there. He may very well have slept with quite a few men. Usually those with irrational contempt for gays are closet gays themselves.



...ok, show me anywhere on any forum where I have said anything anti-gay?...I don't even use nicknames like "homo"...I just don't agree with same-sex marriage...so show me where I've attacked homosexuality...

----------


## Guest

> ...of course you know more then me about being a man, I mean your mommy calls you "littleman"...so "littleman" if you are right and I'm wrong, why did Tiger give up the player life and marry someone when he was a dog?...I'll tell you why "Littleman", chics change after you marry them...don't believe me?...just ask around...


You should probably quit before you embarrass yourself further.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I happen to be a guy, jsyk.



...I didn't call you a gal, I called you a feminist, jsyk...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> You're also a rational, intelligent human being. 
> 
> It's too much to expect that from most people, sadly.




...would you please stop sucking her ass?...really, is this the only way you get "play" from chics is sucking their asses on the net?...jesus, if you are a man, act like one...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I think people need to elevate their discourse on this thread because it's gone beyond stupid. Personal attacks, generalizations, etc.
> 
> It is a sign of someone who can't make their argument.



....whoa!!!!!...you take a shot at my wife and then say this?...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...man, are you serious or just dishonest?...

----------


## Guest

> ....whoa!!!!!...you take a shot at my wife and then say this?...LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL...man, are you serious or just dishonest?...


I'm sure you have a wife.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> _Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about._ I don't live my life chained to the opinions and expectations of others. I'm also not a grade A whiner pants like a lot of people.
> 
> If you don't like gay marriage then go start a nonprofit, but do something and quit whining about the gaystapo and women.



...I concur...

----------


## Canadianeye

> You know, back then, there was so much disinformation and propaganda, it made more sense.  It was still disgusting then, but a bit more understandable.
> 
> In the year 2013, where we a society should be a little smarter and more informed, there really isn't much of an excuse.


You're the one who said those with an irrational contempt for gays are usually gay themselves.

w/e. Your statement makes no sense to me. Like Rina said....lots of generalizations flying around.

----------


## The XL

> ...of course you know more then me about being a man, I mean your mommy calls you "littleman"...so "littleman" if you are right and I'm wrong, why did Tiger give up the player life and marry someone when he was a dog?...I'll tell you why "Littleman", chics change after you marry them...don't believe me?...just ask around...


littleman, huh?  Cute.  I mean, judging by the way you talk about women and gays, you're probably some loser who couldn't get a man or a woman if you tried.  I'd go further, but I don't want to get the banhammer.  Let's just say I don't really have much respect for you, at all, and you have less than zero worth as a person.

Back on topic.  If Tiger was simply looking for sex because his wife wouldn't put out, why would he need to be banging dozens of women, including strippers and a fucking porn star?  Why couldn't a couple of females be enough?

I await your ever so intelligent and informed response.

----------


## The XL

> ...would you please stop sucking her ass?...really, is this the only way you get "play" from chics is sucking their asses on the net?...jesus, if you are a man, act like one...


Me and Rina have had two debates recently, one going over 20 pages.  So yeah, you have no idea.

On the real, kindly fuck off.

----------



----------


## The XL

> You're the one who said those with an irrational contempt for gays are usually gay themselves.
> 
> w/e. Your statement makes no sense to me. Like Rina said....lots of generalizations flying around.


Today, yes, they usually are.  Back then, there was propaganda that made people irrationally hate gays.  Kinda like people hated Marijuana users back in the day due to misinformation.

People are more informed now, therefore, that reasoning doesn't fly in todays world.

----------


## Guest

> You're the one who said those with an irrational contempt for gays are usually gay themselves.
> 
> w/e. Your statement makes no sense to me. Like Rina said....lots of generalizations flying around.


We all get heated--especially this cranky sick bitch (I feel like I have tuberculosis) but I think we should bring it down a notch.  That includes me.

----------


## Guest

> littleman, huh?  Cute.  I mean, judging by the way you talk about women and gays, you're probably some loser who couldn't get a man or a woman if you tried.  I'd go further, but I don't want to get the banhammer.  Let's just say I don't really have much respect for you, at all, and you have less than zero worth as a person.
> 
> Back on topic.  If Tiger was simply looking for sex because his wife wouldn't put out, why would he need to be banging dozens of women, including strippers and a fucking porn star?  Why couldn't a couple of females be enough?
> 
> I await your ever so intelligent and informed response.


Why not just one?  He was full of himself and thought his shit didn't stink.

----------

The XL (03-26-2013),Trinnity (03-26-2013)

----------


## Network

What have you nad-jugglers done to my thread?

----------


## The XL

> Why not just one?  He was full of himself and thought his shit didn't stink.


Pretty much.

----------


## Guest

> What have you nad-jugglers done to my thread?


It's become quite tedious, that's for sure.

----------


## Canadianeye

> Today, yes, they usually are.  Back then, there was propaganda that made people irrationally hate gays.  Kinda like people hated Marijuana users back in the day due to misinformation.
> 
> People are more informed now, therefore, that reasoning doesn't fly in todays world.


I won't pursue this further.

----------


## Trinnity

> My point is that to speak of individuals all individuals  the same opportunities, and not all individuals are equal, or *individuals have different features that force you to give them a different treatment* to achieve the goal that they have the same opportunities than other individuals.


This ^ typifies the leftist utopian nightmare. "Nightmare" because life is not fair and can't be _made_ (by force) to be fair - so the above is not possible. The govt can generally craft laws that try to ensure equal _opportunities_ but that's all. Beyond that is folly; it can't be done and it can, and does, lead to unintended consequences that result in discrimination.

----------


## Network

I see it now, @Trinnity is a progressive.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> LOL.  So a gay man "told you" that no chick can suck cock as good as a man.  Sure.



...so is everything you don't agree with untrue?...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I'm sure you have a wife.



...are you going to address my statement or continue to look dishonest?...

----------


## Network

> ...are you going to address my statement or continue to look dishonest?...



She gone to bed.  You hurt her feelings.

----------



----------


## Kabuki Joe

> littleman, huh?  Cute.  I mean, judging by the way you talk about women and gays, you're probably some loser who couldn't get a man or a woman if you tried.  I'd go further, but I don't want to get the banhammer.  Let's just say I don't really have much respect for you, at all, and you have less than zero worth as a person.
> 
> Back on topic.  If Tiger was simply looking for sex because his wife wouldn't put out, why would he need to be banging dozens of women, including strippers and a fucking porn star?  Why couldn't a couple of females be enough?
> 
> I await your ever so intelligent and informed response.



...$10,000 cash, right now, right here, that I have a wife...put up or shut up?...

----------


## Trinnity

> What have you nad-jugglers done to my thread?


I thought I started this thread....lemme check....yeah, I did. 




> It's become quite tedious, that's for sure.


The personal attacks are tedious. Please folks, ease up on that stuff.




> I see it now, @Trinnity is a progressive.


OH! You're gonna die for that.  :Violent5:

----------

Network (03-26-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> She gone to bed.  You hurt her feelings.



...it's not my intension to hurt anyone's feelings, I just want people that claim to be thinking outside of the box, to really think outside of the box...but people don't like being taken out of their comfort zone and when everything they've been spoonfed over their lifetime starts showing flaws, they deny it and then run and hide...how do you I felt when I started learning all the horrible things the US has done all over the world?...it makes you want to cray and pretend it's not true...but that doesn't help anything, it only makes it fester inside of you...I'm still very sad at how the US props up horrible dictators, that do horrible things to their own people just so we have someone to call an ally...it's no wonder the whole middle east hates to US...

----------

Canadianeye (03-27-2013)

----------


## Trinnity

People in other countries sometimes hate us - for what our govt has done....things we ourselves are against. All these interventionist wars ....so wrong.

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-27-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

We must disassociate ourselves from the government and all the things it does in our name, against our will.

----------


## Network

> I thought I started this thread....lemme check....yeah, I did. 
> 
> The personal attacks are tedious. Please folks, ease up on that stuff.
> 
> OH! You're gonna die for that.


Not by fire, please!

You're already sending me to eternal hellfire.

----------


## Maximatic

> Not by fire, please!
> 
> You're already sending me to eternal hellfire.


Oh come on, do you really think the @Trinnity would condemn someone to suffer eternally for just a finite amount of sin?

----------

Network (03-26-2013)

----------


## Network

> Oh come on, do you really think the @Trinnity would condemn someone to suffer eternally for just a finite amount of sin?



I know nicer people who follow this doctrine.  Eternal torture if you don't believe in this compilation of ancient documents!

I'm talking about belief in the Constitution, not the Bible btw.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> LOL. Energy independent with fossil resources? That is intelligence 
> 
> And when you finish the fossil resources...?
> 
> What to the countries are giving more independence are the renewable, that hated thing among conservatives. Imagine having your own production of electricity with solar panels...


 @kilgram

Solar is a great science experiment, but it won't run a city.  Alternative fuels are a good idea, but they are so far away from being a viable option currently.  Running NYC would require so many solar panels it would be ridiculous.

Currently, the only viable option is the scary one - nuclear.  The only reason it is scary is because people are fantastically ignorant on the subject.  I'd rather have a Nuke plant in my back yard than a coal plant any day.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> @kilgram
> 
> Solar is a great science experiment, but it won't run a city.  Alternative fuels are a good idea, but they are so far away from being a viable option currently.  Running NYC would require so many solar panels it would be ridiculous.
> 
> Currently, the only viable option is the scary one - nuclear.  The only reason it is scary is because people are fantastically ignorant on the subject.  I'd rather have a Nuke plant in my back yard than a coal plant any day.


I'm not opposed to nuclear energy, I would just like to keep the plants far enough from people dwellings that a meltdown won't hurt anyone.

----------


## Gemini

> I'm not opposed to nuclear energy, I would just like to keep the plants far enough from people dwellings that a meltdown won't hurt anyone.


Given current technology and he advancements in the decked out pebble bed reactors - meltdown is pretty much a non-issue.  And seeing as they are built like fortresses, flying a plane into it isn't likely to do much either.
 @The Real American Thinker

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Given current technology and he advancements in the decked out pebble bed reactors - meltdown is pretty much a non-issue.  And seeing as they are built like fortresses, flying a plane into it isn't likely to do much either.
>  @The Real American Thinker


Well, like I said, I support it. I'm constantly lobbying my "green energy" friends to accept nuclear energy. It's hard, because a lot of them think nuclear energy inevitably leads to nuclear weapon proliferation, which isn't entirely untrue.

----------


## Gemini

http://gigaom.com/2008/08/01/hyperio...ready-by-2013/

Looks better and better all the time.  Zero pollution, noise, reduced vulnerability(if buried), and cost effective.

Looks pretty damn spiffy if you ask me.

----------


## Gemini

> Well, like I said, I support it. I'm constantly lobbying my "green energy" friends to accept nuclear energy. It's hard, because a lot of them think nuclear energy inevitably leads to nuclear weapon proliferation, which isn't entirely untrue.


 @The Real American Thinker

Tell them the virtues of a thorium isotope based pebble bed reactor - a major pain in the ass to attempt to weaponize because the transmutation doesn't produce the right grade of uranium.  Awesome stuff.

And then when you add to the fact that making enriched uranium is a spendy and difficult process, weaponization is largely moot at that point.  Especially if you are trying to use thorium as a base to work from.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-26-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> @The Real American Thinker
> 
> Tell them the virtues of a thorium isotope based pebble bed reactor - a major pain in the ass to attempt to weaponize because the transmutation doesn't produce the right grade of uranium.  Awesome stuff.
> 
> And then when you add to the fact that making enriched uranium is a spendy and difficult process, weaponization is largely moot at that point.  Especially if you are trying to use thorium as a base to work from.


I'll try it. Thanks.

----------


## Gemini

> I'll try it. Thanks.


And another thing, we have several thousand years of usable uranium that we can use, not even counting the 'waste' that we can recycle.  

*We have four times that amount of usable thorium reserves world wide.*

Basically, we got gobs of it.

----------


## Network

Faux interrupts for the sake of Fuckushima.  Clinton and Obama's war on coal is surely profit motivated.  For the sake of GE-MSNBC  




*Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?*http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...urce-there-is/

----------


## Gemini

> Faux interrupts for the sake of Fuckushima.  Clinton and Obama's war on coal is surely profit motivated.  For the sake of GE-MSNBC  
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Coal: the cleanest energy source there is?*
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/...urce-there-is/


Interesting stuff.  I still side with nuclear though - you don't need train loads of coal every single day to keep going.  A UPS van filled up with fissile material will work for years.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-26-2013)

----------


## Maximatic

Commie ass Faux News says Americans want gun control and people who think the government wants to take guns from citizens and police with military force are crazy conspiracy nuts.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/224589468...tcmp=obnetwork

----------


## Network

> Interesting stuff.  I still side with nuclear though - you don't need train loads of coal every single day to keep going.  A UPS van filled up with fissile material will work for years.



I don't have a problem with any of the energies, I just wish the state would not make their force known in so many ways.  Dept. of Energy - adios.

----------


## Gemini

> I don't have a problem with any of the energies, I just wish the state would not make their force known in so many ways.  Dept. of Energy - adios.




This would be the fate of the alphabet soup regimes if I had control of the military.  The first targets would be domestic targets.  And since our servicemen swore and oath to dispense of all enemies both foreign and domestic, they shouldn't have a beef with it.

----------

Network (03-26-2013)

----------


## Network

Impressive crater.

----------


## Gemini

> Commie ass Faux News says Americans want gun control and people who think the government wants to take guns from citizens and police with military force are crazy conspiracy nuts.
> 
> http://video.foxnews.com/v/224589468...tcmp=obnetwork


The stats they were sporting don't smell right.  Looks like they just pulled it right out of their ass.  I basically disagreed with every single one of them.

----------


## kilgram

> @kilgram
> 
> Solar is a great science experiment, but it won't run a city.  Alternative fuels are a good idea, but they are so far away from being a viable option currently.  Running NYC would require so many solar panels it would be ridiculous.
> 
> Currently, the only viable option is the scary one - nuclear.  The only reason it is scary is because people are fantastically ignorant on the subject.  I'd rather have a Nuke plant in my back yard than a coal plant any day.


Nuclear energy is not clean, and too expensive and close to impossible to build new plants without government subsidies.

----------


## kilgram

> Interesting stuff.  I still side with nuclear though - you don't need train loads of coal every single day to keep going.  A UPS van filled up with fissile material will work for years.


My preferences, in order of preference:
Renewable energies (clean and give more freedom to individuals), nuclear and the last position coal.

----------


## Guest

> ...are you going to address my statement or continue to look dishonest?...


I went to bed.  : :Yawn: :

I am not losing sleep over whether or not you have a wife.  I think your attitude on wives an fidelity sucks, though.  Take that however you like.

----------


## Guest

> Nuclear energy is not clean, and too expensive and close to impossible to build new plants without government subsidies.


Methane

http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/737543.shtml
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/sc...wage.html?_r=0
http://www.alaskapublic.org/2012/07/...e-power-plant/

----------


## Gemini

> Nuclear energy is not clean, and too expensive and close to impossible to build new plants without government subsidies.


Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy out there. @kilgram

----------


## Maximatic

> Nuclear energy is not clean, and too expensive and close to impossible to build new plants without government subsidies.





> Methane
> 
> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/737543.shtml
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/sc...wage.html?_r=0
> http://www.alaskapublic.org/2012/07/...e-power-plant/


I can't wait 'till fossil fuels are gone and we can use nuclear and hydrogen for everything.

----------


## Guest

> I can't wait 'till fossil fuels are gone and we can use nuclear and hydrogen for everything.


Methane takes waste, of which a planet with billions of people and livestock have a lot of, and converts it to energy.  The problem with nuclear power and hydrogen is when those rare accidents happen...people are fucked.

----------


## Maximatic

> Methane takes waste, of which a planet with billions of people and livestock have a lot of, and converts it to energy.  The problem with nuclear power and hydrogen is when those rare accidents happen...people are fucked.


Yeah, I know, but they're so abundant. Hydrogen is practically inexhaustible.

----------


## Gemini

> Methane
> 
> http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/737543.shtml
> http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/09/sc...wage.html?_r=0
> http://www.alaskapublic.org/2012/07/...e-power-plant/


 @Rina_Dragonborn

Behold...the power, of poo.

I've seen similar results in some studies done in africa.  The farmers there sell the waste produced by the cows in stalls, the power company drops by to pick up the poo, they use what they can, and sell the remaining solids as fertilizer.  Truly symbiotic relationship.

It is amazing the stuff people can come up with.

----------



----------


## Gemini

> Yeah, I know, but they're so abundant. Hydrogen is practically inexhaustible.


Only real problem with hydrogen is that it isn't truly an energy source, but a medium of which to store energy.  So when you mention both nuclear and hydrogen you are vastly correct, it would take mass nuclear power to enable hydrogen to ever take form on a mass scale.

That being said, hydrogen stores a shit ton of power, and is a marvelous fuel source.

----------


## Guest

> Yeah, I know, but they're so abundant. Hydrogen is practically inexhaustible.


So is shit and we have to do something with it.

----------


## Gemini

> So is shit and we have to do something with it.


Personally, I wish they would put more time and money into researching more cost effective ways to produce algae based fuels and feedstocks.

Algae has a very bright future IMO.

----------



----------


## Maximatic

Gasoline is just amazing stuff. I'm sure oil companies play some nasty tricks to keep us using it, but its efficiency is just incredible.



> Liquid hydrogen has less energy density _by volume_ than hydrocarbon fuels such as gasoline *by approximately a factor of four*. This highlights the density problem  for pure hydrogen: there is actually about 64% more hydrogen in a liter  of gasoline (116 grams hydrogen) than there is in a liter of pure liquid  hydrogen (71 grams hydrogen). The carbon in the gasoline also  contributes to the energy of combustion.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrogen_storage

----------


## Guest

> Personally, I wish they would put more time and money into researching more cost effective ways to produce algae based fuels and feedstocks.
> 
> Algae has a very bright future IMO.


I agree.  The husband was a big bio-diesel guy.  He had one of the first grease cars that I knew of.  We'd go on dates and the car would smell like donuts.  It was awesome.

 :Frown:

----------


## Gemini

> Gasoline is just amazing stuff. I'm sure oil companies play some nasty tricks to keep us using it, but its efficiency is just incredible.


Old tricks are the best tricks.  Gasoline is pretty awesome stuff - it is why we use so much of it.

----------


## Gemini

> I agree.  The husband was a big bio-diesel guy.  He had one of the first grease cars that I knew of.  We'd go on dates and the car would smell like donuts.  It was awesome.


The best part about algae is that it doesn't require arable farm land.  You can set up shop in arizona as an algae farm, all you need is water and you're golden.  AZ has lots of sunshine too.

----------


## Maximatic

> I agree.  The husband was a big bio-diesel guy.  He had one of the first grease cars that I knew of.  We'd go on dates and the car would smell like donuts.  It was awesome.


Where did he get it? Did he make it, buy it, have it made..?

----------


## Guest

> Where did he get it? Did he make it, buy it, have it made..?


He got the grease from either the Chinese restaurant outside of base or the donut shop.  But he used to talk a lot about algae and biodiesel made from it.

He was a super smartie.  Could jury rig anything to work.  Ahhh well...

----------


## Gemini

> Where did he get it? Did he make it, buy it, have it made..?


You can usually buy the waste grease from fast food restaurants that deep fry half their menu.  They sell it by the barrel.  But you'll have competition in buying that barrel.

----------


## Maximatic

> He got the grease from either the Chinese restaurant outside of base or the donut shop.  But he used to talk a lot about algae and biodiesel made from it.
> 
> He was a super smartie.  Could jury rig anything to work.  Ahhh well...


So, kind of a cross between MacGyver, Rombo and Rothbard, only good looking?

----------


## Guest

> So, kind of a cross between MacGyver, Rombo and Rothbard, only good looking?


LOL, my parents called him MacGyver.   :Smile:   Yes, he was all those things and I was very lucky to have him in my life.

----------


## Maximatic

> You can usually buy the waste grease from fast food restaurants that deep fry half their menu.  They sell it by the barrel.  But you'll have competition in buying that barrel.


Yeah, that's good, only, if we used it on a large scale, we'd have to overcome production problems, and the storage problem in cold weather. If we're doing it for the environment I'm not sure if, in the end, after you grow the crops and process it and all, it's much cleaner than gasoline, and it gels up pretty quickly when it gets cold.

----------


## Maximatic

> LOL, my parents called him MacGyver.    Yes, he was all those things and I was very lucky to have him in my life.


 :Smile:

----------


## Maximatic

Maybe he'll impact the world inn ways that you never expected, through you.

----------


## Guest

> Maybe he'll impact the world inn ways that you never expected, through you.


Wow, Max...I'd like to think that is true.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-27-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Yeah, that's good, only, if we used it on a large scale, we'd have to overcome production problems, and the storage problem in cold weather. If we're doing it for the environment I'm not sure if, in the end, after you grow the crops and process it and all, it's much cleaner than gasoline, and it gels up pretty quickly when it gets cold.


Well they do sell fuel additives to stop that gelling process.

----------


## birddog

We have hundreds of years of reserves to use of coal, natural gas, and oil in this country.  Coal is used a nuclear plants.  I am not in favor of corn ethanol by the way because of it's inefficiency and cost.

To get energy independent in a safe way, we need to mine and drill much more.  I like the idea of saving our soldier's lives by not putting them in harms way to protect our oil interests.

Alternatives such as wind and solar should be gradually worked in, but it's impractical to concentrate on them now.  Brainy intellects in their lofty towers of idealism may not agree with me, but they have the right to be wrong.

----------

Gemini (03-27-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> Nuclear energy is the cleanest energy out there. @kilgram


Cleanest? Please aren't you serious?

The waste, the procedence of the prime resources is everything less clean. And also, you didn't discuss me, how expensive is that technology and how difficult is to recoup the inversion.

Are much cleaner energies like wind, solar... They are clean, but telling me that nuclear energy is the cleanest, is a pure lie. 

Improve your arguments if you want to defend the nuclear energy, but not that.

----------


## The XL

> ...$10,000 cash, right now, right here, that I have a wife...put up or shut up?...


I don't care.  Their are over 3 billion women in the world, so if you found one sad enough to settle with someone like you, then all I have to say is congratulations.  


 @The XL
Please don't engage in personal attacks.

----------



----------


## Guest

> I don't care.  Their are over 3 billion women in the world, so if you found one sad enough to settle with someone like you, then all I have to say is congratulations.

----------

The XL (03-27-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Cleanest? Please aren't you serious?
> 
> The waste, the procedence of the prime resources is everything less clean. And also, you didn't discuss me, how expensive is that technology and how difficult is to recoup the inversion.
> 
> Are much cleaner energies like wind, solar... They are clean, but telling me that nuclear energy is the cleanest, is a pure lie. 
> 
> Improve your arguments if you want to defend the nuclear energy, but not that.


Nuclear waste can be recycled until it is barely radiant at all with the advancements that have been made, they can make it air tight so that nothing escapes and the steam is recaptured.  Even if there is a reactor breach the only thing that is released is helium(depending on the cooling mechanism) into the atmosphere.

Did a report on this in class a few semesters ago, Coal and nuclear both equal about 1500 dollars per kilowatt of power produced at the plant.  Basically, it is slightly cheaper than coal, safer than coal, more efficient than coal, doesn't require constant resupply like coal, has zero atmospheric pollution like coal, and you can recycle your waste fuel unlike coal.

Solar cells- the technology to produce photo voltaic cells isn't exactly environmentally friendly, and a cloudy day shuts it down.  Nuclear runs all day, everyday without compaints.  Wind power?  Well if the wind doesn't blow you are screwed, and some areas of the country aren't good candidates for it, nuclear power has no such restrictions - build it and manage it regardless of wind.  Also with wind power comes the nightmare of maintenance and the leaking oil from the turbines.  Not to mention the birds and the bats that they kill, or the "whump whump" of the wings driving both the residency and the cattle insane.

For the waste that actually cannot be recycled further we simply need to shoot it into space with a rail gun or do deep core drilling and drop it into the mantel of the earth where it simply cannot hurt anybody - or they could open the Yucca mountain facility again and put it there under guard.  The navy tested one rail gun a while back that can put a round 200 miles away in about two minutes, the projectile weighs about 7 pounds.  Make it bigger, make it better, and aim it at the sun.  A little spend fuel chunks aren't going to bother the sun in the slightest.

Declaring solar and wind clean just because they have no smoke stack ignores the process used to make them, and little things like power output, and geographic feasibility.  Nuclear works everywhere, solar and wind only work where possible, and even then at a fraction of the power of a nuclear power plant.

Argument improved. Bampf!  @kilgram

----------

kilgram (03-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

I agree, but what happens to those who live in the immediate facility of a reactor that has a meltdown?  It's very easy to say that its a great source of energy unless you lived through Chernobyl or Fukashima.  Whole areas of Eurasia dealt with the after effects of Chernobyl for years.  The cancer rates were through the roof.

Have you ever seen Children of Chernobyl?

----------

kilgram (03-27-2013)

----------


## kilgram

Better now  :Smile:  I don't agree, but you deserve a thanks.

I don't know about the security restrictions in USA, but I think that should be really similar like in Europe, the last reports that I've read is that nuclear is really expensive and it requires a total centralization of the power.

While with solar the self-production of energy is much more possible.

----------


## Gemini

> I agree, but what happens to those who live in the immediate facility of a reactor that has a meltdown?  It's very easy to say that its a great source of energy unless you lived through Chernobyl or Fukashima.  Whole areas of Eurasia dealt with the after effects of Chernobyl for years.  The cancer rates were through the roof.
> 
> Have you ever seen Children of Chernobyl?


No, I haven't seen it.  But I wonder who put it together, is it a green peace propaganda film that is just anti-nuclear or is it a fair representation of nuclear power?

Things like Chernobyl happen when you don't take proper precautions, and sadly, they didn't.  And they provided gobs of reasons as to why they should have been taken.  Indeed cancer rates when high, that is what happens without the proper containment being put in place.

Fukushima also did have a tsunami and a monstrous earthquake.  Considering how much had to happen before things got ugly, it was a very good turn out.  But why they put the reactor so close to the coast is beyond me though, especially when they are known to have the occasional tsunami.  100000 people were snuffed out in the wave, I haven't heard of a casualty list from the rads though.

----------


## Guest

> No, I haven't seen it.  But I wonder who put it together, is it a green peace propaganda film that is just anti-nuclear or is it a fair representation of nuclear power?


Doctors without Borders.




> Things like Chernobyl happen when you don't take proper precautions, and sadly, they didn't.  And they provided gobs of reasons as to why they should have been taken.  Indeed cancer rates when high, that is what happens without the proper containment being put in place.


Right because humans err.  To think that humans won't err or cut corners **cough BP cough** is a ludicrous assumption to make.




> Fukushima also did have a tsunami and a monstrous earthquake.  Considering how much had to happen before things got ugly, it was a very good turn out.  But why they put the reactor so close to the coast is beyond me though, especially when they are known to have the occasional tsunami.  100000 people were snuffed out in the wave, I haven't heard of a casualty list from the rads though.


Right.  Humans erred.

----------

kilgram (03-27-2013)

----------


## Gemini

> Right because humans err.  To think that humans won't err or cut corners **cough BP cough** is a ludicrous assumption to make.


A fair point you make, but it the BP spill was made out to be the end of the world as well - we're just fine, the ecosystem will rebalance itself in time, chernobyl is no different.




> Right.  Humans erred.


Guess it is part of being human.  Not trying to be callous toward those born with defects or those battling cancers, but there is no sense in living in fear of it.  It is like still being scared of eating pork, even when we know how to cook it properly to prevent disease.

----------


## Trinnity

*I've asked twice now and I'm asking politely for the last time - will the personal attacks and bickering between @Kabuki Joe and @The XL please stop.

Folks, please be civil to each other.

Thanks*

----------


## Guest

> A fair point you make, but it the BP spill was made out to be the end of the world as well - we're just fine, the ecosystem will rebalance itself in time, chernobyl is no different.


Well, Chernobyl was different.  The cancer rates were through the roof and the radiation levels are still present.




> Guess it is part of being human.  Not trying to be callous toward those born with defects or those battling cancers, but there is no sense in living in fear of it.  It is like still being scared of eating pork, even when we know how to cook it properly to prevent disease.


Right but YOU can take a chance with eating pork and cooking it to temperature.  Do you have the right to take a chance with me and mine?

----------


## Gemini

> Well, Chernobyl was different.  The cancer rates were through the roof and the radiation levels are still present.


In time, they will go down to the standard earth norm.  Might be a long while though.




> Right but YOU can take a chance with eating pork and cooking it to temperature.  Do you have the right to take a chance with me and mine?


A similar argument could be made against monsanto in regards to food safety.  Do I have that right?  No, but you can choose to not live in an area with nuclear power in the vicinity and vote to bar it being built into your area.

----------


## Guest

> In time, they will go down to the standard earth norm.  Might be a long while though.


Oh sure.  Doesn't really help the little kids suffering with cancers and birth defects now.




> A similar argument could be made against monsanto in regards to food safety.


It could, since their crops contaminate others.




> Do I have that right?  No, but you can choose to not live in an area with nuclear power in the vicinity and vote to bar it being built into your area.


You can make the attempt certainly.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> In time, they will go down to the standard earth norm.  Might be a long while though.
> 
> A similar argument could be made against monsanto in regards to food safety.  Do I have that right?  No, but you can choose to not live in an area with nuclear power in the vicinity and vote to bar it being built into your area.


Just out if curiosity...would the government be overseeing the building of these power plants, or would private entities?

----------

kilgram (03-27-2013)

----------


## kilgram

> A fair point you make, but it the BP spill was made out to be the end of the world as well - we're just fine, the ecosystem will rebalance itself in time, chernobyl is no different.
> 
> 
> 
> Guess it is part of being human.  Not trying to be callous toward those born with defects or those battling cancers, but there is no sense in living in fear of it.  It is like still being scared of eating pork, even when we know how to cook it properly to prevent disease.


Yeah even now people is born with genetic diseases cause to the radiation of Chernobyl. The effects will disappear in hundreds of years.

And with nuclear energy you have a strong dependency to others.

Sorry, but I don't buy it.

----------


## kilgram

> In time, they will go down to the standard earth norm.  Might be a long while though.
> 
> 
> 
> A similar argument could be made against monsanto in regards to food safety.  Do I have that right?  No, but you can choose to not live in an area with nuclear power in the vicinity and vote to bar it being built into your area.


Fantastic, you don't care of the people. Thanks. Even you don't care of the nature, and nothing.

If we can prevent that disasters, better prevent them than risk and try to cure that disaster.

For example Germany won't use any more nuclear energy. They are making a lot of improvements with renewable energy, and Spain was (until government bought by the great electric corporations) screw all that, and is doing even illegal things to destroy the solar production.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> *I've asked twice now and I'm asking politely for the last time - will the personal attacks and bickering between @Kabuki Joe and @The XL please stop.
> 
> Folks, please be civil to each other.
> 
> Thanks*



...ok, you forgot to bring Rina into this because she kind of started it...but please, go easy on XL, him putting up an image of the Rock to compare himself with was priceless!...I mean I would like to think of myself as the Rock, only whiter, shorter and older...other then that we are just alike...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...on the net anyway...but that's our little secret...  :Smile:

----------


## Guest

> ...ok, you forgot to bring Rina into this because she kind of started it...but please, go easy on XL, him putting up an image of the Rock to compare himself with was priceless!...I mean I would like to think of myself as the Rock, only whiter, shorter and older...other then that we are just alike...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...on the net anyway...but that's our little secret...


I started what, again?  The anti-female tirade?  The useless comments about how it was Elin's fault that Tiger cheated?  That was me?

----------


## The XL

> ...ok, you forgot to bring Rina into this because she kind of started it...but please, go easy on XL, him putting up an image of the Rock to compare himself with was priceless!...I mean I would like to think of myself as the Rock, only whiter, shorter and older...other then that we are just alike...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...on the net anyway...but that's our little secret...


When did I compare myself to the Rock?

Oh brother.

----------


## Maximatic

The Rock sucks compared to me!

----------



----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...ok, you forgot to bring Rina into this because she kind of started it...but please, go easy on XL, him putting up an image of the Rock to compare himself with was priceless!...I mean I would like to think of myself as the Rock, only whiter, shorter and older...other then that we are just alike...HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...on the net anyway...but that's our little secret...


Rina started it? Are you forgetting the insults (like "gaystapo") you threw my way, when I had not treated you unkindly?

----------



----------


## Guest

> Rina started it? Are you forgetting the insults (like "gaystapo") you threw my way, when I had not treated you unkindly?


Oh, it was me!  I always start shit up.  You know how I do.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

It's stuff like this: ..._this is a fact, his wife didn't keep his needs met and he had to get  them met somewhere else...if you don't keep your man happy, someone else  will...you feminists don't like this, better get a taste for clam then  because that's what you'll end up living off of, clam...and maybe some  imitation salami_...

that is difficult for me to pass up without snark. But I suppose my rebuttal to innuendos of lesbianism awaiting women who won't give up vajayjay routinely means I was starting it.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-27-2013)

----------


## kilgram

Don't feed the troll and don't fall in their territory.

----------



----------


## Trinnity

> *I've asked twice now and I'm asking politely for the last time - will the personal attacks and bickering between @Kabuki Joe and @The XL please stop.
> 
> Folks, please be civil to each other.
> 
> Thanks*


 *Rinny, you too, ma'am. 

Folks, insulting each other, piling on with your friends, bringing family members into the insults....it's never okay. It's in the rules.

You're all adults. Behave yourselves, please.* 
 @Rina_Dragonborn @The XL @Kabuki Joe

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-27-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I started what, again?  The anti-female tirade?  The useless comments about how it was Elin's fault that Tiger cheated?  That was me?



...you brought my wife into it over a disagreement with me...not only did you bring her up, but you were disrepectful about her...have I brought up your husband?...have I been disrepectful towards him?...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Rina started it? Are you forgetting the insults (like "gaystapo") you threw my way, when I had not treated you unkindly?



...that was towards you, not your girlfriend, or whatever you are with today...you and not your family...say whatever you want about me, but don't insult my family...is this too much for you to understand?...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> When did I compare myself to the Rock?
> 
> Oh brother.


...I see what you did there...

----------


## Guest

> ...you brought my wife into it over a disagreement with me...not only did you bring her up, but you were disrepectful about her...have I brought up your husband?...have I been disrepectful towards him?...


 @Trinnity said that we were to cease with this, but...

I didn't bring up your wife because a) I didn't know if you are male/female, b) if you're married/single, c) its the internet.  Unless you meet someone in person you know nothing about them.  It's like your saying I insulted your flying dragon.  How can I insult what I don't know you have?

----------


## Guest

@Kabuki Joe

let's just cut the shit out.  Call some sort of truce.  Maybe you refrain from generalizations about women and I refrain from being a bitch...sound fair?

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...that was towards you, not your girlfriend, or whatever you are with today...you and not your family...say whatever you want about me, but don't insult my family...is this too much for you to understand?...


My point is that I haven't insulted you once in this entire thread, but you've insulted me multiple times. 

I don't really care, I'm just pointing out that you're acting like someone else started it and you were just reacting, when that's simply not true.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> *Rinny, you too, ma'am. 
> 
> Folks, insulting each other, piling on with your friends, bringing family members into the insults....it's never okay. It's in the rules.
> 
> You're all adults. Behave yourselves, please.* 
>  @Rina_Dragonborn @The XL @Kabuki Joe


I've been a good boy this time! Don't I get a gold star sticker?  :Tongue:

----------


## Gemini

> Oh sure.  Doesn't really help the little kids suffering with cancers and birth defects now.


And nothing will, they already have cancer or birth defects.  Might I suggest moving away?  If it is too expensive, then they need to re-evaluate their priorities - save money, or have a child with 3 legs...not really a head scratcher there.




> It could, since their crops contaminate others.


Their bastard seed should be purged from this world, the control on the food supply they have is a nightmare.  There are not many corporations I hate as much as Microsoft, and Monsanto is one of them.




> You can make the attempt certainly.


Well there is no sense in being scared of the boogeyman is there?
 @Rina_Dragonborn

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> It's stuff like this: ..._this is a fact, his wife didn't keep his needs met and he had to get  them met somewhere else...if you don't keep your man happy, someone else  will...you feminists don't like this, better get a taste for clam then  because that's what you'll end up living off of, clam...and maybe some  imitation salami_...
> 
> that is difficult for me to pass up without snark. But I suppose my rebuttal to innuendos of lesbianism awaiting women who won't give up vajayjay routinely means I was starting it.



...screeeeeeeeeech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....is this an easier pill for you to swallow?:

http://www.today.com/id/23575221/ns/...-cheating-men/


...I know you are a woman and it's never a woman's fault but woman are not always a victim...the first lady is very sharp, the guy is a PC ROBOT, and Dr Laura is very intune with husband/wife dynamics...and needs is not just sexual...this is a good video except for the PC bias...

----------


## Gemini

> Just out if curiosity...would the government be overseeing the building of these power plants, or would private entities?


Not many things I am keen on government intervention on, but this is one of them.  When you're fiddling with radiant energies you can't let greed interfere with public safety.  Although I think you could circumvent this need by simply holding the CEO and board of directors *personally responsible* for all negligence and property damages with no way to get out of it.

Putting the lean on them personally would likely eliminate that need for gov oversight.  But since that isn't going to happen any time soon, ugh...let the gov do its job.  I hate saying that.
 @The Real American Thinker

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-27-2013)

----------


## Guest

> ...screeeeeeeeeech!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!....is this an easier pill for you to swallow?:
> 
> http://www.today.com/id/23575221/ns/...-cheating-men/
> 
> 
> ...I know you are a woman and it's never a woman's fault but woman are not always a victim...the first lady is very sharp, the guy is a PC ROBOT, and Dr Laura is very intune with husband/wife dynamics...and needs is not just sexual...this is a good video except for the PC bias...


I don't believe that I said anything of that nature.  I said that I don't believe that generalizations are useful, nor is blaming the victim.  There are plenty of women at fault for things.  In my marriage it was my husband who was the perfect, even tempered one, and me the harpy.

----------


## Gemini

> Yeah even now people is born with genetic diseases cause to the radiation of Chernobyl. The effects will disappear in hundreds of years.


Radiation will take longer than most are willing to deal with.  People with cancers and birth defects?  Probably a generation or two tops.  Sexual selection being the primary reason.  Nobody wants to marry or have sex with those who have missing limbs and malformed body parts.  The cruelty of nature and human beings willingness to dish out alienation amongst those who are different are powerful corrective mechanisms.

But as I suggested earlier - move away from Chernobyl unless it is deemed safe.  Not willing to move away?  Get used to having eerie problems.




> And with nuclear energy you have a strong dependency to others.


Clarify this for me please.




> Sorry, but I don't buy it.


Actually, you probably are buying it right now, or at least a 20% chance of it anyways-




> Spain has eight nuclear reactors producing 20% of the country's electricity or 7,448 net megawatts (MWe). Spain imports approximately 2% of its energy from France but exports the same amount to Portugal.[2]
>  A nuclear power moratorium was enacted by the Socialist government in 1983.[3] For a time the country had a policy of phasing out nuclear power in favor of renewables.[4] The oldest unit (at José Cabrera nuclear power plant) was shut down at the end of 2006, 40 years after its construction.[5] However, in 2009, the operating permit for the Garoña plant was extended to 42 years.[6]  In 2011, the government lifted the 40-year limit on all reactors,  allowing owners to apply for license extensions in 10-year increments.[7]




Source.
 @kilgram

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Not many things I am keen on government intervention on, but this is one of them.  When you're fiddling with radiant energies you can't let greed interfere with public safety.  Although I think you could circumvent this need by simply holding the CEO and board of directors *personally responsible* for all negligence and property damages with no way to get out of it.
> 
> Putting the lean on them personally would likely eliminate that need for gov oversight.  But since that isn't going to happen any time soon, ugh...let the gov do its job.  I hate saying that.
>  @The Real American Thinker


Then I have no further questions, Your Honor.

----------


## Gemini

> Fantastic, you don't care of the people. Thanks. Even you don't care of the nature, and nothing.


You misunderstand me, I like nuclear because it is clean, better for the environment than any of its competitors.  The facts that it has a bad rap is because people weren't careful while using it.

Telling me I don't care about those people is partially true - I didn't have anything to do with their misfortune, so I in no way feel responsible for their suffering.  I am sympathetic to their ills though.




> If we can prevent that disasters, better prevent them than risk and try to cure that disaster.


No sense in throwing away a very good source of power based off of fear, irrational fear at that.  Almost everybody I know that opposes nuclear is fantastically ignorant on the subject.  Once they learn it is a safe and viable option - and *cheaper*, they quickly reconsider their options.  

Not learning from your mistakes is foolish and ignorant.  We have the tech to do this safely, why not use it?  Got a problem against cheap electricity?




> For example Germany won't use any more nuclear energy. They are making a lot of improvements with renewable energy, and Spain was (until government bought by the great electric corporations) screw all that, and is doing even illegal things to destroy the solar production.


Checked wikipedia, they still use it, although they are phasing it out slowly.  If they want to jump on the green energy bandwagon and drink that kool aid  than be my guest.  They can pay out the nose for it.

----------


## Trinnity

Okay, it looks like some civility has been restored here (I hope so), so can we sorta steer this back to the topic? I'd sure like to talk about _that_ some more.

So.....does anyone think the GOP will wise up and smell the coffee? Or will the establishment GOP keep attacking the libertarian/teaparty wing and continue to lose to the dems?

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> I don't believe that I said anything of that nature.  I said that I don't believe that generalizations are useful, nor is blaming the victim.  There are plenty of women at fault for things.  In my marriage it was my husband who was the perfect, even tempered one, and me the harpy.



...but isn't that the way US kids are being raised?...the guys take it in the ass and the gals can do no wrong?...nothing wrong with falling in line with the standards, unless you know they are wrong...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Okay, it looks like some civility has been restored here (I hope so), so can we sorta steer this back to the topic? I'd sure like to talk about _that_ some more.
> 
> So.....does anyone think the GOP will wise up and smell the coffee? Or will the establishment GOP keep attacking the libertarian/teaparty wing and continue to lose to the dems?


If Rand runs in 2016 and wins the nomination, the Old Guard is pretty much dead. Until then, the two sides are going to keep fighting. If Rand loses the nomination, the GOP will lose the next election.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Okay, it looks like some civility has been restored here (I hope so), so can we sorta steer this back to the topic? I'd sure like to talk about _that_ some more.
> 
> So.....does anyone think the GOP will wise up and smell the coffee? Or will the establishment GOP keep attacking the libertarian/teaparty wing and continue to lose to the dems?



...no...you can't undo your deal with the Devil...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> My point is that I haven't insulted you once in this entire thread, but you've insulted me multiple times. 
> 
> I don't really care, I'm just pointing out that you're acting like someone else started it and you were just reacting, when that's simply not true.



...really?...you've never insulted my intelligence?...my morals?...my opinions?...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> If Rand runs in 2016 and wins the nomination, the Old Guard is pretty much dead. Until then, the two sides are going to keep fighting. If Rand loses the nomination, the GOP will lose the next election.



...Rand will go as far as Romney, don't fool yourself any other way...#1 he won't be running against Obama and #2 he's still a man of faith, a true man of faith not like Obama the pretender...and like I said before faith doesn't go well with women...

----------


## Gemini

@Trinnity




> So.....does anyone think the GOP will wise up and smell the coffee?


History tells me that this is highly unlikely.




> Or will the establishment GOP keep attacking the libertarian/teaparty wing and continue to lose to the dems?


Yes, but also shed their previous facade at maintaining any semblance of morality in the process by opening the arms of amnesty, and suddenly thinking gay marriage is cool too.  They are just as warped and evil as the democrats, they just put on a bigger show to mask what they really are - parasites.

The democrats are at least open and brazen about their evil, I can manipulate evil, but with the republican party you don't always know who is who.  This is an undesirable variable in the equation.

Let both parties burn for all I care.

Unless the next candidate is a libertarian with a solid record I'm writing in a vote for Viagra as president, and Astroglide for vice president, because we're about to be royally ****ed if no other options show up.

----------

Trinnity (03-27-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...really?...you've never insulted my intelligence?...my morals?...my opinions?...


Not that I'm aware of. Certainly not in this thread.




> ...Rand will go as far as Romney, don't fool yourself any other way...#1 he won't be running against Obama and #2 he's still a man of faith, a true man of faith not like Obama the pretender...and like I said before faith doesn't go well with women...


LOL. Okay.

----------


## Gemini

> ...really?...you've never insulted my intelligence?...my morals?...my opinions?...


 @Kabuki Joe

Dude, nobody cares.  Move on.  If you really want to have a shit fight there is a place for it - Quarantine.  You and whoever else that wants to have a bitch fit can go there and duke it out.  I tried to distract the thread with nuclear power to get away from it but my designs have failed.  Let it go.

----------



----------


## Kabuki Joe

> @Kabuki Joe
> 
> Dude, nobody cares.  Move on.  If you really want to have a shit fight there is a place for it - Quarantine.  You and whoever else that wants to have a bitch fit can go there and duke it out.  I tried to distract the thread with nuclear power to get away from it but my designs have failed.  Let it go.



...Dude, put me on ignore, I wasn't talking to you...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

Dude, where's my car?

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> People in other countries _sometimes_ hate us - for what our govt has done....things we ourselves are against. All these interventionist wars ....so wrong.



...it's kind of funny, I listen to Lars Larson and for the most part I like what he says...even though he's a libraltarian...anyway, he was talking about the average education level of the world population and even the highly educated are only equal to a US 3rd grade education...I have no reason to doubt this because I have never caught him in a lie....anyway, the reason most people hate us is because we go in and force them to live by our standards, you know that of a christian...we have gone throughout the world making cultures give up their ways and accept ours...Bin Laden seen this going on all over the ME which is why he hated us, and he was smart enough, rich enough to have the connections to find other people like him and unite them...I really think we as Americans needs to stop condeming the ME, it's culture and most importantly their religion if we ever hope have genuine good will towards Americans...I think China will take our place as the most influental power in the world and when we loose our place the allies we've had will flock to China and we will become irrellevant...or NK will just start launching nukes and all this world politics stuff won't matter anymore...

----------

Canadianeye (03-28-2013)

----------


## Calypso Jones

oh.  
"we force others to live by our christian standards..we have gone throughout the world making cultures give up their ways and accept ours..."

where exactly have we done that?

----------


## Gemini

> ...it's kind of funny, I listen to Lars Larson and for the most part I like what he says...even though he's a libraltarian...anyway, he was talking about the average education level of the world population and even the highly educated are only equal to a US 3rd grade education...I have no reason to doubt this because I have never caught him in a lie....anyway,* the reason most people hate us is because we go in and force them to live by our standards, you know that of a christian...we have gone throughout the world making cultures give up their ways and accept ours..*.


When and where did this happen?  I would like to know.




> Bin Laden seen this going on all over the ME which is why he hated us, and he was smart enough, rich enough to have the connections to find other people like him and unite them...I really think we as Americans needs to stop condeming the ME, it's culture and most importantly their religion if we ever hope have genuine good will towards Americans...I think China will take our place as the most influental power in the world and when we loose our place the allies we've had will flock to China and we will become irrellevant...or NK will just start launching nukes and all this world politics stuff won't matter anymore...


Peace in the ME will never happen man.  But we can remove our presence in the region and with it all incentive to attack us.  If they do, we can blast them back to the bronze age.  We should get back to using nuclear weaponry and not waste time on this invasion crap.

Peace or genocide, pick a lane.  But that is my two cents.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Peace in the ME will never happen man.  But we can remove our presence in the region and with it all incentive to attack us.  If they do, we can blast them back to the bronze age.  We should get back to using nuclear weaponry and not waste time on this invasion crap.
> 
> Peace or genocide, pick a lane.  But that is my two cents.



...I thought you were going to put me on ignore?!?!?...

----------


## Calypso Jones

I don't have a problem removing ourselves from the middle east. But don't think for one minute that it will remove the incentive to hate us and/or attack us. LISTEN to them!! They are intent on world domination....God only knows what they'll do with that seein' as they don't even grasp the concept of TOILET PAPER!! but still, they have the goal of world domination for their hateful god and just our existence is anathema to them.

so.  i can go with that blasting them back into the stone age or better yet...oblivion.   Give them their 72 Virginians.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> oh.  
> "we force others to live by our christian standards..we have gone throughout the world making cultures give up their ways and accept ours..."
> 
> where exactly have we done that?


...are you serious?...and I'm asking a serious question here...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> I don't have a problem removing ourselves from the middle east.  But don't think for one minute that it will remove the incentive to hate us and/or attack us.   LISTEN to them!!   They are intent on world domination....God only knows what they'll do with that seein' as they don't even grasp the concept of TOILET PAPER!! but still, they have the goal of world domination for their hateful god and just our existence is anathema to them.


Actually, if you listen to them (and you haven't), they are not bent on world domination. They aren't even trying - the only time the ME has gone to real war with each other in recent history (not counting Israel-involved wars) were Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the Iran-Iraq War, both of which were about oil, not domination.

Non-interventionist countries like Switzerland don't get attacked. Interventionist countries like us do. That's not a coincidence.

----------

Gemini (03-28-2013)

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Actually, if you listen to them (and you haven't), they are not bent on world domination. They aren't even trying - the only time the ME has gone to real war with each other in recent history (not counting Israel-involved wars) were Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the Iran-Iraq War, both of which were about oil, not domination.
> 
> Non-interventionist countries like Switzerland don't get attacked. Interventionist countries like us do. That's not a coincidence.



...it all started with the crusades...

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> ...it all started with the crusades...


Pretty much.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> Pretty much.



...you don't go into someones home and call them heathens while you butcher them...whether it's god's will or not...

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-28-2013)

----------


## Guest

> ...but isn't that the way US kids are being raised?...the guys take it in the ass and the gals can do no wrong?...nothing wrong with falling in line with the standards, unless you know they are wrong...


No.

----------


## Gemini

> ...I thought you were going to put me on ignore?!?!?...


Oh no...not at all.  I think I may have found a new hobby.  Now address the post if you would be so kind- 343.
 @Kabuki Joe

----------


## Gemini

> ...it all started with the crusades...


And if you open your eyes a little more and read more history, not just the sanitized islam friendly kind, you'll notice that they were also retaliatory strikes from previous attacks.  Don't let silly things like facts get in the way of learning.
 @Kabuki Joe

----------

Calypso Jones (03-28-2013)

----------


## Guest

The fact is that the reason why the ME is so openly anti-American is because we have meddled, both openly and behind the scenes.  We have shaken hands with dictators like Saddam when he was at the height of being a dictator and then turned around and toppled him for the same reason.  Only the most head in the sand person can't see that our policy has been abysmal and that we give people reasons to hate us.

Moreover, our "intelligence" community has been over there shit-stirring.  Everyone knows this.  All we have done in the process is create democracy--sure, but the type of democracy that blows back on both us and the minority religions of that region.

We need to keep our noses out.  If we want to trade, sure, fine.  We don't need military bases there, however.

----------

Gemini (03-28-2013),kilgram (03-28-2013),Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-28-2013)

----------


## Canadianeye

> ...it's kind of funny, I listen to Lars Larson and for the most part I like what he says...even though he's a libraltarian...anyway, he was talking about the average education level of the world population and even the highly educated are only equal to a US 3rd grade education...I have no reason to doubt this because I have never caught him in a lie....anyway, the reason most people hate us is because we go in and force them to live by our standards, you know that of a christian...we have gone throughout the world making cultures give up their ways and accept ours...Bin Laden seen this going on all over the ME which is why he hated us, and he was smart enough, rich enough to have the connections to find other people like him and unite them...I really think we as Americans needs to stop condeming the ME, it's culture and most importantly their religion if we ever hope have genuine good will towards Americans...I think China will take our place as the most influental power in the world and when we loose our place the allies we've had will flock to China and we will become irrellevant...or NK will just start launching nukes and all this world politics stuff won't matter anymore...


I think those in the Islamic world, radicals and non radicals....despise our secularism, which spreads to them. This is why they seemingly cannot integrate properly in western cultured societies.

Mo and Al do not condone that.

----------


## Calypso Jones

first of all  you guys don't know jack about the crusades.  You think you do cause you've been edumacated in the public school system.   you don't.

----------


## Guest

> first of all  you guys don't know jack about the crusades.  You think you do cause you've been edumacated in the public school system.   you don't.


How do you know what people know about the crusades?  I went to a private Catholic school, not the US public schools.

----------


## Calypso Jones

> ...are you serious?...and I'm asking a serious question here...


yes i'm serious.  Can  you seriously answer the question?

----------



----------


## Calypso Jones

> Actually, if you listen to them (and you haven't), they are not bent on world domination. They aren't even trying - the only time the ME has gone to real war with each other in recent history (not counting Israel-involved wars) were Saddam's invasion of Kuwait and the Iran-Iraq War, both of which were about oil, not domination.
> 
> Non-interventionist countries like Switzerland don't get attacked. Interventionist countries like us do. That's not a coincidence.


switzerland doesn't get attacked heh?   Switzerland has a 4.26% muslim population.  At that percentage rate they're pretty docile.  And don't forget that in switzerland, every home has a gun. or two.    Don't expect this to last forever since the west is pretty much emboldening these heathenish murdering bastards.  They just not too long ago demanded that switzerland change it's flag.  Something about it offended them...and God knows we don't wanna do that.

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> first of all you guys don't know jack about the crusades. You think you do cause you've been edumacated in the public school system. you don't.



...there's 2 sides to every story...and what's that saying, "history is written by the winner"...either way there were 2 trips by the catholic church INTO North Africa and both times they were run out and the Moors who took over a good sized part of the Mediteranian (if not all of it) and southern europe...the thing that I really love about this whole thing is the Knights that fought for the church were the legendary Holy Warriors that inspire the name Paladin...King Arthur, which there is a little evedence for being a real king with a different name, was a Paladin...whether real or not, no warrior fights better then for his GOD...including the Moors...

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> switzerland doesn't get attacked heh? Switzerland has a 4.26% muslim population. At that percentage rate they're pretty docile. And don't forget that in switzerland, every home has a gun. or two. Don't expect this to last forever since the west is pretty much emboldening these heathenish murdering bastards. They just not too long ago demanded that switzerland change it's flag. Something about it offended them...and God knows we don't wanna do that.



...you know the whole serb thing was christians performing genocide on muslims right?...right?...right?...

----------


## Calypso Jones

> ...you know the whole serb thing was christians performing genocide on muslims right?...right?...right?...


what about that 2 sides to every story there, Joe?    lolol

----------


## Kabuki Joe

> what about that 2 sides to every story there, Joe? lolol



...as far as I know, they only found mass graves full of muslims, many, many of which were women and children...so what side is that?...

----------

kilgram (03-28-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> switzerland doesn't get attacked heh?   Switzerland has a 4.26% muslim population.  At that percentage rate they're pretty docile.  And don't forget that in switzerland, every home has a gun. or two.    Don't expect this to last forever since the west is pretty much emboldening these heathenish murdering bastards.  They just not too long ago demanded that switzerland change it's flag.  Something about it offended them...and God knows we don't wanna do that.


No, it's not population. Switzerland is non-interventionist. They don't send troops to help invade and destroy the ME. They don't send drones to slaughter innocent people. They don't destroy a ME democracy and let dictators run free. 

We do. Britain does. France does. Again, _every single country_ that meddles in the ME gets attacked, and _every single country_ that does not is left alone.

----------

Kabuki Joe (03-28-2013),The XL (03-28-2013)

----------


## Guest

> No, it's not population. Switzerland is non-interventionist. They don't send troops to help invade and destroy the ME. They don't send drones to slaughter innocent people. They don't destroy a ME democracy and let dictators run free. 
> 
> We do. Britain does. France does. Again, _every single country_ that meddles in the ME gets attacked, and _every single country_ that does not is left alone.


Yes, there are no strategic jihad strikes on China or Japan.  Is it because they don't meddle, perhaps?

----------


## Roadmaster

> Yes, there are no strategic jihad strikes on China or Japan.  Is it because they don't meddle, perhaps?


Lol they do have the same problems. In December, a Xinjiang court sentenced three men to death and another to life in prison for attempting to hijack an aircraft in June. March they sentenced 20 to life some death trying to bring in propaganda and bringing in weapons to kill police.

----------


## Guest

> Lol they do have the same problems. In December, a Xinjiang court sentenced three men to death and another to life in prison for attempting to hijack an aircraft in June. March they sentenced 20 to life some death trying to bring in propaganda and bringing in weapons to kill police.


That was an internal ethnic minority, not Middle Easterners.

----------


## Roadmaster

> That was an internal ethnic minority, not Middle Easterners.


I was told it was the ME that crossed.

----------


## Guest

> I was told it was the ME that crossed.


They were a Chinese ethnic minority, half of whom got beaten to death by the fellow passengers on the plane.

----------


## Roadmaster

> They were a Chinese ethnic minority, half of whom got beaten to death by the fellow passengers on the plane.


I only know that they said that most were from Pakistan and I believe Afghanistan that were behind all of this.

----------


## Guest

> I only know that they said that most were from Pakistan and I believe Afghanistan that were behind all of this.


They were Uighurs, which is a Muslim minority ethnic group and they seemed to be making an escape attempt.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Yes, there are no strategic jihad strikes on China or Japan.  Is it because they don't meddle, perhaps?


Or Russia.

----------


## Guest

> Or Russia.


Russia had a single bombing while I was there from Chechnyans.  Pseudo Middle East.

----------


## Cap

Goddammit - I missed all of the shit slinging.

----------



----------


## Network

Long thread.

The Grand Ol' Progressives are nothing more than a bunch of Crooks.

Working for the state requires it.  And the few who are not crooks and think they can change the nature of the crooks, are outnumbered by the state crooks.

----------

The XL (03-29-2013)

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> Russia had a single bombing while I was there from Chechnyans.  Pseudo Middle East.


Are you referring to the Spetznas base explosion in 2006?

----------


## Guest

> Are you referring to the Spetznas base explosion in 2006?


No, the subway bombs.

----------


## Sinestro/Green Arrow

> No, the subway bombs.


In 2010?

----------


## The XL

> Long thread.
> 
> The Grand Ol' Progressives are nothing more than a bunch of Crooks.
> 
> Working for the state requires it.  And the few who are not crooks and think they can change the nature of the crooks, are outnumbered by the state crooks.


Grand Ol' Progressives......so simple.....and yet so accurate and brilliant.

You're a genius, Jimmy.  I'm a proud brother Bimmy right now.

----------

Sinestro/Green Arrow (03-29-2013)

----------

