Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 129
  1. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    ...what makes him different than the scores of politicians who've used the same language in the past?
    Only his affiliations and constituency. He's got the wrong initial after his name.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    all it takes is that .0001% that takes it seriously.. We hold our baseball players, football players, etc etc to a higher standard, at least in theory, should not our elected officials be held to that same high standard when they open mouth and insert foot.
    You're kidding, right? We hold our professional sports players to a high standard?
  3. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Toby View Post
    That being said, I think one of the greatest gaffes Obama has ever made is being overlooked in all this. He had the sheer unmitigated gall to perpetuate the lie that the Brits serve their beer warm. The facts of the matter is that while ales are fermented warmer than lagers, they are generally served at cellar temperature. Generally, this means ~50-55F. While slightly less cold than optimal lager serving temps of ~40-50F, it is madness to consider this warm. Just because Big Beer has managed to cram sub freezing temperatures as optimal into our psyches, Obama was supposed to stop business as usual. Even Goose Island plainly states that the optimal serving temperature for 312 is around 40F. sheeple.
    As an ex-pat living here in the Colonies I can firmly agree that this one fact alone makes Obama unfit to lead the country Well that and giving an iPod to the Queen as a State Gift The DVD collection to Gordon Brown was too over the top - it was way more than he deserved
  4.    #44  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    You're kidding, right? We hold our professional sports players to a high standard?
    Quite a few people have used that very term, news outlets, to presidents,, They are the shinning stars that our youth look to emulate,,,gag aaackk.. right after they have murdered their x wife and her boy friend, or caught using steroids, or selling drugs,, or betting against their own team.. lol.. but seriously, yup i have heard that very thing said .. must be because they have no heros to look up too.
    Last edited by xForsaken; 06/30/2010 at 03:10 PM. Reason: additional info
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  5.    #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    As an ex-pat living here in the Colonies I can firmly agree that this one fact alone makes Obama unfit to lead the country Well that and giving an iPod to the Queen as a State Gift The DVD collection to Gordon Brown was too over the top - it was way more than he deserved
    perhaps a more fitting gift would have been one of the original colonies,, like new england lololol
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  6. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by BARYE View Post
    Its been pointed out correctly by others that most of the angry words in this debate have come from you and your side -- not the left. Perhaps its because we understand how psychically disturbing it must be for your side to confront the logical intellectual distillation of your beliefs -- which really is anarchy.
    I appreciate your thoughtful response. Unfortunately, I disagree with most of your characterizations, as they seem to be based on a belief or mindset that I simply do not believe are true. No matter.

    However, it is highly unlikely that you have a particularly good grasp of my beliefs, and seem to be suffering under the same assumptions that many do regarding the beliefs of others (those you name *********s for example).

    It is totally inaccurate to identify my beliefs as "anarchy" and distilling it as much as you like, no one can rightfully claim I represent any such thing. In short--you are making a false conclusion, and then attempting to dictate to me that this fits my beliefs, which you hypothesize disturbs me. I assure you, total fabrications of this sort are not disturbing--they aren't serious, at least I cannot take them seriously.

    Now, you mentioned "angry words." Well, I've noticed that people that dislike me often attempt to paint me as "angry"--which is really an attempt to MAKE me angry (once in a while it works), but is really just a distraction. However, I fully admit that I intentionally use words like "moron" to describe people who spew moronic statements (I have not called YOU a moron, despite my disagreement with you on a wide range of subjects). I also label things that I believe are idiotic as such. Examples might include someone dismissing the economic reality of an issue because they simply don't care, and wish to argue as if this reality doesn't exist.

    When I refer to someone who states openly (and they are serious) that "the end justifies the means" that is a demonstration of sociopathic behavior.

    For the shills that have nothing to say beyond what they parrot, and imagine themselves great debaters, and orators...I've nothing to call them really...except jokes.

    Likewise, I'll call someone who lies a liar, someone who spews propaganda a shill, and any other accurate term used to describe someone's behavior. What you won't find me doing (in a serious conversation) is calling people meaningless names because it makes people who agree with them giggle in a childish fashion.

    In short--I don't use these terms as a means of insult. I use them because I think they are accurate terms. "*********" has no meaning as applied to the Tea Party Protesters--it is nothing other than an insult, and can never be more. Calling someone a "Paultard" is presumably a take-off on calling someone a "******" which I find to be very telling about the person using such a term.

    Others have already pointed this out, but calling someone "******" is not really the same as saying "I think what you said is idiotic nonsense." It might not make one feel good to have their ideas ridiculed, but I'm not here to make people feel good.

    Bottom line--I'm certainly not going to feel bad if someone who has demonstrated ugly behavior is insulted by being called a liar, moron, or sociopath--whenever those terms are accurate as evidenced by their posts--and I'll laugh as they whine and cry, playing the victim, just because I'm no longer willing to tolerate it.

    You mentioned people being anti-government. I think you are failing to make a proper distinction. Few people actually are anti-government (anarchists for example). What I and many others advocate is a government that is limited--which is what the US Constitution actually demands. The failure of people to deny history and the actual founding document of our government does not make those who actually support proper, Constitutional government anti-government. It just means they understand what others have had indoctrinated out of them.

    Now, I realize that I've not really addressed your claims, and while I am not intending to be dismissive...I really find no purpose in answering you, because I don't think there is a chance at all that you could be persuaded away from the views that you seem to hold. From my perspective you seem to believe them sincerely, and that is much more than I can say for some I've seen, and I respect that well enough, even though I disagree.

    KAM
    Last edited by KAM1138; 06/30/2010 at 03:49 PM.
  7. KAM1138
    KAM1138's Avatar
    #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Do you really think she, or 99.9999% of people listening (those without mental disorders), thought that reference meant "kill"? Honestly?
    Perhaps the conclusion is that these people actually do have mental disorders, and those who run with such idiocy ARE mentally deficient.

    KAM
  8. solarus's Avatar
    Posts
    554 Posts
    Global Posts
    575 Global Posts
    #48  
    Quote Originally Posted by xForsaken View Post
    perhaps a more fitting gift would have been one of the original colonies,, like new england lololol
    Nah, the Queen already has enough I think...technically, and I mean very very technically and not at all practically enforceable, she already owns 6.6 million acres of land, or one sixth of all non-ocean landmass at an approximate value of $33 trillion. As Canada's Head of State she has technical "ownership" of your homeland xForesaken.

    That been said if she or any successors ever tried to exercise these "claims" I'm pretty sure it would be the last thing the Royal Family ever did! "Off with their heads" would be a world cry I think
  9. #49  
    Quote Originally Posted by KAM1138 View Post
    I appreciate your thoughtful response. Unfortunately, I disagree with most of your characterizations, as they seem to be based on a belief or mindset that I simply do not believe are true. No matter.

    However, it is highly unlikely that you have a particularly good grasp of my beliefs, and seem to be suffering under the same assumptions that many do regarding the beliefs of others (those you name *********s for example).

    It is totally inaccurate to identify my beliefs as "anarchy" and distilling it as much as you like, no one can rightfully claim I represent any such thing. In short--you are making a false conclusion, and then attempting to dictate to me that this fits my beliefs, which you hypothesize disturbs me. I assure you, total fabrications of this sort are not disturbing--they aren't serious, at least I cannot take them seriously.

    Now, you mentioned "angry words." Well, I've noticed that people that dislike me often attempt to paint me as "angry"--which is really an attempt to MAKE me angry (once in a while it works), but is really just a distraction. However, I fully admit that I intentionally use words like "moron" to describe people who spew moronic statements (I have not called YOU a moron, despite my disagreement with you on a wide range of subjects). I also label things that I believe are idiotic as such. Examples might include someone dismissing the economic reality of an issue because they simply don't care, and wish to argue as if this reality doesn't exist.

    When I refer to someone who states openly (and they are serious) that "the end justifies the means" that is a demonstration of sociopathic behavior.

    For the shills that have nothing to say beyond what they parrot, and imagine themselves great debaters, and orators...I've nothing to call them really...except jokes.

    Likewise, I'll call someone who lies a liar, someone who spews propaganda a shill, and any other accurate term used to describe someone's behavior. What you won't find me doing (in a serious conversation) is calling people meaningless names because it makes people who agree with them giggle in a childish fashion.

    In short--I don't use these terms as a means of insult. I use them because I think they are accurate terms. "*********" has no meaning as applied to the Tea Party Protesters--it is nothing other than an insult, and can never be more. Calling someone a "Paultard" is presumably a take-off on calling someone a "******" which I find to be very telling about the person using such a term.

    Others have already pointed this out, but calling someone "******" is not really the same as saying "I think what you said is idiotic nonsense." It might not make one feel good to have their ideas ridiculed, but I'm not here to make people feel good.

    Bottom line--I'm certainly not going to feel bad if someone who has demonstrated ugly behavior is insulted by being called a liar, moron, or sociopath--whenever those terms are accurate as evidenced by their posts--and I'll laugh as they whine and cry, playing the victim, just because I'm no longer willing to tolerate it.

    You mentioned people being anti-government. I think you are failing to make a proper distinction. Few people actually are anti-government (anarchists for example). What I and many others advocate is a government that is limited--which is what the US Constitution actually demands. The failure of people to deny history and the actual founding document of our government does not make those who actually support proper, Constitutional government anti-government. It just means they understand what others have had indoctrinated out of them.

    Now, I realize that I've not really addressed your claims, and while I am not intending to be dismissive...I really find no purpose in answering you, because I don't think there is a chance at all that you could be persuaded away from the views that you seem to hold. From my perspective you seem to believe them sincerely, and that is much more than I can say for some I've seen, and I respect that well enough, even though I disagree.

    KAM
    Interesting. The thread suggests that you really believe that people care what you think. My sympathies for that.

    Actually I wish I had been clever enough to come up with "Paultard". It's actually a Facebook group entitled "Mocking Libertarians, Randroids, and Paultards " I enjoy their postings quite a bit.
  10.    #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by solarus View Post
    Nah, the Queen already has enough I think...technically, and I mean very very technically and not at all practically enforceable, she already owns 6.6 million acres of land, or one sixth of all non-ocean landmass at an approximate value of $33 trillion. As Canada's Head of State she has technical "ownership" of your homeland xForesaken.

    That been said if she or any successors ever tried to exercise these "claims" I'm pretty sure it would be the last thing the Royal Family ever did! "Off with their heads" would be a world cry I think
    Actually she no longer even technically owns Canada,, that ended a few years ago.. we are old fashion up here,, hang on to some ummm old traditions, has to do with the large British population.. personally,, when my rotary club toasts her i make it a point to toast Canada instead. kinda ****es of some of the ol british types lolol
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  11.    #51  
    Hey Kam,
    I read your latest post, you feel that free market capitalism, and the libertarian type of limited govt is the answer to all our ills, correct?. Assuming that you are in agreement with that statement based on the above, can you show me one country where this actually worked please, and I mean worked, longer then a New York minute.
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Actually I wish I had been clever enough to come up with "Paultard". It's actually a Facebook group entitled facebook.com/pages/Mocking-Libertarians-Randroids-and-Paultards" I enjoy their postings quite a bit.
    Careful here, dude. I was taught a valuable lesson the other day......right here in this very forum!

    "Arrogant minds often consider much to be their entertaining toy. Why buck the trend and be exceptional?" -- tcrunner
  13. #53  
    Quote Originally Posted by joshaccount View Post
    Careful here, dude. I was taught a valuable lesson the other day......right here in this very forum!

    "Arrogant minds often consider much to be their entertaining toy. Why buck the trend and be exceptional?" -- tcrunner
    Josh, you're a smart and rational person. What are you doing on this forum?

    Real life is a more important location to be exceptional.
  14. #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    Josh, you're a smart and rational person. What are you doing on this forum?
    Rational yes, smart...eh?

    As I've said before (at the risk of validating my arrogance), the entertainment value is high. You just can't make this stuff up.

    Loved the Rand cartoon.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    More important? Absolutely! Those who constantly promote their rightwing dogma/marketing shtick seem to feel it is a platform.

    Why choose to follow (or accept) the internet mediocrity exemplified by some members as defined by a complete void of disclosure, dignity, self-respect, or integrity?
    Yes, you've got it. This is a great platform to demonstrate my lack of dignity. The challenge is doing it well.

  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by tcrunner View Post
    Without their dogmatic, unsustainable theories, all they are left with is their palpable, seething, and crude hatred for that which holds them accountable for their lack of solutions which would progress us forward.
    It's interesting that progressives think solutions that make things worse are superior to doing nothing. I guess this is mostly just a mental defect of those who can't get past their sophomore political science class.
  17. #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS1 View Post
    It's interesting that progressives think solutions that make things worse are superior to doing nothing. I guess this is mostly just a mental defect of those who can't get past their sophomore political science class.

    I notice you avoided the question: name one country that has been successful using "aggessively limited government". Or do you just think that God will smile on the US because we are somehow better than the rest of the world? And do you really think that "doing nothing" would have worked losing thousands of jobs every month, like we were doing when the President of the United States came into office? Just because you think they "will at some point" make things worse doesn't make it true.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by NathanS1 View Post
    It's interesting that progressives think solutions that make things worse are superior to doing nothing. I guess this is mostly just a mental defect of those who can't get past their sophomore political science class.
    It is better to do something, even if it could turn out to be wrong, than to do nothing at all.
    "Brace yourself, you beautiful *****. I am about to **** you up with some truth!" - Kenny Powers

    "I don't mind paying taxes. With taxes, I purchase civilization."
    - H.L. Mencken
  19. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #59  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I notice you avoided the question: name one country that has been successful using "aggessively limited government".
    This country, David.... pretty much up until Woodrow Wilson and Progressivism.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  20. #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by davidra View Post
    I notice you avoided the question: name one country that has been successful using "aggessively limited government". Or do you just think that God will smile on the US because we are somehow better than the rest of the world? And do you really think that "doing nothing" would have worked losing thousands of jobs every month, like we were doing when the President of the United States came into office? Just because you think they "will at some point" make things worse doesn't make it true.
    Firstly, I don't believe in a God, nor do I try to replace religion with disutopian governance like you do.

    The US was that country for the better part of 200 years, and experienced most of our growth out of abject poverty under that system.

    Singapore, Hong Kong, Ireland, New Zealand, Netherlands, Germany... All of these countries have been liberalizing economically for the last 20 years and seeing gains over socialized systems. This is not some secret, you simply choose to ignore it.

    You have never proven that any government program has created jobs. The are far more rigorous arguments that jobs programs have actually destroyed jobs for now and well into the future.

    The government does not spend money in a vacuum. Business sees government debt, and must plan for the expected future growth of taxes. Whenever government spends, business will automatically tighten. Adding to this argument is the fact that when government goes onto the marketplace and bids away resources such as labor they make business less profitable, further shrinking the private sector. Show me one country that has grown out of recession with government jobs programs. Didn't work in Japan's lost decade. Spain has 20+% unemployment now thanks to years of a government dominated by labor unions and jobs programs.
    Last edited by NathanS1; 07/01/2010 at 04:35 PM.
Page 3 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Posting Permissions