Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
If you have an email ending in @hotmail.com, @live.com or @outlook.com (or any other Microsoft-related domain), please consider changing it to another email provider; Microsoft decided to instantly block the server's IP, so emails can't be sent to these addresses.
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
If you use an @yahoo.com email or any related Yahoo services, they have blocked us also due to "user complaints"
-UE
Comments
So what if some backass farmer in Alabama thinks that nothing should be government mandated, that states should have separate government, ect. Yes, those views are fucking stupid. But should we git rid of his right to vote just because he has stupid views? No, because the entire foundation of America is that everybody, no matter your views, gets a vote.
The theory is that smart people will outnumber the stupid people, and we'll get a good president. Does it always work like that? No. But blaming the American people, because, GASP, SOME OF THEM VIEW THE REPUBLICANS AS VALID is just fucking stupid.
And of course, you completely discount right-leaning moderates, or right-leaning independents, or Republicans who don't agree 100% with every single thing the Republicans say. No, every single Republican is "DON'T LET THEM BLACKS IN OFFICE" "TRAMPLE THE POOR" THE DOWNFALL OF AMERICA
It does. Except only military veterans get it, because apparently every Republican has read Starship Troopers and thinks that shit is a good idea. And they still spend all their time cutting the VA budget and trying to ruin it, and it still does a good job.
I saw that I misrepresented you and edited accordingly.
Uh, no, I don't think the Republicans have proposed just about anything in the last, oh, I dunno, decade or so that's been "a cool idea" but shitty in reality.
...
Ok, nevermind, there was No Child Left Behind.
The alternative is a gun in the mouth, because US politics (and the world situation in general) is truly that pathetic and grim.
Edit:
http://exiledonline.com/we-the-spiteful/
That is why that theory is utterly wrong.
Anything "Right-wing" is bad, so a "Right-leaning moderate" is simply "somebody with shitty ideas, but who doesn't quite get all in your face about it." Though admittedly Jon Huntsman isn't quite the gigantic asshole the rest of them are, I suppose.
Besides, most of them still vote Republican, and thus are just as counterproductive as their stupider brethren.
Except the difference is, most of what the GOP is saying like should gay marriage/abortion be illegal for religious reasons are considered to be on fringe here.
"The alternative is a gun in the mouth, because US politics (and the world situation in general) is truly that pathetic and grim."
I think you should take a break. This is just a backwater Internet forum, not Question Period.
^Yeah. And what they do is skew the fulcrum of balanced representation towards the fringe.
They're American citizens. Their votes count.
Seriously, you mocked the guy who said old people shouldn't be allowed to vote because they usually vote Republican? You're sounding a lot like him now.
Dude, chill out. Christ.
The suicide thing was a joke. Like, sorry, bad joke, I apologize, but still, not serious about that.
I never said I wouldn't let them vote. If put in a political position, I would be willing to play all kinds of dirty tricks, such as gerrymandering, but to actually take away their vote would be really dumb.
Besides, it would be much simpler to play the Right-wingers' games. Leftists don't lose because they can't get people to agree with them. Leftists lose because they refuse to play the game.
It sure is on edge in here.
> Uh, no, I don't think the Republicans have proposed just about anything in the last, oh, I dunno, decade or so that's been "a cool idea" but shitty in reality.
I don't mean that the policy idea was good on paper.
I mean that the policy idea was good when you first hear about it. And only then.
For example:
In other words, taking advantage of people's fear.
Not necessarily fear. More like, taking advantage of people's lack of time to sit down and think through an issue. And then having a plausible excuse for those who do.
It's also exceptionally effective.
The only thing more potent than fear, however, is anger. And the Left, if it weren't godawfully idiotic, could leverage anger far better than the Right leverages fear.
After all, who could spend all their time being afraid of losing their job to those dirty Mexicans when they're too angry about getting screwed over by those asshole Wall Street people? Hence why OWS, for being a legitimate movement and not astroturf bullshit, was much more intense than the Tea Party movement, even if the Tea Party movement lasted longer and was more successful (mostly because it had the backing of money). Immigration reform fades mysteriously into the background when there are investment bankers to string up in Times Square.
I think that lack of time to think things through isn't really an issue when it comes to hating gays and the poor.
In theory, I actually agree that it would be ideal if the Republican party was undone. The thing about the US political system is that it has two right-leaning parties rather than a leftist party and a right party, and the Republican party represents an extreme. Democrat policy still generally supports the rich, but it also prevents some level of mangling of the poor.
Ideally, though, the USA would do away with its two-party system (as if two-party systems aren't almost inherently awful) and have a greater diversity of political alignments represented by powerful, balanced parties. Of course, this needs to be supported by the people and what the people don't have is education. Any kind of democratic society, be it capitalist, socialist or whatever, revolves around its participants being informed about the choices they're making. That the poor vote against their own interests by putting Republicans in office is evidence enough that there's a level of ignorance and misinformation that needs to be curbed, even if it isn't necessarily the fault of the general public. After all, the general public isn't responsible for education or the distribution of media information.
Mind you, the multi-party system also has many huge, gaping flaws. Personally, I'm in favor of a new democratic system that would encourage individual political enterprise and more flexible, informal alliances rather than powerful party institutions.
Unofficial parties will form anyway if you don't have official ones. I think making them official is the lesser evil as it allows them to be regulated.
Unofficial parties will form, definitely, but the main reason why I think having official parties is bad is the amount of power and privilege which they get by law, and their structure and relation to the system at large are very prone to all sorts of corruption. And I don't believe in the regulation of political activities, ideas and opinions, other than the things that would get you prosecuted anyway.
Jesus. I understand that politics are really important, but Flyboy, your posts read like Chagen's. Think about that for a second.
I'm afraid I consider the future of the country (and in a wider sense, the world) to be a Big Fucking Deal (tm).
Though I feel better now, because the Rolling Stone magazine makes everything seem such more... rosier, than it really is. XD
I must say, though, as to the original purpose of this thread, creationists will go to exceedingly stupid lengths to try and keep their worldview intact in the face of actual science.
I don't disagree that these are some stupid times. I just don't like it when people argue so poorly (or sarcastically, for that matter).
Not trying to demonize you. Just nthing the suggestion to calm down, if only because this thread was a pain to read through.
Aw jeez guys, I leave for a second and you're debating the merits of a two-party system and the inherent duplicity of neoconservatist movements in the Western world without me? I feel so unloved.
Although it's pretty easy to get worked up about the fact that we live in a cold, uncaring world that seeks to rob people of their lives and rights and there's nothing we can do about it, accepting this as the case and finding a way to change it in some small way works several orders of magnitude better than complaining about it on the Internet. Yeah, I know I do it too, but really guys, I'm getting better at this.
I find it amusing that, in using the same argumentative style and tactics as conservatives, Flyboy is demonstrating that the style doesn't transplant exactly to arguing with liberals. All the liberals here aren't getting amped up along with him, they're just calling for him to calm down. (It's not impossible to amp up liberals--try going to an anti-racism rally if you want to see it happen--but it doesn't seem to work the same way.)
It wasn't that poor of an argument. ;_;
Definitely sarcastic, though. I probably would have been in better form if I considered "winning" to be an actual goal. Here I was just having fun countering the moral relativism-based "but their opinion is valid too!" idea being put forth.
This happens all the time, but to be honest, I wasn't really that mad or anything. I was somewhat annoyed, but I basically live in a perpetual state of annoyance so that's nothing new or different. Believe me, you can tell when I'm mad, because the droll sarcasm gets traded in favor of out-and-out personal attacks.
I know that feel, man. I hate it when I miss good arguments.
Well, being in high school leaves me fewer opportunities to do much to begin with, though I've resolved to volunteer for the Obama campaign this summer, so I guess that'll be my first foray into politics. My friends all tell me I could run for office once I'm older and properly educated, but I doubt it. I'd be a decent campaign aid, I suppose, but I'm far too insufferable and sarcastic about being right (whenever I'm actually right, which is hit-and-miss) to be an actual candidate for anything. XD
Well, that's because "liberal" as defined by most of the people here is more reactionary, in the sense that problems are looked at and tried to be fixed, whereas "conservative" as defined by most people here tries to solve problems by getting rid of them all together. I wouldn't exactly say that liberals are more concerned with the well-being of other people than other political movements, but I will say that Tea Party types and libertarians are by far the least concerned with anybody other than themselves. And libertarians are the only non-obviously insane political movement that I legitimately despise.
Not the actual viewpoint, I meant the allcapsy strawmanning, and that misinterpretation, and just how worked up you appeared to be overall. Not the best way to talk with people, especially over something of import like politics.
In any case, could you please tone it down in the future?
This is what I mean by "playing the game," however. The way I argue here is irritating to liberals (as it rightly should be, as it is by design meant to annoy the opposing party), but surprisingly (I could say disturbingly, I suppose) efficient when arguing with moderates or conservatives. My conservative friend, by virtue of being much more knowledgeable than me at the time, always used to mop the floor with me whenever we debated anything we didn't agree on. Now it's relatively easy for me to contest him, partially because I'm not quite so ignorant anymore, and partially because I don't argue from the position of "why can't we all just get along and compromise" anymore.
This is true. I've found many liberals are now trying to bring "progressive" back into vogue to counteract this.
Heh, that doesn't surprise me. As noted by Feo, it's not the info that bothers you, it's the presentation.
If you like. I've found that it happens more when I'm trying to respond faster, so the thread pace didn't help in this case.
That was weird. I double-posted and I don't know how. 0_o
^ Did you mean to copy-and-paste most of that post?
Yeah. And I'm a little more annoyed now that I know that you were sort of aiming for that. Ah, well.
I prefer "progressive" primarily because "liberal" by all rights should refer to libertarians given the origin and classical usage of the term.
Though the fact that there is a Liberal Party here which I don't generally vote for is also part of it.
Well Liberalism tends to be referred as Social Liberalism IIRC rather than Classical Liberalism.