Kumoricon

Convention Community => Off-Topic => Posting Games and Chat => Topic started by: @random on April 13, 2011, 06:55:02 am

Title: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on April 13, 2011, 06:55:02 am
Want to rant about those evil <insert party you oppose>s?
Or about how <insert platform of party you oppose> is going to destroy the country?
Or even how <insert law you oppose> is the worst idea since someone joked with Fred Phelps about how his family was so big they could start their own church?

This is the place to do so... just don't forget that the forum code of conduct (http://www.kumoricon.org/forums/index.php?topic=11025.0) says, in part:

Be courteous to other users
Keep discussion friendly and civil, and keep discussion focused on the issue rather than the person.
No personal attacks or speculating about another person's motives. Minimize discussion of off-forum personal disputes.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaybug on April 13, 2011, 04:03:08 pm
The president's speech about cutting debt and a "debt failsafe" is about as good an idea as Al Gore's "lockbox" for Social Security. Sounds nice, but they will never become reality.

Soak the rich, you mean like with the AMT (Alternative Minimum Tax)? That hits more middle class people every year as congress only "patches" it, not fixes it, or amends it to reflect reality.

How about people stop keeping up with the Jones, so that they had money to invest instead of only buying stuff. Okay beer and stuff. Anyone realize how much interest people pay every month, money that could make them wealthy instead of living hand to mouth, paycheck to paycheck?

The president has called upon class warfare, as he has no real idea as to what to do. It may make people angry, but it doesn't stop people from spending their money like drunken sailors. Drunken sailors with credit cards and home equity lines of credit.

I haven't read Paul Ryan's budget proposal yet. I am sure there are things I will not like. There are things from the Deficit Commission Report I do not like. I would prefer to just take the Deficit Commission Report and make it law, but... I know better than that will happen.

Thanks randompvg.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: MiriaRose on April 13, 2011, 06:47:10 pm
Thank you for this, so much. Another person and I were discussing making one of these threads, and I'm glad a mod did it instead.  :)

NEWSFLASH, REPUBLICANS. Shutting down the government will hurt the economy, as will passing all the stuff you want passed. You know why? Because the government is investing so much right now that if it suddenly stops, investors will lose confidence. So they won't spend. So companies don't get money. The public will lose confidence and won't spend.

Nobody spending = economy crashes

As for why government spending is good in a recession:
GDP is made up of consumer spending, business spending, and government spending. Here's a nifty equation:
GDP = C + B + G

In a recession, C and B become very low very fast. So you know who needs to pick up the pace? G! Government! That is why government spending is good.

Government spending is also very, very important right now. The private sector is sitting on trillions of dollars right now. They're not spending all of it because they don't have confidence. You know what will give them confidence?

The government investing in the economy.

AS FOR DEBT:
We do not need to get out of debt. That is not a concern. HOWEVER, we do not want to be in deficit. Debt is how much money you owe overall, deficit is when you are borrowing more money than you make. We want to be in a surplus, not a deficit, so that we can pay off everyone we owe money to (such as the Chinese and the Japanese).
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaybug on April 13, 2011, 08:30:40 pm
One; the government didn't shut down. Two; GOP members do not want to shut down the government, maybe abolish it, but not shut it down. If that makes sense to you, that's makes one of us. (Sometimes it's hard for me to know conservatives from anarchistic pirates)

Three; just spending money is not the right answer. You have to do more than just pay off your base to get the economy going again. Spending lots of money but having no jobs created, no jobs means the unemployment rate did not decline as was assured, does little more than burden US with debt.

As an example, NOW, the president wants to build high speed rail. He's allotted $9billion to the task. How far do you think that will go when Tri-Met the Portland bus company spends building light rail across town?

He killed NASA. You don't think aerospace workers took home good paychecks? That's a loss of a lot of living wage jobs.

Having this government go on a spending spree gives the market confidence all right. Confidence that government would be coming after them hammer and tongs with tax increases. Businesses know all about plans. Even state government requires a business to have a business plan before granting them a business license. The president and the previous congress had no plan. I can't quote Pelosi precisely, but the gist was, we need to pass the stimulus bill to know what is in the stimulus bill. WTF? And why were monies from the stimulus plan made available closer to this past November's election, than front loading them earlier so that jobs would be created sooner? And what does Acorn have to do with stimulating the economy?

In case you haven't watched Democrat mayor Michael Bloomberg's channel on TV, Wall Street is not exactly experiencing a crash. Someone is spending. Profits are doing as well as they have ever done. And generally the broader market is enjoying the same rise of all boats that the Dow component of 30 industrials is enjoying.

AIG paid off the government so they could go back to giving ridiculous bonuses out to the top tier of employees. Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac are still kicking, even though they are still riddled with problems. THe government keeps throwing money at them.

My suggestion for all who read this thread, is to read The Economist newspaper. Yes, we all know that it looks like a magazine. That's what they want to call it. It strives to hold to a rigid middle of the road position. They said so themselves. I say this, as they make better arguments than I do. And it's where I form many of my economic opinions.

And in case you are curious; I am not  Republican any longer. I finally realized that the Republicans I idolized as a child, are not the same people whom the conservatives idolize. Tom McCall and Theodore Roosevelt. You don't have to be a conservative to think the liberals are nuts.

And you don't have to be a Democrat to think the neo-cons are (I'm trying to think of a cute phrase for rabid piratical, you get the idea I hope)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Jinx on April 13, 2011, 10:06:45 pm
ok so shutting down planed parenthood is probably the stupidest think I have heard in a long time, and thats saying something! first off all thats gonna do is lead to unwanted pregnantness.
20 years after abortion became legal in all 50 states the crime rate dropped a ton, GUESS WHY! the children walking around were suddenly WANTED.

I'm sorry but anyone wanting to cut funding from planed parenthood is freaking retarded... just sayin ^^
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on April 14, 2011, 11:00:29 am
Abortion is a tricky topic.  I understand that regardless of whether or not it is legal people will still do it.  But it is an issue I struggle with whenever confronted because I feel that being "okay" with abortion as a form of birth control is not consistent with my values.  In cases of rape, I can understand why the mother would not want to have the child.  Yet, is it the child's fault that its father was a rapist? 

I know lots of people that say "It's my body and I will do with it as I please."  I disagree: your body belongs to the Earth, which is part of the universe, and when you are dead, your body will return to where it came.  Until then, it's merely on loan.  Be kind to it!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: sandrobotticelli on April 14, 2011, 11:26:14 am
^I agree it's a tricky subject and people are never going to agree about it.

I will say, however, that the Planned Parenthood is not just about abortion, which many people seem to forget. Planned Parenthood also gives contraceptives to couples who can't afford contraceptives, let alone a child, they help with sex education, especially among teens, and they also deal with sexual and reproductive health with a lot of research going towards sexually transmitted diseases, especially HIV.  They have also done a lot of awareness, check-ups, and research for breast and cervical cancer.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaybug on April 14, 2011, 04:22:31 pm
So why can't Planned Parenthood be self-supporting? I haven't heard of any hospitals going broke. Instead of relying on federal funding, why not go non-profit, and never have to worry about money ever again? Pay the employees whatever they feel right, rather than pay according to federal guidelines. Provide whatever services they feel important, instead of following federal rules, which change whenever the party in the White House changes.

And to note, it got funded. It was part of the don't shut down the government package that passed last week.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Cyprus on April 15, 2011, 09:58:24 am
Politics...lol
Politicians...LOL

Nuff said...
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: MiriaRose on April 15, 2011, 09:37:46 pm
I'm not even gonna touch abortion, because this is not the time or place.

I know people say that the Tea Party isn't racist, but how is it not racist when you deny the genocide of Native Americans? How is it not racist when you scream at a Middle Eastern-looking boy "ARAB!" or "SON OF ALLAH!" How is it not racist when you throw your sign back towards the "brown" people when foreign invaders are mentioned? One of their leaders apologized to how we were treated (it wasn't just racism, it was also sexism, ageism, classism, ect) but if most of the teabaggers are like that- and they seem to be, at least in Douglas County- then how is the Tea Party not racist?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on April 16, 2011, 05:32:35 am
Just my random thoughts on the matter, but... every organization is made up of people. Within even the most extreme organizations, there's variance. Being a member of Westboro Baptist doesn't necessarily mean you're inclined to scream horrible things at mourners, and being a member of the KKK doesn't necessarily mean you want to terrorize people for their race. (On the other side, even the most tolerant organizations are guaranteed to have a bigot lurking somewhere in the wings.) In the same vein, the presence of even a significant minority of people whose actions are racist doesn't mean the organization is racist... every group has their fringe, and it's unfair (and intellectually dishonest) to judge a group by their most repulsive members.

What matters is their message. If it includes prejudicial overtones (i.e. "all Muslims want to kill people") and errantly-nativist overtones ("all these farrners oughta go back where they came from", which I suspect the Cherokee would agree with) which are not repudiated both from the top and by the majority of the rank-and-file, it's probably fair to call them racist. But getting an open admission of it is never going to happen. In the same way that "racist" has become a generic insult of opportunity synonymous with "wrong" (I kid you not, I've heard pit bull fanciers describe leash laws for pit bulls as "racist"), people will automatically defend an organization they like as "not racist" without stopping to consider whether it might be accurate.

~~~~

Edit: To comment on an assertion I just noticed, that Bloomberg is a Democrat - he's not. He is indeed liberal on some issues, but he ran for his first office (NYC mayor) as a Republican and switched from Republican to independent in 2007. But I think the Observer (http://www.observer.com/2010/opinion/boss-pinstripes-bloomberg-isnt-democrat-or-republican-or-independent-hes-18-billion-dol) put it best when they said "Mr. Bloomberg isn't a Democrat, or a Republican, or an independent. He's 18 billion dollars. That's his party, his ideology and his intellectual commitment."
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaybug on April 16, 2011, 04:52:22 pm
Well, Bloomberg was a Democrat, until the primary election, when he switched to GOP, in order to get to the general election, wherein he won, handily.

I think Rudy was a better mayor. Not a better man.

Gold set a record high. Silver is trading at $42 per ounce. Gas is nearing $4/gallon. And these are signs we are on track? And so what if the Dow Industrial Average is doing great, and the NASDAQ 100. People are still hosed over in their retirement funds. Both parties suck wind on that subject. Let the individual investor vote his shares. Maybe we won't have overly compensated executives. Or bonuses paid to employees for failure, and needing government bailouts.

How to end abortions. Make the "father" of the fetus watch the abortion procedure.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on April 16, 2011, 08:16:24 pm
How to end abortions. Make the "father" of the fetus watch the abortion procedure.

There's a documentary/whatever by the director of American History X, I believe it is called "Ring of Fire", that shows video footage of an actual abortion.  I've been meaning to watch the documentary since it seems interesting, but I would have to skip past that part of the video.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaybug on April 16, 2011, 09:08:15 pm
Yeah, try doing that, and find out you hit the skip button just a second too late, and have that burning in your memory for life. Well, not the fetus' life.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: soundninja12 on August 19, 2011, 12:03:06 am
Michelle Bachmann is a nutter.
A homophobic, prejudice, scary, stupid nutter.

I just had to say it
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Gryffinclaw Princess on August 19, 2011, 12:26:42 am
A man running for mayor in Kennewick (One of the Tri-Cities [it's the area I live in...but I live in Pasco]) is putting his foot down on Illegal Immigration. One of his stances is that Illegals should be shot on sight when crossing the border! Also, if they refuse to leave Kennewick they should face the death penalty. I'm curious how this will go since 75% or more of my graduating class was Hispanic and I know most of them were illegal. One girl in my drama class got her citizenship her senior year of high school (my sophomore year) and she had been in America illegally since she was 5.

So...let's see how long until he washes up on the shore of the Columbia or maybe a new light will shine in the Tri-Cities...who knows. I find it very interesting though that someone has finally come out about it in this area.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on August 19, 2011, 06:08:33 pm
Okay, I'm gonna be stupid and bring up the abortion thing again, because it's something I feel strongly about and I've put a lot of thought into my stance on it. On the one hand, I am against abortion on general principle. I would never want to get an abortion, and I wouldn't encourage anyone else to. In certain circumstances (such as rape or when having the child poses serious health risks to the mother) I can accept it, but for the most part, I'm against it, especially when people use it as their sole form of contraception.

But on the other hand, I wholeheartedly support its legalisation. Just because I have a problem with it doesn't mean everyone else shares my opinion, and I think it should be up to the parents (and, ultimately, the mother) whether or not to keep the baby. I believe that the pregnant woman in question should be the one who decides, and that the right to choose is an important one to protect.

We should educate people on contraceptives and make sure that they're available to anyone who needs them, which will help to cut down on unwanted pregnancies. We should encourage adoption instead of abortion. But in the end, women should have the option to abort if they feel they need to.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on August 21, 2011, 04:08:19 pm
I'm going to put in my two cents about abortion as well, since it's also a topic I feel pretty strongly about. I am a very firm supporter of abortion being legal and easily accessible for everyone who needs it. And really, whenever anyone says, "But this is a child!" I can only say no, this is not a child, it is a mass of cells that are vaguely human-shaped, being kept alive mostly because of the body it's existing inside of. Certainly it may feel an amount of pain or discomfort while being terminated, but surely that pain is less than, say, an adult cow in a slaughterhouse being murdered for its meat and hide, and I'm sure I can guarantee that its life to that point has been more enjoyable. If people are going to be so staunch about protecting life, why not fight for the rights of animals, who are commonly treated cruelly and then slaughtered painfully every minute of every day? A fetus floating around in a warm, dark, comparatively quiet world has very little to be complaining about. It hasn't had a chance to experience life, and even if it developed in a way that allowed it to see the world, its brain isn't developed enough to appreciate it. There are organisms in the world much more deserving of this defense.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on August 21, 2011, 07:42:22 pm
^ I would disagree with that statement 100%.  It is a child.  It is not a part of the mother.  It is not a parasite.  It is not an alien.  It is a child.  Recent studies have shown that a fetus can feel pain as early as seven or eight weeks after being conceived.

http://www.abortionfacts.com/online_books/love_them_both/why_cant_we_love_them_both_14.asp#By%208%20weeks?%20Show%20me!

Here's a disturbing video done of an abortion done on a 12 week old.  (Part 3 is the disturbing one out of them).

http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2009/03/11/the-silent-scream-ultrasound-video-of-a-baby-being-brutally-aborted/

Though I can see where you're coming form with wanting to compare an abortion to the slaughtering of a cow, but it's a flawed argument.  We don't eat the babies, for one.  How many women are told of all of the risks that are related to an abortion?  Even the woman who represented toe Roe side of Roe vs. Wade feels that she didn't know all of the hazards, and has now become a voice for pro life.

http://www.nysun.com/editorials/roes-regrets/77677/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norma_McCorvey#Later_life

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

I'll agree that the option should be out there, but there needs to be more efforts to educate the women who are considering it.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on August 21, 2011, 08:29:58 pm
^ I should have clarified that while I'm 100% for abortion being legal and available, I don't think it's something that should be taken lightly, nor is it something that should be used as a primary form of birth control (though I'm sure most women who have had an abortion will tell you that they are not pleasant experiences and they wouldn't want to get one again if it could be avoided-- my mother had an abortion before she had me, and she said that while she doesn't regret it, it was a very painful and unpleasant procedure that she would prefer never to have to repeat). The terminating of a life is a horrible thing that should be absolutely avoided wherever possible.

My main problem with people who are 100% pro-life and anti-abortion is that a majority of them (not all, of course, but from what I've observed, a startling number) apply this defense for life only to the species homo sapiens, which is just appallingly wrong on so many moral levels to me. If you're going to advocate protection of life it needs to be toward all species, and not just toward your own. That's not pro-life, that's pro-human life, which is completely different and in my opinion abhorrently selfish and self-righteous.

I don't really understand what not eating babies has to do with your counter-argument, though. If we did, would abortion then be okay (or at least, more okay), since they were being killed as a source of food? However, I do absolutely agree with your statement of educating women considering it. Birth control in the form of condoms, the pill, intrauterine devices, etc should be stressed as being far superior and preferable to waiting until you're pregnant and settling for an abortion.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on August 21, 2011, 08:40:59 pm
Okay.  I see where you were going with that now.  My apologies.

However, I will disagree with you about the protection of life in "all its forms."  There is nothing wrong with the concept of the meat industry.  I, for one, enjoy eating the flesh of another animal.  I am an animal, myself.  Various species eat the meat of other animals, some even consume the flesh of their own kind.

I will agree that many (though I don't know how many) should do more to have their animals live life before it's there time.  Not only would it appear to be more humane, but it also effects the flavoring of these animals for the better.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on August 22, 2011, 12:25:01 am
No problem!

I'll agree somewhat that the concept of the meat industry is okay, but there are many things wrong with the meat industry itself, mainly in the way its animals are treated before their death. They're kept in cages far too small for them, fed things you wouldn't feed your worst enemy-- chickens, especially, are frequently underfed, and resort to cannibalism in order to stay alive, all while stuffed into cages just large enough to stand partially upright and maybe turn in a small circle, which are rarely (if ever) cleaned. Not to mention the fact that these cages are usually stacked on each other so that the feces of one chicken falls onto the one beneath it. They are then left in dark, overcrowded, unventilated warehouses until they're needed for food. Cows and pigs often suffer similar treatment, and cows are also treated poorly when it comes to the dairy industry. Cows need to have had a calf recently to be at a prime milk-producing state, and commonly have their (newborn) calves taken from them, and sometimes never see them again, since calves are taken away to make veal, which is possibly one of the cruelest foods invented.

... This isn't really about abortion anymore, now I'm just ranting about my views on animal abuse. Oops.

I'm gonna clarify (I like to clarify) that I eat meat, and dairy, and I'm all for people eating what they want to eat; however, I feel people should be more conscious of the food they're eating and where it came from, and of making sure that the animal they're eating had a good life and weren't mistreated and abused. A good general rule is if you wouldn't let your cat, or dog, or bird, or lizard, or whatever live in the conditions your meal was raised in, you probably shouldn't be supporting the company supplying it.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on August 22, 2011, 12:40:19 am
^ I agree with basically everything above. It's fine and natural to consume meat and dairy, but there's no excuse for treating the animals horribly.

And re: abortion, I have to disagree with you Washu. At the age the vast majority of fetuses are aborted, they are not able to survive outside of their mother (essentially making them a parasite) and, while they do have some capacity to feel pain, I do not believe that they count yet as human beings. Late term abortions are another thing, which I am 100% against except in the most extenuating of circumstances, where having the baby could cause serious harm or death to the mother, because at that point the baby is much more developed, and often would be able to survive outside the mother (think preemies). But I believe that the distinction should be made.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on August 22, 2011, 01:18:58 am
^ Yes yes yes, exactly all of that.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 16, 2011, 08:45:29 pm
1. Okay folks I'm a moderate Democrat but I have to get my 2 cents uin here. I agree with Jaybug to a pint in that i think Liberals are TS, but then again i think a lot of ultra-conservatives are NUTS. Over the course of the last 3 or 4 decades political vitriol has slowly been poisoning in this country setting up and us against them mentality which i think is NUTS! He have to remember that in the end we are all Americans. And while things maybe bad now now we WILL get out of this mess. The United States of America is the greatest ccountry in the world. If the good people on the Kumoricon staff will please pardon my language but...it will be a cold day in hell before we're taken down by anyone or anything. There are problems. Barack Obama in my personal opinion has proven without a doubt to have a competentcy level that makes Geoge H.W. Bush and Jimmy Carter's administrations look like models of efficiency. But we will get through this so we have to keep our chins up.

2. Let's face it folks we got some SERIOUS problems in this country. We have to secure our borders, we have to get jobs of the industrial grade back into this country, and a lot of these unnecessary regulations have GOT to go. Don't get me wrong regulation can be a good thing. It keeps the industrial and corporate gangsters from running amuck. But too much regulation and creativity and progress get stifled. And now more than ever we need creativity. And Barack Obama just doesn't get that. What we need in the White House is a moderate Repblican or Democrat who can in the words of Larry the Canle Guy "Get er' done." Because now is not the time for ideology, now is the time for practiciality.

Thank you for this wonderful thread on politics where civility reigns. In the world of politics this is a breath of fresh air.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on October 17, 2011, 01:25:12 am
I hope we can get back to the constitution myself. I'm tired of our federal government and especially certain state governments passing laws and bills that restrict, twist, and in some cases nullify the constitution which I believe is the core of what the USA is based on. I would like it if George Washington or Abraham Lincoln could see how things are going in our "modern" era and be proud but I doubt that is the case as we stand now. It can get worse though...
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on October 17, 2011, 07:07:56 am
What we need in the White is a moderate Repblican or Democrat who can in the words of Larry the Canle Guy "Get er' done." Because now is not the time for ideology, now is the time for practiciality.

Question: How is either party supposed to simply "Get 'er done" if one party votes/filibusters in unison against anything the other party proposes? That's pretty much what we've been seeing happen.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: TomtheFanboy on October 17, 2011, 11:20:01 am
LOLITICS
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on October 17, 2011, 04:36:26 pm
What we need in the White is a moderate Repblican or Democrat who can in the words of Larry the Canle Guy "Get er' done." Because now is not the time for ideology, now is the time for practiciality.

Question: How is either party supposed to simply "Get 'er done" if one party votes/filibusters in unison against anything the other party proposes? That's pretty much what we've been seeing happen.

Uuuugh thisthisthis. This is what pisses me off about American politics right now. The idea of two parties views is a good one, in that it ensures that at least two opposing views can be heard. But it seems like lately, instead of trying to reach a compromise that suits everyone to some degree all the parties are interested in is saying the opposite of what the other party is saying. The parties should be a way to foster debate and come up with the best possible solution, but instead I'm wondering if we should just send everyone back to kndergarten, because they seem to have forgotten how to share and compromise.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: dark4ever on October 17, 2011, 07:23:58 pm
The two things I feel really strongly about: Abortion and Gay Marriage

Since my views have been said on abortion (everything Chibachi Nero has said so far) my very basic views on gay marriage.

I was raised christian and always have been, but I guess the one thing that really stuck with me was acceptance. My view is very simple: If you don't like gay marriage, don't get one. Just because I'm straight doesn't mean my friends who are gay or bi shouldn't be allowed to get married. If people want to use the religion card, I'll come right back at them with a few arguments
1. They choose to be gay? Yeah, like someone chooses to be allergic to something or to be tall or brunette.
2. The bible tells you it's wrong? It also says it's okay to sell your daughter into slavery, stone people who work on sundays and to impregnate a hooker instead of masturbate
3. They can't have babies? Well, so can't women who are infertile, rather by choice, age or not. Oh, and to lay on the guilt? Girls who were raped. Usually they never even get their periods because of the damage.
4. They'll abandon kids, which is wrong? So, you can't be single and have a kid? Oh, and most of those kids were abandoned by irresponsible straight people.

Most of this was taken from (or just voiced by) this video- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQmprNdamNg&list=FLWVtZHHYBKbjZNW75NO8ZUQ&index=85
(WARNING: LOTS AND LOTS OF F BOMBS IN THE VIDEO)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on October 18, 2011, 03:09:32 am
O.o what version of the Bible are you getting that from? Sounds like a lot of twisting of words there.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on October 18, 2011, 05:39:52 am
Dude, there's lots of bad stuff in the bible. Give Deuteronomy a read, it's definitely... interesting.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: dark4ever on October 18, 2011, 10:20:51 am
We've actually studied parts that are no longer applicable in church. I wish I could give you the verses, I really do, but I don't have the paper with me (It got left at home- didn't think I'd need it).
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on October 18, 2011, 01:25:08 pm
cough (http://www.evilbible.com/)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: dark4ever on October 20, 2011, 10:18:19 am
Oh my god, that makes me laugh xD
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on October 29, 2011, 09:00:28 pm
Well!

I've been in a nutrition hype lately, I could go on and on about the evil of the USDA and it's direct contribution to the obesity/diabetes epidemic.

I recently have become a very strong supporter of Ron Paul. One thing that really irritates me is when people make statements like, "He'll never win the presidency" or "He's a nut". I think these kinds of statements are a direct reflection of the media's power. When the media tells you that there are WMDs in Iraq, they must be there, right? We all know how that went down.

So if the media says he can't win, that must be the case!

Ron Paul is easily the most consistent, most educated candidate, and he is the only one who can beat Obama in 2012. I'm not a particular fan of either the Democrats or Republicans (in fact, I would rather have Obama as president than any of the Republican candidates other than Ron Paul).

If Ron Paul does not gain the Republican nomination in 2012, mark my words: Obama will be the next president.

He is easily the top third (probably second) contender for the Republican nomination, but because he has been blacked out, made fun of, and outright ignored, the people are led to think he cannot win. You should look up the polls if you don't believe me. The establishment is afraid of him. When the media is telling you "no", this is the time to question why. This is exactly like what happened with Kucinich in 08. But Ron Paul has been gaining steam and he IS in the top tier, despite what the media says.

Ron Paul supports alternative medicine (he himself is an MD) and believes that people should have the right to drink raw milk. I know this seems minor, but as I stated above, the USDA has been the prime facilitator in perpetuating the obesity epidemic. Go to www.mercola.com and read about the things Americans have been putting into their bodies.

Anyway, this is my two cents on politics. I know I'm going to get some negative reactions, but bring it on, I guess.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 29, 2011, 09:26:35 pm
You're entitiled to your opinion HalcyonFour and i respect them. But with all due respect i disgree.


There's no doubt Obama has botched this agenda real bad. He didn't start the bleeding but he has made it worse with his ideoplogical agenda. I'm actuually hoping for either Mitt Romney or herman Cain to get it. Ron paul has some interesting ideas but he also has a lot of idea which economically and internationally would be disastrous for this country. I do however believe whoeevr becoomes president should hire Newt gingrich as a political advisor as the man has some good ideas that would work ecoonomically.

And lets face it folks Obama is proving to be his own worst enemy at the rate he's alienating everyone there's no way he'll be president for another four years. it's just simply not happening.

I also believe this. I think the PC parents groups and politicians need to get out of "Working to contain violence on T.V." Because these days they're actually doing more harm then good. If the parents and politcal fgroup want to curtail violence stop blaming T.V., movies, and video games and take more active role in their own kids' lives in teaching them good values. It's a little something called responsibility. And more importantly parents should talk to their kids about what they watch, again that's responsibility, and it's also a means of opening communication with their kids.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on October 29, 2011, 09:45:01 pm
I have not looked into who is running or not so personally I have no clue who those people are. I doubt Obama will get another term though, especially after operation fast and furious, which of course is receiving almost no media coverage.

That is a good point about the milk thing and I was surprised to find out a few years ago it was illegal to buy/sell unpasteurized (real) milk. I'm even more surprised on how Obama was trying to push that bill that would make it so nobody can grow their own garden anymore because you had to buy and use USDA approved fertilizer and pesticides. It is no wonder auto-immune disorders are so rampant these days...

I say I am surprised when I really shouldn't be...
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on October 29, 2011, 10:52:11 pm
Ron Paul supports alternative medicine (he himself is an MD) and believes that people should have the right to drink raw milk. I know this seems minor, but as I stated above, the USDA has been the prime facilitator in perpetuating the obesity epidemic. Go to www.mercola.com and read about the things Americans have been putting into their bodies.

Anyway, this is my two cents on politics. I know I'm going to get some negative reactions, but bring it on, I guess.

I get the daily Mercola newsletter.  xD  I don't really like how everything is overhyped so much, but there is some very good info on it.

I think it's ridiculous that people cannot sell unpasteurized milk across state lines. Afaik, it's legal as long as it's in your state. Or am I wrong? :0
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on October 29, 2011, 11:01:01 pm
Ever seen unpasteurized milk in a store? Whole Foods would have it if it were possible.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on October 30, 2011, 12:09:46 am
You're entitiled to your opinion HalcyonFour and i respect them. But with all due respect i disgree.


 Ron paul has some interesting ideas but he also has a lot of idea which economically and internationally would be disastrous for this country. I do however believe whoeevr becoomes president should hire Newt gingrich as a political advisor as the man has some good ideas that would work ecoonomically.

I also believe this. I think the PC parents groups and politicians need to get out of "Working to contain violence on T.V." Because these days they're actually doing more harm then good. If the parents and politcal fgroup want to curtail violence stop blaming T.V., movies, and video games and take more active role in their own kids' lives in teaching them good values. It's a little something called responsibility. ANd more importantly parents should talk to their kids about what they watch, again that's responsibility, and it's also a means of opening ccommunication with their kids.


I find it very interesting that you believe this. It suggests that you would disagree with general censorship. Do you know that Ron Paul is one of the few (if any) politicians who has consistently advocated against the FCC, repeatedly defending our First Amendment rights? You can find his views on the matter here: http://libertymaven.com/2007/05/23/ron-paul-on-censorship-and-first-amendment/36/

As far as his suggestions being internationally and economically disastrous, I would beg to differ. He is the only candidate who has endorsed a plan to cut taxes AND cut spending. Do you know how economic policy has traditionally played out? Cut taxes and INCREASE spending...that is, create more debt with money we don't have. Most politicians bow to corporate interests; they are bought and sold, and no matter what they tell the people, they answer to a very specific authority. The same thing will happen (i.e., cut taxes, increase spending) if anyone BUT Ron Paul gets elected to the presidency. He refuses to participate in the Congressional pension system, returns a portion of his salary back to the U.S. Treasury every month, and is a champion for individual rights. 

You're right. Obama has done a lousy job, but unless we get someone like Kucinich or Nader, or of course Paul, the same thing will continue to happen.

And as far as foreign policy is concerned, I believe that his is the sanest. Do you have any idea about Middle Eastern politics? OMG, they are soooo sick and tired of U.S. intervention, and there is a real threat that they will no longer bow to U.S. whims. First the U.S. targets Al Qaeda and then places them in power. What is going on here?!  Dr. Paul's policy is to refrain from these types of tactics and to quit policing the world. Unless you agree with the philosophy that policing the world is the type of policy that the U.S. should be pursuing, I frankly don't understand how his policies can be disastrous. So please clarify what you mean by that.

 
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on October 30, 2011, 12:14:11 am
I have not looked into who is running or not so personally I have no clue who those people are. I doubt Obama will get another term though, especially after operation fast and furious, which of course is receiving almost no media coverage.

That is a good point about the milk thing and I was surprised to find out a few years ago it was illegal to buy/sell unpasteurized (real) milk. I'm even more surprised on how Obama was trying to push that bill that would make it so nobody can grow their own garden anymore because you had to buy and use USDA approved fertilizer and pesticides. It is no wonder auto-immune disorders are so rampant these days...

I say I am surprised when I really shouldn't be...

Oh MY GOSH, I did not know this!!!

Have you heard about the suicide seed? Look it up, it's being developed by Monsanto. It's the scariest thing in the world; it's basically looking to create a form of plants that will produce sterile seed. This means that farmers won't even be able to save their seed if they wanted to. Can you imagine what will happen if these "suicide seeds" contaminate with normal crops?!

He who controls the food supply controls the world...
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on October 30, 2011, 12:17:24 am
I have not looked into who is running or not so personally I have no clue who those people are. I doubt Obama will get another term though, especially after operation fast and furious, which of course is receiving almost no media coverage.

That is a good point about the milk thing and I was surprised to find out a few years ago it was illegal to buy/sell unpasteurized (real) milk. I'm even more surprised on how Obama was trying to push that bill that would make it so nobody can grow their own garden anymore because you had to buy and use USDA approved fertilizer and pesticides. It is no wonder auto-immune disorders are so rampant these days...

I say I am surprised when I really shouldn't be...

Oh MY GOSH, I did not know this!!!

Have you heard about the suicide seed? Look it up, it's being developed by Monsanto. It's the scariest thing in the world; it's basically looking to create a form of plants that will produce sterile seed. This means that farmers won't even be able to save their seed if they wanted to. Can you imagine what will happen if these "suicide seeds" contaminate with normal crops?!

He who controls the food supply controls the world...

I've heard of this before.  It is honestly one of the most disgusting, inhumane, selfish things I have ever heard in my life. Greed at its worst.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on October 30, 2011, 12:18:58 am
Ron Paul supports alternative medicine (he himself is an MD) and believes that people should have the right to drink raw milk. I know this seems minor, but as I stated above, the USDA has been the prime facilitator in perpetuating the obesity epidemic. Go to www.mercola.com and read about the things Americans have been putting into their bodies.

Anyway, this is my two cents on politics. I know I'm going to get some negative reactions, but bring it on, I guess.

I get the daily Mercola newsletter.  xD  I don't really like how everything is overhyped so much, but there is some very good info on it.

I think it's ridiculous that people cannot sell unpasteurized milk across state lines. Afaik, it's legal as long as it's in your state. Or am I wrong? :0

I know, and it's kind of annoying the way that he endorses his products as the only answer.

I also find it a little bit...scary that he endorses the USDA stamp of approval so much. There have been recent findings that have shown that the USDA has actually been slacking in enforcing a lot of their organic standards. Mercola has not mentioned this in any of his articles, and I wonder why. I really hope that he is not being paid by the USDA to endorse that stamp of approval. I don't think so, but I just find it a bit odd that he has not recognized this.

It scares me to wonder whether the USDA organic stamp is going to be yet another tool of manipulation...and if it's not enforced, then really, it's useless.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on October 30, 2011, 12:20:12 am
I have not looked into who is running or not so personally I have no clue who those people are. I doubt Obama will get another term though, especially after operation fast and furious, which of course is receiving almost no media coverage.

That is a good point about the milk thing and I was surprised to find out a few years ago it was illegal to buy/sell unpasteurized (real) milk. I'm even more surprised on how Obama was trying to push that bill that would make it so nobody can grow their own garden anymore because you had to buy and use USDA approved fertilizer and pesticides. It is no wonder auto-immune disorders are so rampant these days...

I say I am surprised when I really shouldn't be...

Oh MY GOSH, I did not know this!!!

Have you heard about the suicide seed? Look it up, it's being developed by Monsanto. It's the scariest thing in the world; it's basically looking to create a form of plants that will produce sterile seed. This means that farmers won't even be able to save their seed if they wanted to. Can you imagine what will happen if these "suicide seeds" contaminate with normal crops?!

He who controls the food supply controls the world...

I've heard of this before.  It is honestly one of the most disgusting, inhumane, selfish things I have ever heard in my life. Greed at its worst.

I know, man!

It seriously gives me the incentive to give conspiracy theories a second glance.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on October 30, 2011, 12:30:33 am
Okay, I just did a quick search on that garden thing that was also intended to ban organic farming as well. I haven't re-read the bill since it was first being shoved through but according to this search it is called HR 875 & S 425 if you want to look it up (my eyes hurt too much right now to do a lot of reading so I hope this is what I'm remembering.) It was a big hush hush operation at the time too.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on October 30, 2011, 12:51:28 am
I know, and it's kind of annoying the way that he endorses his products as the only answer.

I also find it a little bit...scary that he endorses the USDA stamp of approval so much. There have been recent findings that have shown that the USDA has actually been slacking in enforcing a lot of their organic standards. Mercola has not mentioned this in any of his articles, and I wonder why. I really hope that he is not being paid by the USDA to endorse that stamp of approval. I don't think so, but I just find it a bit odd that he has not recognized this.

It scares me to wonder whether the USDA organic stamp is going to be yet another tool of manipulation...and if it's not enforced, then really, it's useless.

Hehe, yeah. I just take his advice, then research the best alternative on my own. =)

I don't know much about the USDA, but I wouldn't be surprised there was corporate cronyism involved.  I mean, it's everywhere else you look. :\

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Darknight2433 on October 30, 2011, 01:10:25 am
The USDA does wonders- it's the reason a lot of people are alive right now.

Also, Montanto has been trying to give out infertile seeds for a long time- it got outlawed, and now they just have a 'honesty policy' where the farmers they sell the seeds to promise to not use them for next year, and merely buy another batch.

Have you all seen Food Inc?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on October 30, 2011, 02:44:55 am
The USDA does wonders- it's the reason a lot of people are alive right now.

Have you all seen Food Inc?

I would like to respectfully disagree with the first statement. The USDA is one of the the reasons why we have obesity, diabetes, are being poisoned by high fructose corn syrup, and I would bet that they contribute to world hunger by subsidizing ethanol. As far as Monsanto goes, I'm going to have to wait a bit. It's just a matter of time before they can claw their way into making it legal. For many years, the patenting of seeds was not allowed, but now it is. I figure it's just a matter of time before they can buy the legalization of the suicide seed.

I have seen Food Inc. It was an excellent documentary and snapped me out of my conventional food trance.

Have you seen Fat Head? It's on Netflix. It exposes the lipid hypothesis, the biggest scientific scam that the USDA has perpetuated. Very interesting, you should look it up.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on October 30, 2011, 04:06:48 am
The USDA used to do wonders, whether they still do or not. Once upon a time, the meatpacking industry and other food producers had "convinced" the government (or at least their wallets) that it could be trusted, and the government agency nominally in charge of inspecting food was little more than a facade. To break the fallacy that food industries can be trusted to self-police, it took The Jungle and so much mass food-poisoning (aka ptomaine) that it was the leading cause of death among young adults. The USDA was created, and food got much safer than it had been in a long time.

Flash-forward a century, and the USDA doesn't even have the power to demand a recall when food starts killing people. They have to ask nicely and hope that the company will do so in a timely fashion - i.e. before 5/6th of it has already been consumed, as happened in a 2002 ConAgra incident. And their ability to even inspect food, pronounce something unsafe, or go after false claims has been whittled down to almost nothing.

Corporations around the turn of the last century pretty much ran everything, until massive outcry and popular movement forced reform. We're starting to see repeats of history all over the place - the abuses of the mortgage industry, the almost-open buying of politicians, using quasi-legal immigration to break the labor movement, the food industry scandals, etc. YMMV, but I think the Occupy movement may be the first serious sign that people have had enough.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on October 30, 2011, 11:49:50 am
^ Agreed about the food stuff.

Also agreed that the occupy movement is a big sign people are getting fed up with the way things are. I personally don't know what the movement is about, but if police "white shirts" (commanders) are attacking people in new york for apparently no reason, then there has to be something to it.

It looks like congress voted unanimously to cut all programs like operation Fast and Furious yesterday. Too bad it is too late for those two border patrol officers and the hundreds of Mexicans that have already been killed because of it.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on October 30, 2011, 01:45:41 pm
The USDA used to do wonders, whether they still do or not. Once upon a time, the meatpacking industry and other food producers had "convinced" the government (or at least their wallets) that it could be trusted, and the government agency nominally in charge of inspecting food was little more than a facade. To break the fallacy that food industries can be trusted to self-police, it took The Jungle and so much mass food-poisoning (aka ptomaine) that it was the leading cause of death among young adults. The USDA was created, and food got much safer than it had been in a long time.

Flash-forward a century, and the USDA doesn't even have the power to demand a recall when food starts killing people. They have to ask nicely and hope that the company will do so in a timely fashion - i.e. before 5/6th of it has already been consumed, as happened in a 2002 ConAgra incident. And their ability to even inspect food, pronounce something unsafe, or go after false claims has been whittled down to almost nothing.

Corporations around the turn of the last century pretty much ran everything, until massive outcry and popular movement forced reform. We're starting to see repeats of history all over the place - the abuses of the mortgage industry, the almost-open buying of politicians, using quasi-legal immigration to break the labor movement, the food industry scandals, etc. YMMV, but I think the Occupy movement may be the first serious sign that people have had enough.

Yes.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 30, 2011, 04:12:55 pm
Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.

1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.
2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.
3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.
4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!
5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.
6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution:  Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.

If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up. And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on October 30, 2011, 06:23:58 pm
They made that seed so the farmers would have to buy their seed each time rather than harvest some of their own crops and get their own seeds. It is so that seed company gets more profits.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 05, 2011, 12:15:48 am
Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.

1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.

While I do agree that going back to the gold standard might not be an immediate answer, let's take a look at the reason you give. The reason for the gold standard IS because there is all that money floating out there. Think about it. Would you rather have $100 in bills or $100 worth of gold? Most people would choose the gold because it is a solid store of wealth. It forces money to be tied to something concrete. If you've ever studied the history of money, you would know that historically, tying money to gold was the only way to guarantee that your wealth was saved. The process would not be immediate, we might have to revalue our system and have a floating exchange rate, but theoretically it could be done.

2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.

This is false. Ron Paul is advocating for 10th amendment rights, which gives states more power. If you have less federal government, you would need less taxes to finance it. When he talks about getting rid of taxes, he is mainly pushing for less federal taxes. He does want to abolish the income and death taxes, but this does not mean we would not have a sales tax or taxes on other goods!

3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.

Do you have ANY idea about what the Bureau of Homeland Security has done? How many rights it has taken away from us? If you are in support of civil liberties being stripped away for matters of "security" then I guess it would make sense to continue to vote for politicians who support this type of regulation.

4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!

Excuse me? Ron Paul has advocated for a strengthening of national borders. There are Ron Paul SUPPORTERS who have advocated for civilian militias, but this is because most of them believe that a police state is soon to be imposed on the American populace. Look up FEMA Camps on Google for reasons why they might believe this. If you can please provide sources for these claims, I would like to read them over.

5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In
case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.

Unfortunately, it seems that war propaganda has succeeded in convincing the politic of the philosophy of preemptive war strategy.  When Bush went to war with Iraq, it was purportedly because of WMDs. There were none. Now the Obama administration is continuing to push for war against Iran...why? For what reason? While it may be the case that there are some Islamic extremists, I have my doubts about their ability to take on the U.S. It is precisely because of the U.S. strategies of policing the world that it has garnered so much hatred. It has nothing to do with religion, but rather social injustices and the policing of the world. It is similar to the issue with Palestine/Israel. The issue was never about religion, but land, power, and occupation.

6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution:  Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.

Excuse me? Make the dollar illegal? Can you please provide links to back this up? I want a quote from Ron Paul about his thoughts on this.

If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up.

So you watched one biased video and formulated all of your opinions based on that. I would suggest that you look into his actual positions. This is his website: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.

Why? So that Monsanto can gain enormous profits and political power. If they control the food supply, they control the world. Thankfully, these seeds were made illegal, but they still created at least 20 different types of them, I believe. I wouldn't doubt that they are in the process of continuing to pursue it.

The reason why I believe that Ron Paul would make a good president is because he has tirelessly advocated for civil liberties. I don't agree with his positions on every issue; I also have qualms about the gold standard and some of his foreign policy. However, as I've been researching the Patriot Act, and the gradual deterioration of our rights as citizens, Ron Paul is the only (mainstream) candidate who has consistently advocated for these rights. You mentioned that "The price of liberty is always vigilance," well, I would like to rebut that with "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 05, 2011, 09:19:56 pm
Actually I'm not a big fan of Ron Paul and I'll tell you why a number of his policies would be disastrous.

1. Restoration of the Gold standard: Taking us back to the Gold standard would be economically disastrous because there's not enough gold on the PLANET to cover the amount of money we got floating out there.

While I do agree that going back to the gold standard might not be an immediate answer, let's take a look at the reason you give. The reason for the gold standard IS because there is all that money floating out there. Think about it. Would you rather have $100 in bills or $100 worth of gold? Most people would choose the gold because it is a solid store of wealth. It forces money to be tied to something concrete. If you've ever studied the history of money, you would know that historically, tying money to gold was the only way to guarantee that your wealth was saved. The process would not be immediate, we might have to revalue our system and have a floating exchange rate, but theoretically it could be done.

2. Eliminate ALL taxes: Now granted a flat tax would be nice. But Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate ALL taxes which would essentially render the federal government completely peniless and unable to function.

This is false. Ron Paul is advocating for 10th amendment rights, which gives states more power. If you have less federal government, you would need less taxes to finance it. When he talks about getting rid of taxes, he is mainly pushing for less federal taxes. He does want to abolish the income and death taxes, but this does not mean we would not have a sales tax or taxes on other goods!

3. Eliminate ALL Government agencies including the Bureau of Homeland security: Now how are we supposed to regulate things in this country or protect ourselves from enemies if there are no government agencies to regulate things? This is a bad idea.

Do you have ANY idea about what the Bureau of Homeland Security has done? How many rights it has taken away from us? If you are in support of civil liberties being stripped away for matters of "security" then I guess it would make sense to continue to vote for politicians who support this type of regulation.

4. Decentrallize our Military: Basically Ron Paul and people like him want to eliminate our military and replace it with small "Civiliian militias". Are small civilian militias going to be able to stop large armies when they invade I think not..NO!

Excuse me? Ron Paul has advocated for a strengthening of national borders. There are Ron Paul SUPPORTERS who have advocated for civilian militias, but this is because most of them believe that a police state is soon to be imposed on the American populace. Look up FEMA Camps on Google for reasons why they might believe this. If you can please provide sources for these claims, I would like to read them over.

5. Negotuiate with enemies: Now Ron Paul wants to negotiate with the likes of Iran. He expects all of us to sit in a fireside circle with our enemies and sing "Kumbaya" with them? In
case no one noticed out there in the world we still have a group of unreasonaning religious psychopaths who want nothing more than to put several bullets to several nukes through our heads so they can create their own Holy Ottoman Empire. Iran's mullahs are still a threat and Achmedinijad (Sp?) has all the makings of th next Adolph Hitler. And for those of us who've read history we know what kind of damage the first one did and why we don't need a second one. We cannot isolate ourselves from the rest of world. Thomas Jefferson once said, "The Price of liberty is always vigilence." and essentially Ron Paul wants us to isolate ourselves from the rest of the world and put our fingers in our ears. That would be a great environment for a wanabe Hitler to flourish. In short if we ignore our responsibilities evil will flourish.

Unfortunately, it seems that war propaganda has succeeded in convincing the politic of the philosophy of preemptive war strategy.  When Bush went to war with Iraq, it was purportedly because of WMDs. There were none. Now the Obama administration is continuing to push for war against Iran...why? For what reason? While it may be the case that there are some Islamic extremists, I have my doubts about their ability to take on the U.S. It is precisely because of the U.S. strategies of policing the world that it has garnered so much hatred. It has nothing to do with religion, but rather social injustices and the policing of the world. It is similar to the issue with Palestine/Israel. The issue was never about religion, but land, power, and occupation.

6. Blantent misinterpretation of the constitution:  Ron Paul actually wants to make the dollar illegal and uses a certain constitiutional amendment to state his case. The problem is I found out Ron Paul's little interpreataion was a gross misinterpretation. What this amendment says is that the individual states shall not produce their own currency. And that's sensible that promotes economic stability. That constitutional amendment does NOT say that gold and silver are the only money that shall be used. This leads to the question if Ron Paul would grossly misinterpret this amendment what else would he misinterpret if it would suit his own ends? Just a little something to think on.

Excuse me? Make the dollar illegal? Can you please provide links to back this up? I want a quote from Ron Paul about his thoughts on this.

If you're wondering how I got all this information, I saw a little old public cable access special that was put on by members of the Libertarian movement. And mind you in that special they also talked about all sorts of circumstantial non-existant conspiracies which I'd bet ere cooked up.

So you watched one biased video and formulated all of your opinions based on that. I would suggest that you look into his actual positions. This is his website: http://www.ronpaul2012.com/

And as for this infertility seed there's one question I have. If such a thing does exist which I seriously doubt, WHY the blazes would we create something like that in the first place? We humans are many things but we're not THAT stupid. A word of advice to everyone out there it's always a good idea to not only question the information but question the people or person giving you that information or claiming that conspiracy they might (and probably do) have an ulterior agenda. Think on this folks.

Why? So that Monsanto can gain enormous profits and political power. If they control the food supply, they control the world. Thankfully, these seeds were made illegal, but they still created at least 20 different types of them, I believe. I wouldn't doubt that they are in the process of continuing to pursue it.

The reason why I believe that Ron Paul would make a good president is because he has tirelessly advocated for civil liberties. I don't agree with his positions on every issue; I also have qualms about the gold standard and some of his foreign policy. However, as I've been researching the Patriot Act, and the gradual deterioration of our rights as citizens, Ron Paul is the only (mainstream) candidate who has consistently advocated for these rights. You mentioned that "The price of liberty is always vigilance," well, I would like to rebut that with "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin



Now that we've got all that out of the way I'll say this. I stand by everything I say. You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.

1. You say back up our money with Gold. Like I said there's not enough Gold on the Planet to cover the amount of money we got floating out there. Granted Gold and precious metals are a great investmment idea that can yield some heavy dividends if played for the long haul. But it's been proven that Ron Paul wants to return us to the Gold standard it's the No-spin truth.

2. Actually it isn't false granted we'd have fewer Government agencies but look at what Ron Paul wants to get rid of. The Federal Reserve, The Bureau Homeland Security, The Bureau Of Eductaion. The I.R.S.  Those who are in charge of insuring that our nation has some measure of regulation or collect money needed for government to run it's basic services. We might be burdened by too much regulation which could be cut. But too little regulation...and the gangsters run amuck unchecked.

3. The Bureau of Homeland Security has worked quietly behind the scenes insuring that all Government agencies work together and share information to help us deal with the threat of Teerrorism which is still very real. And getting rid of the Federal reserve would cut off every American business from getting the money they need to get things done and make a profitand thusly cause our great entrepreneurial system to collpase no new businesses big or small. You can only cut so much from the Federal government before you you kill vital services. Granted the Government could stand to be shrunk but eliminate our most important agencies there's a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

4. Ah yes, the so-called police state. People who are talking like that I say to them go to a third world dictatorship country and THEN you'll see a police state. America is many things but it is not now nor will it ever be a police state. That's a conspiracy thoery (And I don't apoliogize for saying that because that's what it is). And what happened with FEMA that was it's own fault they botched up big time.

5. War propaganda? That's a conspiracy theory pushed by the anti-war isolationist crowd. Obama has never advocated war with Iran. Granted there were no WMDs in Iraq but Saddam Hussien was a meanace that needed to be stopped in case he did. We should've gone in Iraq AFTER we killed Osama Bin Laden. But in the end it doesn't matter because we got that varmit none the less. And the so-called policing the world has caused the world to hate us...sorry that's spin by the anti-war crowd. Sorry but Ron Paul and his followers see the U.S. Army as part of the "Police state" and want to dismantle it for "Ciivilian Militias" which would spell disaster for us if another power decided to invade.

6. He would illegalize the dollar and he quotes I recall the very same Amendment which states thates the the Dollar shall be the only currecy by the U.S. or in Ron Paul's case he twists the translation to suit his own ends. People like him who twist and pervert the constitution are the sort of people who should NOT be in office.

7. I actually checked out that website. it's a known pro-Ron Paul website. I prefer to go to known, established, and respected non-partisan sites for information. Granted Bill O' Reily likes to antagonize people and I'm not exactly cool with that, I prefer Mike Huckabee's approach. Still Bill O' Reily doesn't take sides he simply lays it out and a lot of times he's right though he does have a bad habit of being anti-union while I myself am pro-union. And funny thing about Public Cable Access folks who go on those channels usually are talking to those who they think are on their side and are unafraid to tell it like it is. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "Keep your friends close keep your opponents closer."

9. Enormous Profits and political powerr? Ahh, ahhh that's a conspiracy theory. Granted they want to make money, what business doesn't? That's the name of the game in the business world. Granted a number of big Businesses could learn to have more accountability but if we simply don't buy their products they'll get the message. Or better still go into business against them. That will drive down the price of things for the consumer, lead to better quality of customer service, and create more jobs, and more oppurtunities for all. Like I said if you don't like a company, don't accuse them of nonsensical conspiacy theories. Just don't buy their product or start making the same thing they do. And the big problem with the whole sterile seed thing is if they were to do that they'd be putting themselves in danger of going out of business and starving the human race as well with an infertile seed. And no business last time I looked ever wanted to shoot themselves in the foot so to speak.

Sorry Ron Paul only supports the constitution when it's convienient for him. He's a constitutional lawyer, and like all lawyers he has a knack for twisting the truth when it serves his own ends. That's the truth behind the spin. And as for Ben Franklin the ORIGINAL American playa' and patriot yes, what he said was true, but...what he also means is we have to be on the lookout for those within our system who would seek to use it as a means to gain the power they crave. I'm sorry but Ron Paul wants to go beyond the presidency he wants to run the country for as long as he can and he'd use the constitution if he thought it could help him achieve that.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on November 07, 2011, 04:02:18 am
http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/19/gop-reps-directly-press-obama-on-fast-and-furious/
Old news I know, but still pretty important...
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 08, 2011, 01:14:59 am
You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.

hahahahahahahaha omg are you kidding me
Dude, Fox News is the laughingstock of news channels for a reason. They have so much bias and outright fabrication in their "news" that it doesn't even count as news anymore. And don't even get me started on Bill O'Reilly, that hatemonger needs to just retire and get out of the public eye already. He's embarrassing every American with a brain.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 08, 2011, 03:27:54 am
Fwiw, O'Reilly probably makes one of the most serious efforts to appear neutral out of all the Fox commentators*. That's not exactly a high standard, though.  :-\

* - there being a big difference between commentator and reporter.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 08, 2011, 05:24:20 pm
That's true, I'll give him that credit. He does at least attempt to appear "fair and balanced", even though he definitely is not.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 11, 2011, 02:09:30 am
See post below; accidentally submitted too early.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 11, 2011, 02:22:22 am




Now that we've got all that out of the way I'll say this. I stand by everything I say. You got to watch a lot of O' Reily and the Factor for the No Spin stuff and go to non-partisan websites to get a closer look.


Now I understand why you believe all of these things about Ron Paul. Please, I urge you to seek alternative media! You cannot expect the truth to come from these types of sources. The mainstream media is owned by corporations with interests. You mentioned non-biased sources. Dude. Wake up!

1. You say back up our money with Gold. Like I said there's not enough Gold on the Planet to cover the amount of money we got floating out there. Granted Gold and precious metals are a great investmment idea that can yield some heavy dividends if played for the long haul. But it's been proven that Ron Paul wants to return us to the Gold standard it's the No-spin truth.

LOOK AT THE U.S. INFLATION RATE. THE DOLLAR IS BEING DEVALUED AS WE SPEAK BECAUSE OF EASY MONEY POLICY. What you're saying about not enough gold in the world makes no sense at all! Can you please provide links to explain your logic?

2. Actually it isn't false granted we'd have fewer Government agencies but look at what Ron Paul wants to get rid of. The Federal Reserve, The Bureau Homeland Security, The Bureau Of Eductaion. The I.R.S.  Those who are in charge of insuring that our nation has some measure of regulation or collect money needed for government to run it's basic services. We might be burdened by too much regulation which could be cut. But too little regulation...and the gangsters run amuck unchecked.

1. The Federal Reserve is a PRIVATE BANK. It is NOT a federal agency. Alan Greenspan, formal Federal Reserve chairman himself said that the Fed has NO OBLIGATION to the law, and this is absolutely true. When the Fed wants to affect interest rates, it just prints money and buys or sells bonds! Do you have any idea what this has done to the U.S. inflation rate? The agencies you have mentioned are inefficient. I remember when Katrina came a ravaged New Orleans, FEMA was by far the biggest joke. It was extremely ineffective, yet all of that money continues to be funneled into it. I'm not fond of my tax dollars supporting an inefficient system.

3. The Bureau of Homeland Security has worked quietly behind the scenes insuring that all Government agencies work together and share information to help us deal with the threat of Teerrorism which is still very real. And getting rid of the Federal reserve would cut off every American business from getting the money they need to get things done and make a profitand thusly cause our great entrepreneurial system to collpase no new businesses big or small. You can only cut so much from the Federal government before you you kill vital services. Granted the Government could stand to be shrunk but eliminate our most important agencies there's a recipe for disaster if ever there was one.

Um. The Fed does not loan commercially. It only loans to banks. So your notion of the Fed is wrong. Read up on it, and then come back to me with a rebuttal. As far as the "terrorism" threat...if you're a supporter of pre-emptive war strategy, go ahead and give your vote to Rick Perry or Romney, or whatever.

4. Ah yes, the so-called police state. People who are talking like that I say to them go to a third world dictatorship country and THEN you'll see a police state. America is many things but it is not now nor will it ever be a police state. That's a conspiracy thoery (And I don't apoliogize for saying that because that's what it is). And what happened with FEMA that was it's own fault they botched up big time.

Good. I'm glad you agree FEMA is ineffective.

I don't care if it's a conspiracy theory, the fact is that our privacy is being stolen from us. Just a couple of days ago the government issued its first ever "national emergency test". They're looking to do the same with internet and phones next, and there have already been measures to begin censoring the internet. Go ahead believing that this will never happen, or that the United States will continue to bask in its commercialism, but I'm not one to give myself to normalcy bias.
[/quote]

5. War propaganda? That's a conspiracy theory pushed by the anti-war isolationist crowd. Obama has never advocated war with Iran. Granted there were no WMDs in Iraq but Saddam Hussien was a meanace that needed to be stopped in case he did. We should've gone in Iraq AFTER we killed Osama Bin Laden. But in the end it doesn't matter because we got that varmit none the less. And the so-called policing the world has caused the world to hate us...sorry that's spin by the anti-war crowd. Sorry but Ron Paul and his followers see the U.S. Army as part of the "Police state" and want to dismantle it for "Ciivilian Militias" which would spell disaster for us if another power decided to invade.

Firstly, you are using the word "isolationism" improperly. "Isolationism" is a term that equates to economic autarky, so what you are saying makes no sense. The United States funds Israel's military. Israel has talked about bombing Iran by the end of 2012. Therefore, Obama is not opposed to going to war with Iran. Please don't be naive. And you  never provided any links like I asked you to about the militias, so I'm starting to think you're getting your information from hearsay.


6. He would illegalize the dollar and he quotes I recall the very same Amendment which states thates the the Dollar shall be the only currecy by the U.S. or in Ron Paul's case he twists the translation to suit his own ends. People like him who twist and pervert the constitution are the sort of people who should NOT be in office.

Excuse me? Illegalize the dollar? What does this even mean?! Where are you getting your information from, dude?!

7. I actually checked out that website. it's a known pro-Ron Paul website. I prefer to go to known, established, and respected non-partisan sites for information. Granted Bill O' Reily likes to antagonize people and I'm not exactly cool with that, I prefer Mike Huckabee's approach. Still Bill O' Reily doesn't take sides he simply lays it out and a lot of times he's right though he does have a bad habit of being anti-union while I myself am pro-union. And funny thing about Public Cable Access folks who go on those channels usually are talking to those who they think are on their side and are unafraid to tell it like it is. To paraphrase Sun Tzu, "Keep your friends close keep your opponents closer."

Bill O'Reilly is just as biased, if not more so, than anyone else working for the corporate media. Like I said, now I understand why you believe all of these things about Ron Paul. And as far as Sun Tzu's comment...Ron Paul's foreign policy would encourage exactly what you are advocating for, and I'm surprised that you don't recognize that.

9. Enormous Profits and political powerr? Ahh, ahhh that's a conspiracy theory. Granted they want to make money, what business doesn't? That's the name of the game in the business world. Granted a number of big Businesses could learn to have more accountability but if we simply don't buy their products they'll get the message. Or better still go into business against them. That will drive down the price of things for the consumer, lead to better quality of customer service, and create more jobs, and more oppurtunities for all. Like I said if you don't like a company, don't accuse them of nonsensical conspiacy theories. Just don't buy their product or start making the same thing they do. And the big problem with the whole sterile seed thing is if they were to do that they'd be putting themselves in danger of going out of business and starving the human race as well with an infertile seed. And no business last time I looked ever wanted to shoot themselves in the foot so to speak.

If you don't believe that the corporate powers that be have an influence on our government, you are naive. I don't mean that as an insult, but if you just look at all the really powerful people (Secretary of the Treasury, etc.) many of them were former CEOs, or have worked for private corporations. And now they run our government! And it seems in this paragraph you are advocating for competitive markets....um...this is EXACTLY the kind of economic system Ron Paul has been advocating for--less inefficient regulation, and more free markets.

Sorry Ron Paul only supports the constitution when it's convienient for him.

Your knowledge of Ron Paul is clearly severely limited if you really believe this. Ron Paul is a STRICT constitutionalist.

He's a constitutional lawyer, and like all lawyers he has a knack for twisting the truth when it serves his own ends.

I literally LOL'd when I read this, dude. Ron Paul is NOT a lawyer! He is a DOCTOR!

Seriously, dude! From WHERE are you getting your information?! Are you trolling? Like...are you?

That's the truth behind the spin. And as for Ben Franklin the ORIGINAL American playa' and patriot yes, what he said was true, but...what he also means is we have to be on the lookout for those within our system who would seek to use it as a means to gain the power they crave.

My friend, you are in for a rude awakening. These are the exact kinds of infringements on our civil liberties and rights that Ron Paul has advocated for time and time again. I strongly urge you to go to one of the "biased" and "unbiased" websites and seriously read about how avidly Ron Paul has fought for our rights.

I'm sorry but Ron Paul wants to go beyond the presidency he wants to run the country for as long as he can and he'd use the constitution if he thought it could help him achieve that.

Well, it seems that your "unbiased" media has officially done its job.

Honestly, after reading through your comments, you did not really address any of the issues I mentioned. It is also clear that you do not understand the way that our financial systems work, and from what you are saying about the sources you listen to, though you accuse me of visiting biased sources, it seems that the pot is calling the kettle black. CNN, CNBC, ABC, Google, all the major networks are bought and payed for by corporate interests.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 11, 2011, 12:46:39 pm
Ahh, typical of all Ron Paul supporters, you hear the words but do not listen with your mind. Granted I did mess up with Ron paul about hsi profession, but with everything else I'm quiote clear. My good fellow for you to throw audacious comments such as that I'm a brainwahed zombie in callusion with this secret conspiracy or that secret conspiracy just goes to show why Ron paul and his ilk will nevr win. And i beg to differ my good felow I was quite clear on the issues, and note this since we've started having this discussion you've constantly been throwinga b arrage of attacks my way while I have shown discipline and risen above it.

1, Another reason being, the man is in his 70's, he's not going to be around much longer.

2. The whole "Anything that even remotely dissimiliars from our persepctive is evil and part of a conspiarcy." It's true whenever anyone disagrees with Ron Paul all the followers come out of the woodwork and scream and shout trying to silence them. This is the exact same thing that the left is trying to do. And in the end in this great country it won't work>

Sorry in the end it's going to be Mitt Romney who proverbially pins Obama for the 1...2...3 victory and starts us down the right track to getting America back on feet. And with the way Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot Mitt Romney doesn't need to do all that much just stay positive and focus on his plan.. I'm a Moderate Democrat and i say Mitt Romney is the REAL hope for this country. Why, because we need moderates who will go by practicality, not ideology.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 11, 2011, 06:09:26 pm
Oh my god dude I can't even handle you. You're not providing links to back up your claims. You're not debating, you're repeating the same close-minded opinions and refusing to see any side but your own, and belittling anyone who tries to propose different ideas. That isn't how you debate, and especially not how you debate politics. If you're not here to debate, you may as well just stop posting.

Also, plenty of presidents have been 60+ years of age when sworn in to office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_by_age). His age has nothing to do with his ability to lead. Besides, in modern times, the life expectancy of a person is much longer than it ever has been previously-- it's not uncommon to live well into your eighties, nineties, even to a hundred these days.

How can you consider yourself to be a Moderate Democrat when you hold such Conservative Republican leanings and watch Conservative Republican and far-right news shows?...
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: GregAtlas on November 12, 2011, 05:10:54 am
I wonder if there are enough votes throughout time (total) for mickey mouse to win the presidency?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: TalaRedWolf33 on November 13, 2011, 12:16:09 am
Id vote for him! Im his biggest fan!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 16, 2011, 05:18:26 pm
So, I found this recently, and thought it'd be an interesting thing to present, especially since there seems to be a lot of misunderstandings about it.

This is from the official website for Congress.  It is legit.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/D?d112:1:./temp/~bdl2QJ:@@@L&summ2=m&|/home/LegislativeData.php|

I, for one, favor this, although I can see why many would argue against it.  Whichever one you side on this issue, I would recommend that you contact your local representatives and let them know you feel.  (I know that Sen. Ron Wyden is opposed to this...)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chromophobic on November 16, 2011, 06:06:55 pm
I know nothing of politics....

But the whole thing about getting the internet-censorship-thing-whatever-I-dont-even-know issue is ridiculous. And making certain sites illegal? The discussion of making tumblr illegal is what lead me to learn about this and led me to this deviant art journal:

Quote from: AntiquityDreams

[Link] (http://vimeo.com/31100268)
This video explains PiPA in very basic terms and the same sort of idea applies to SOPA, but, (just to tell you here) in brief, the legislation, if passed, would essentially hand the Internet over to corporations, allowing them to sue and shut down any website that so much as hosts a link to copyrighted material.

Internet Service Providers could be forced to block social media sites, search engines could be required to delete results, and startups could lose their funding — all on the whim of the copyright holder.

Perhaps most distressing of all, however, is the fact that this bill, in true Orwellian fashion, does nothing to prevent actual piracy. The only thing it will succeed in doing is turning the Internet into a dystopic plutocracy where people are no longer free to share ideas and be creative for fear of running afoul of Big Business.

Despite what some would have you believe, the hearings are offensively lopsided, with pro-SOPA voices far outweighing those opposed. A slew of tech companies including Google, Yahoo!, Mozilla, Twitter, and AOL, have undersigned a full-page ad in today's New York Times opposing SOPA, but it's doubtful their voices will be heard by those who need to hear it.

That means it's up to you to get this terrifying, jobs-killing, Internet-breaking bill off the table for good.

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 16, 2011, 06:49:08 pm
So, looking at the last line of what you posted, I find it contradictory.  The purpose of SOPA is to stop piracy, something that keeps money from those that work on music, movies, etc.  I think SOPA is a good thing.  I'd like to read that Protect IP thing myself.  It sounds like someone making wild claims, but I'd like to read it myself... I'm gonna do some searching!

Okay, I can see where he was going with the Protect IP one, but I think SOPA makes enough differences to where it'd be a good thing.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on November 16, 2011, 09:13:17 pm
I really think both of those bills have nothing to do with stopping piracy and everything to do with stopping unpopular speech.

These type of powers are abused.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 17, 2011, 08:01:13 am
You're probably right in saying SOPA will be used against unpopular / anti-establishment speech... in fact, I'd be surprised if they don't use it against WikiLeaks within a year if SOPA becomes U.S. law.*

Will the MPAA and RIAA will abuse it? It's already happening with DMCA. The MPAA's recent defense in court when Hotfile sued them for knowingly and repeatedly sending false DMCA (copyright) takedown requests was pretty close to "Yeah, so what?" (http://torrentfreak.com/warner-bros-admits-sending-hotfile-false-takedown-requests-111109/) They even openly admitted to using takedown requests to get rid of Open Source material they didn't like, such as files that could be used to speed up downloading. Give them SOPA and remove due process, and you can probably say goodbye to any pretense of restraint.

* Addendum: I wasn't aware of it when I first posted, but it actually looks like wikileaks.org served as the prototype for one aspect of SOPA. Under SOPA, if a copyright holder claims that a site is violating their rights in some fashion, the credit card companies / Paypal / etc have to cut off that site's funding or risk legal liability. I wasn't aware of it, but a similar blockade (http://wikileaks.org) has been used to strangle WikiLeaks in apparent retaliation for Cablegate.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 17, 2011, 04:28:47 pm
From what I got from SOPA, wikileaks has nothing to do with it, unless they do things that I'm unaware of.  As far as I know, they're a sort of journalism group, not an illegally-download-for-free site.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 17, 2011, 09:03:15 pm
Wikileaks should have nothing to do with SOPA, but all it would take is for one corporation to claim that an embarrassing leaked memo was copyrighted. That would empower the DoJ to seize the domain, and I don't think they would stop to examine the legal accuracy of said claim too closely. Remember, this is a site that pissed off a lot of congresscritters enough to openly call for the assassination of its founder.

That's one of the biggest reasons a lot of people are worried about SOPA - it makes sites guilty until proven innocent, and all it takes is for someone to dislike your site enough to accuse you. The very accusation can be enough to trigger getting your income frozen and/or your domain name seized. It could shut down Google and internet forums like this one as well, since you don't even have to be hosting something someone decides is copyrighted... just creating a link to it is enough.

(Fun bit of trivia: One of the bill's other provisions means creating and uploading an AMV to youtube becomes a felony. Seriously.)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 17, 2011, 09:32:11 pm
That's definitely not what I got from reading the bill.  Besides, there would (or at least should) be ways to still legally fight it, should one of those theoretical scenarios come true.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 18, 2011, 03:14:33 am
Which part(s) do you think aren't supported or are contradicted by the bill, and do you remember any text in the bill which contradicts it/them? I'd be really happy to learn some or all of my assertions aren't as bad as they seem. :)

Also, do you happen to remember any text in the bill which does allow for due process (i.e. the ability to legally fight it), other than the making-streaming-copyrighted-content-a-felony aspect*? Seriously, it would be good news.


(* - I think that's grossly disproportionate, but at least it's still due process.)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 18, 2011, 03:36:42 am
Ahh, typical of all Ron Paul supporters, you hear the words but do not listen with your mind. Granted I did mess up with Ron paul about hsi profession, but with everything else I'm quiote clear. My good fellow for you to throw audacious comments such as that I'm a brainwahed zombie in callusion with this secret conspiracy or that secret conspiracy just goes to show why Ron paul and his ilk will nevr win. And i beg to differ my good felow I was quite clear on the issues, and note this since we've started having this discussion you've constantly been throwinga b arrage of attacks my way while I have shown discipline and risen above it.

1, Another reason being, the man is in his 70's, he's not going to be around much longer.

2. The whole "Anything that even remotely dissimiliars from our persepctive is evil and part of a conspiarcy." It's true whenever anyone disagrees with Ron Paul all the followers come out of the woodwork and scream and shout trying to silence them. This is the exact same thing that the left is trying to do. And in the end in this great country it won't work>

Sorry in the end it's going to be Mitt Romney who proverbially pins Obama for the 1...2...3 victory and starts us down the right track to getting America back on feet. And with the way Obama keeps shooting himself in the foot Mitt Romney doesn't need to do all that much just stay positive and focus on his plan.. I'm a Moderate Democrat and i say Mitt Romney is the REAL hope for this country. Why, because we need moderates who will go by practicality, not ideology.


Honey, I'm a woman, not a fellow, and you did not address any of my comments.

Oh, well. I tried.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 18, 2011, 03:21:00 pm
The bill is talking about sites that offer illegal downloads of song files and the lot.  SOPA doesn't do that, so it doesn't relate.  That's enough reasoning right there.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 18, 2011, 09:40:16 pm
In general, I haven't bothered to keep up with the Republican election drama too hard, since I won't be voting in their primaries anyway. But I feel really bad for anyone who has to pick from these goobers. On the plus side, the RNC is gonna be pretty entertaining this time around.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 19, 2011, 04:47:33 am
The bill is talking about sites that offer illegal downloads of song files and the lot.  SOPA doesn't do that, so it doesn't relate.  That's enough reasoning right there.

Quote
SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed...

by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works

"Digital transmission" isn't limited to illegal downloads. As the section name indicates, it includes streaming.

Section 2319 of title 18 (the law being referenced) made counterfeiting copyrighted goods (i.e. making DVDs of Titanic that are designed to look like the one being sold in stores) a felony. This bill changes that to "any copyright violation at all." In fairness, there's also a section which requires that it be more than $2500 in damages, but they added on the MPAA/RIAA's formula of "every download or view equals a lost sale". Considering how many copyrighted works an AMV usually samples, you've almost certainly committed a felony if it gets as many as 10 views. First offense, up to 5 years in prison per infringement. Second and thereafter, 10 years.

The next bit doesn't lend itself as well to easily-digested quotes, but I'll try. Emphasis added.

Quote
The term `Internet site' means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets...
Quote
a foreign Internet site or portion thereof is a `foreign infringing site' if... the owner or operator of such Internet site is committing or facilitating the commission of criminal violations punishable under section 2318, 2319, 2319A, 2319B, or 2320, or chapter 90, of title 18, United States Code

You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.

To boot, they also wrote immunity from liability into the law so that not only the DoJ, but also payment providers will be immune from actions like the antitrust suit Wikileaks has filed in the EU against Visa et al for the blockade I described earlier. They face no penalty for unethically seizing someone's assets, but they'll be considered facilitators subject to felony charges if they don't comply "within 5 days". Even if they want to fight it on behalf of customers, they can't.

Quote
(5) IMMUNITY... any entity served with a copy of an order under this subsection, and any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, shall not be liable for any act reasonably designed to comply with this subsection or reasonably arising from such order
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 19, 2011, 07:51:47 am
There still is the other bill, Protect IP Act.

I think random is correct. Are you in law school, random?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 19, 2011, 08:12:08 am
Quote
SEC. 201. STREAMING OF COPYRIGHTED WORKS IN VIOLATION OF CRIMINAL LAW.

Any person who willfully infringes a copyright shall be punished as provided under section 2319 of title 18, if the infringement was committed...

by the public performance by means of digital transmission, during any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted works

"Digital transmission" isn't limited to illegal downloads. As the section name indicates, it includes streaming.

No kidding, but that's not what's being said.  It's talking about the ones that are provided and downloaded illegally; that's what it means by "infringes a copyright."

Section 2319 of title 18 (the law being referenced) made counterfeiting copyrighted goods (i.e. making DVDs of Titanic that are designed to look like the one being sold in stores) a felony. This bill changes that to "any copyright violation at all." In fairness, there's also a section which requires that it be more than $2500 in damages, but they added on the MPAA/RIAA's formula of "every download or view equals a lost sale". Considering how many copyrighted works an AMV usually samples, you've almost certainly committed a felony if it gets as many as 10 views. First offense, up to 5 years in prison per infringement. Second and thereafter, 10 years.

AMV's wouldn't apply for various reasons.  For example, your getting random clips that are not in the original order.  Also, the original audio files (at least for what I call "genuine" AMV's) are not in the AMV's.  Therefore, the copyright laws that relate to illegal viewings doesn't apply.  As for the copyright theft, if you indicate where you got the audios and visuals for the AMV, (in other words, cite the sources), then you'll be fine, assuming that you got them legally.  If you got them illegally, then you've violated the law, whether you're making an AMV or not.

You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.

Well, I can't say anything regarding the site you're talking about, since I don't know who they are, but SOPA is designed to focus on the sites that are violating copyright laws.  Here's the opening quote:

Quote
Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.

Anyone that the Attorney General sees violating the copyright laws will be told to stop first, given time to stop, and then punished should they continue on.  If anything, SOPA is a very forgiving-sounding law.

To boot, they also wrote immunity from liability into the law so that not only the DoJ, but also payment providers will be immune from actions like the antitrust suit Wikileaks has filed in the EU against Visa et al for the blockade I described earlier. They face no penalty for unethically seizing someone's assets, but they'll be considered facilitators subject to felony charges if they don't comply "within 5 days". Even if they want to fight it on behalf of customers, they can't.

And why shouldn't they?  If someone is violating the law, then those that are helping them are also violating the law.

Project IP is a similar copyright protection law.  If people are violating copyrights, even after getting warned by the government, then they should be punished.  I applaud the attempts to protect the artists that make these entertaining mediums that some people pirate-tize.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 19, 2011, 11:03:42 am
Please note that I'm absolutely not speaking for Kumoricon, or predicting how Kumoricon will handle the implications of SOPA. I'm speaking only for myself, from my own personal opinion.



There still is the other bill, Protect IP Act.

I think random is correct. Are you in law school, random?

Thank you for the encouragement. (^_^) I'm not in law school, though, I'm just a nosy old man who sometimes reads the full text of a law to find out what they've hidden in the fine print. Especially when it has the potential to affect something I care about a lot, like Kumori.


AMV's wouldn't apply for various reasons.  For example, your getting random clips that are not in the original order.  Also, the original audio files (at least for what I call "genuine" AMV's) are not in the AMV's.  Therefore, the copyright laws that relate to illegal viewings doesn't apply.  As for the copyright theft, if you indicate where you got the audios and visuals for the AMV, (in other words, cite the sources), then you'll be fine, assuming that you got them legally.  If you got them illegally, then you've violated the law, whether you're making an AMV or not.

Possessing a recording doesn't give a person license to publicly perform it - remember all those notices about "for private exhibition only" that they used to stick in videotapes? Putting something on youtube would be a public performance.

YMMV on whether Fair Use would apply, but the law is written to "shoot first, ask questions later." Your opportunity to defend yourself will be months later, after spending thousands of dollars at the very least. And it'll be a complete crapshoot. :-\ Most sites, individuals, and organizations will be leery of taking such a chance.


You don't even have to provide the content. All you have to do is "facilitate" it by linking to it or by being the registrant of the domain name. This opens you up to all sorts of happy fun in rem actions by the DoJ (Dep't of Justice) including having your domain seized, having search engines be forced to remove any links to you, having payment providers functionally seize your assets, etc... with no real recourse. The one site I know of that's tried to fight it has been tied up in court for several months, getting stonewalled - heaven only knows how much longer it'll take. Probably years. But if you get hit with all of the above, even if it's "only" for several months, you're functionally dead as a site - and all it takes is for someone to file a complaint with the DoJ against you. You don't have to be found guilty, you have to prove yourself innocent - after you've been sentenced.
Well, I can't say anything regarding the site you're talking about, since I don't know who they are, but SOPA is designed to focus on the sites that are violating copyright laws.

The key point I was trying to make, but I managed to bury in a sea of TLDR instead, was this: You do not have to provide content to be punished. All you have to do is link to it. That's what happened to Rojadirecta (http://torrentfreak.com/domain-seizures-does-not-violate-free-speech-110805/), despite being declared legal by the courts in its own country (Spain).

If you think about what that means for both search engines and user-generated content sites, that's really scary. And it might explain why Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and a variety of other big names in the Internet have come out strongly against SOPA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-lawmaker-opposition-grows-as-debate-heats-up/2011/11/18/gIQADBdQZN_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop).

Quote
Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) to seek a court order against a U.S.-directed foreign Internet site committing or facilitating online piracy to require the owner, operator, or domain name registrant, or the site or domain name itself if such persons are unable to be found, to cease and desist further activities constituting specified intellectual property offenses under the federal criminal code including criminal copyright infringement, unauthorized fixation and trafficking of sound recordings or videos of live musical performances, the recording of exhibited motion pictures, or trafficking in counterfeit labels, goods, or services.

Anyone that the Attorney General sees violating the copyright laws will be told to stop first, given time to stop, and then punished should they continue on.  If anything, SOPA is a very forgiving-sounding law.

That's the opposite of what the DoJ has already been doing even before the law's passage, with operations like "In Our Sites". See earlier link for details. Rojadirecta was seized with no prior warning, and has been fighting it for several months now. The owner got off lucky, though, in that he wasn't hit with the asset seizure that SOPA threatens.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 19, 2011, 01:03:10 pm
So, what were they?  I don't see why this is relevant to the argument.  A company in Spain had its domain seized... why?  For streaming sporting events?  Did they have the legal right to show them?

This isn't the same thing as illegally downloading anime or music, nor to AMV creations.  Sports organizations have legal claims to their events.  If you go to s pro game with a camcorder, you're asked to take it back to your car, or you're denied entrance to the game.  Cameras are fine, but nothing that can record.  You can't show sporting events, not even clips, unless you have consent from said sporting corporation.  If Rojadirecta is guilty of this, then they should have their domain taken away.  Their argument is that this is limiting their online traffic; what kind of argument is that?  A poor one.  Nothing here changes my stance on a possible law that doesn't even relate to Rojadirecta.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 19, 2011, 02:37:27 pm
The key point I was trying to make, but I managed to bury in a sea of TLDR instead, was this: You do not have to provide content to be punished. All you have to do is link to it. That's what happened to Rojadirecta (http://torrentfreak.com/domain-seizures-does-not-violate-free-speech-110805/), despite being declared legal by the courts in its own country (Spain).

If you think about what that means for both search engines and user-generated content sites, that's really scary. And it might explain why Yahoo, Google, Facebook, and a variety of other big names in the Internet have come out strongly against SOPA (http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/sopa-stop-online-piracy-act-lawmaker-opposition-grows-as-debate-heats-up/2011/11/18/gIQADBdQZN_story.html?tid=pm_business_pop).

Why the US DoJ seizing Rojadirecta's domain for the crime of linking to copyrighted content hosted elsewhere is pertinent to SOPA: SOPA legalizes seizing both foreign and domestic websites on a wider scale and to a greater degree, just for linking. (Among several other niceties.)

To reiterate, I'm not speaking on behalf of Kumori or trying to predict how Kumori should react to SOPA
That means every search engine, every social network, every forum, everything with user-generated content has to disable linking or risk facing the same thing. It would be an impossible battle to try to keep all links scrubbed clean. It also means the US has unilaterally decided it owns the Internet and can take it away from anyone they want to, and screw other countries' laws giving greater freedom of speech than we enjoy.

How would we react if Turkey announced tomorrow that it was going to start banning Turkish people from looking at US websites that insult Kemal Ataturk (which is illegal in Turkey)? Some of us would laugh at them for it, some would sympathize with the Turkish people, most just wouldn't care. But what would we think if they announced they were going to take every website that insults Ataturk off the Internet altogether?

That's how other countries are looking at us right now. (http://www.thedomains.com/2011/11/17/eu-adopts-resolution-against-stop-online-piracy-act-seizing-of-domain-names/)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on November 19, 2011, 03:02:07 pm
This is pretty interesting, taken from the comments on that page:

Internet giants place full-page anti-SOPA ad in NYT (http://boingboing.net/2011/11/16/internet-giants-place-full-pag.html)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 19, 2011, 05:12:49 pm
I thought it'd be interesting to see where people on the forums lie on the political spectrum... So if you take this test (http://www.politicalcompass.org/test) you can get a result like this one:

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-4.50%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-6.10)

This is mine obviously. Apparently my views are close to those held by The Dalai Lama, which I think is totally rad.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 19, 2011, 06:08:03 pm
Apparently I'm close to Nelson Mandela, which is a little confusing. :)

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-6.88%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-2.97)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 19, 2011, 06:59:58 pm
Politically, I value economic justice as a means for social justice, cosmopolitanism, acculturation over assimilation, and the redress of generations of social and economic opportunities lost for women and minority groups.

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-9.00%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-6.62)

It really shows.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on November 19, 2011, 07:31:16 pm
I've taken this a few times . . and this is generally pretty consistent with how I've scored so far.

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-7.00%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-7.38)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 20, 2011, 12:35:31 am
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-2.62%26amp%3Bsoc%3D1.33)

I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI.  (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)

Going back to the SOPA, I'd like to see where people are getting this crap.  What I found, which is provided by Congree, sounds quite lenient compared to what you guys, as well as these "sources," are saying.  But whatever; how about we drop this particular subject and move on to something else, eh?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 20, 2011, 12:59:08 am
You said that you're getting your info directly from Congress. Assuming Congress is exposing everyone to corporate mistreatment knowingly, (I'm not saying whether or not they are) what incentive do they have to provide you with accurate and complete information? Do you ask a five year old whether they ate all the cookies, or do you look in the cookie jar and at the crumbs on their face?

The only part of Congress that doesn't have at least a little incentive to lie to your face is the Congressional Budget Office. They get regular salaries no matter what Congress does.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on November 20, 2011, 01:58:17 am
I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI.  (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)

I suppose the inference is that people on the left care more about art than people on the right, even if the art isn't economically viable.  Basically, a person on the left would see a social value to supporting a museum or theater whereas someone that was more capitalist-minded would say that if it can't afford to survive on its own then it shouldn't exist.

That's just my best guess, though.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 20, 2011, 04:33:24 am
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Same results as most of the people here. Thanks for the link!

I thought I was going to get authoritarian, but I guess not! And thank God I'm not on the libertarian right...I don't want to be on the same side as the Randians. And I think it's freaking awesome how I'm closer to Nelson Mandela/Gandhi.

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.politicalcompass.org%2Ffacebook%2Fpcgraphpng.php%3Fec%3D-3.50%26amp%3Bsoc%3D-1.79)

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 20, 2011, 04:46:50 am
And jaqua, has anyone ever told you that you look like Mark Ruffalo?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 20, 2011, 11:49:11 am
...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi1111.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fh464%2FAmyloid%2Fpoliticalcompass-1.jpg)

Mine doesn't surprise me much. I'm a bit more of a communist than the Dalai Lama.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 20, 2011, 03:50:00 pm
My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 20, 2011, 05:22:14 pm
...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.


My bad; I've never seen that show. ^^;

My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.

I know about his loose ties with JBS; I also know about the ghostwritten newsletters, his Randian views, and his connections to Alex Jones and implied belief in globalism. As far as I'm concerned, every candidate will have imperfections. No one is perfect. As I recall, Mr. Barry Obama was praised as a champion of Change when he was elected. The man was heavily backed/funded by Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, La Raza, and the Black Panthers. It's OK to vote for a guy like him him when he's backed by these kinds of constituents, right? But it's not OK to back a strict constitutionalist ignorantly called a racist who will vote against popular laws on principle; will speak out against the the Federal Reserve; defend my rights to consume raw milk and use alternative medicine; and defend a foreign policy based on peace.

I have done plenty of research on Dr. Ron Paul, and while I do not support everything he does or stands for (I am very wary of JBS and I can't stand Ayn Rand), he is going to get my vote. I want the corporate marionettes out of office and I want my civil liberties protected.

If you disagree, I completely respect that. But thus far, you have failed to provide proper rebuttals to my arguments. You seem to be an Obama supporter. I highly encourage you to do your research as well.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 20, 2011, 09:01:12 pm
...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.


My bad; I've never seen that show. ^^;

My experience in my over 30 years of life has taught me this. Question all those who claim they are the savior of this country and question all information given out by those who claim they're savior incaranate. You may find some truths that you don't like.

I know about his loose ties with JBS; I also know about the ghostwritten newsletters, his Randian views, and his connections to Alex Jones and implied belief in globalism. As far as I'm concerned, every candidate will have imperfections. No one is perfect. As I recall, Mr. Barry Obama was praised as a champion of Change when he was elected. The man was heavily backed/funded by Farrakhan, Jeremiah Wright, La Raza, and the Black Panthers. It's OK to vote for a guy like him him when he's backed by these kinds of constituents, right? But it's not OK to back a strict constitutionalist ignorantly called a racist who will vote against popular laws on principle; will speak out against the the Federal Reserve; defend my rights to consume raw milk and use alternative medicine; and defend a foreign policy based on peace.

I have done plenty of research on Dr. Ron Paul, and while I do not support everything he does or stands for (I am very wary of JBS and I can't stand Ayn Rand), he is going to get my vote. I want the corporate marionettes out of office and I want my civil liberties protected.

If you disagree, I completely respect that. But thus far, you have failed to provide proper rebuttals to my arguments. You seem to be an Obama supporter. I highly encourage you to do your research as well.

I appreciate you're respecting my views lass. But didn't anyone ever tell you it's not a good idea to assume anything?  Because the truth is...I voted for McCain and Palin in the last eleection. This Moderate Democrat has never been afraid to when necessary go against his own party and I saw what Barack Obama was when he was merely candidate Obama back in '08.

Corporate Marionaettes this, Corporate marionettes that. I've heard the talk and while I DEFINITELY don't approve of what the Banks did (There's enough blame on that score to go around.) that whole "The Bigc orporateions" talk is another conspiracy theory hatched by a number of anti-entrepreneurial organizations. Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.

And you're the second person I''ve heard mention doing "Research" and well...I have and well no matter how folks try to rearrange restoring the gold standard whether they call it "backing up the dollar with gold" or whatever, if it looks, walks, quacks, and swims like a duck it's a duck. Also you can do all the overly complicated research you can but if you can't apply the K.I.S.S. theory (My version which is less insulting being Keep It Simple Sherlock.) then you could be very well electing someone who's going to use the constitution to essentially make themselves dictator. You're welcome to believe as you will lass. But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself essentially president for life/dictator.

I appreciate you don't agree with everything he says that's actuallya  refreshing change from a lot opf Ron Paul supporters.

I do agree we need a flat tax that would make our ridiculously complcated tax system WAAAAY less so. And if we legalize and Tax marijuana the way we do cigrettes and alcohol this country wuill not only have a great source of income we'll also be REALLY socking it to the drug lords who get a little over 50% of their profits from selling Marijuana.

That's just my take on things.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 20, 2011, 09:49:51 pm
...Hon that's not jaqua, that's Andrew Scott as Moriarty in the BBC's recent adaptation of Sherlock Holmes.


NO DON'T LISTEN HALCYON THIS IS ME I SWEAR man i wish i looked like mark ruffalo oh jeez

But no dude, whoa, I never realized how similar Mark Ruffalo and Andrew Scott look. My mind is blown. 8| you should watch sherlock oh man it's soooo goooood

I'm pretty sure that this is somewhat off; it says that I'm most like Pope Benedict XVI.  (What does theatre and museums have to do with politics?)

I suppose the inference is that people on the left care more about art than people on the right, even if the art isn't economically viable.  Basically, a person on the left would see a social value to supporting a museum or theater whereas someone that was more capitalist-minded would say that if it can't afford to survive on its own then it shouldn't exist.

That's just my best guess, though.

This is kinda how I see it, too.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 20, 2011, 10:01:46 pm
My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 20, 2011, 10:26:21 pm
That would be THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THING.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 20, 2011, 10:31:10 pm
She should also be a mixed-orientation sexual and alter-abled.
Any SJ categories we haven't hit yet?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 20, 2011, 11:03:32 pm
Oh oh oh oh wait how about mixed-orientation romantic, but asexual? I like it. I want it.
Maybe she could have been raised by gay dads, one being a Muslim and the other being a... Hindu or a Buddhist or a Taoist or just Agnostic/Atheist or something. I want lots of alternative religious ideas.
And she was born in the US, but has traveled a lot in her life and lived in other countries so she has better knowledge of the world as a whole.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 20, 2011, 11:19:13 pm
Maybe she was the US AMBASSADOR TO CHINA

(Jon Huntsman for Republican nominee for president 2012)
(Fred Karger to be allowed into Republican candidate debates 2011-2012)
(Fred Karger for president, because if we're all going to be sick, starving and financially unstable, we could at least do it with all our civil rights intact.)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 21, 2011, 01:26:29 am
My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.

This. One thing I always wondered about this kind of attitude. Are you a secluar atheist? An atheist preferring an atheist (in my view) is the same thing as a Christian preferring a Christian (or whatever).  Both circumstances are quite understandable, we naturally tend to gravitate towards people like us. Which is why I ask whether you are a secular atheist (though that term is kind of redundant, and if you don't feel comfortable revealing this, I understand). I watched the Thanksgiving Family Forum today with most of the candidates (Romney and the other guy didn't show up) and Gingrich was talking about how he "wouldn't be comfortable with an atheist president." I'm just interested in this phenomenon. Should it matter what religion a person is, so long as they stand for what is right? What if Ron Paul was an atheist? Would his supporters think he was more crazy? Or would he have more supporters? Some of his views would probably change, though.

Just some food for thought. Hope that wasn't offensive or controversial.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 21, 2011, 02:22:32 am
Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.


I'm so glad to know you didn't vote for Barry.

As far as not being owned by anyone, well, Mitt Romney has received more money from lobbyists than any of the other candidates combined: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/mitt-romney-lobbyists_n_923323.html?ref=fb&src=sp  and he is generously being doused by Wall Street money: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012   http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012



But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.


Please, enlighten me! I would love to know how a champion of the constitution (libertarian, no less) would engage in this type of behavior. 

There was a lot of other stuff about Romney I was going to post, but I like to encourage people to do their own research. I can PM them to you, if you like, though.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 21, 2011, 04:52:05 am
My ideal Presidential candidate would be a Black/Hispanic/Arabic lesbian transwoman, who was a secular Atheist, pro-choice, pro-marriage equality, and a registered Independent. Oh man. I would cry if such a woman existed and demand she lead my country.

This. One thing I always wondered about this kind of attitude. Are you a secluar atheist? An atheist preferring an atheist (in my view) is the same thing as a Christian preferring a Christian (or whatever).  Both circumstances are quite understandable, we naturally tend to gravitate towards people like us. Which is why I ask whether you are a secular atheist (though that term is kind of redundant, and if you don't feel comfortable revealing this, I understand). I watched the Thanksgiving Family Forum today with most of the candidates (Romney and the other guy didn't show up) and Gingrich was talking about how he "wouldn't be comfortable with an atheist president." I'm just interested in this phenomenon. Should it matter what religion a person is, so long as they stand for what is right? What if Ron Paul was an atheist? Would his supporters think he was more crazy? Or would he have more supporters? Some of his views would probably change, though.

Just some food for thought. Hope that wasn't offensive or controversial.

Not offensive or controversial at all! I'm all for discussing my political views.

Yes, I am a secular atheist (and hahaha, yeah, it's a touch redundant). Honestly, no, I don't really care what religious views a person holds, so long as their political views aren't geared toward stripping another person of their rights, or in support of something I don't agree with. Unfortunately, a lot of the time Christian "values" (in politics, at least) include denying same-sex couples the right to marry or adopt children, restriction of birth control and the closure of Planned Parenthood, making abortion illegal, and teaching Christian history in schools (AKA Creationism) when it is a clear violation of the separation of church and state, and these are all things I have very strong opinions against. As someone who was raised by non-religious parents in a liberal city, I don't personally see why allowing same-sex couples to marry is even a concern in a modern and enlightened society like the US is supposed to be; I know that Planned Parenthood does far more than just provide abortions, such as providing birth control and birth control options to women and men who may otherwise not be able to afford it, test for and treat STDs, screen for breast, testicular, and cervical cancers, test for pregnancy and give pregnancy counseling, treat menopause, perform vasectomies, etc; and since I am not at all religious it didn't (and doesn't) sit very well with me that in my sophomore year of high school, my biology teacher (who was not a religious man) was forced to teach Creationism alongside Evolution in class, and even then the whole lesson and overview was kept as brief as possible, as not to offend. As someone who loves science, especially biology, I was intensely frustrated that we couldn't spend more time on it, since evolution is an extremely fascinating area of scientific study and I hated feeling like I was missing out. As for abortion, while it's obviously not going to be said in the bible that abortion is against Christianity (and let's be honest, God himself is not exactly guiltless of infanticide in scripture), it's vilified primarily by the religious right (who are, by a vast majority, Christian). I believe that a woman's body is hers to do with as she pleases, and if for whatever reason she does not want to give birth to the fetus growing inside her, she does not have to, and should not be forced to. Do I think abortions should be used as birth control? Hell no. Do I think they're something that should at all be taken lightly? Hell no. Are they something that should be avoided if it at all possible? Absolutely. However, if a woman does not want to give birth, she will likely find a way to have an abortion-- whether it is legal or not. I would rather it be kept safe and available than put women's lives in danger by making them resort to extremes.

I'm going to clarify and say this: I DO NOT THINK ALL CHRISTIANS BELIEVE THIS OR HOLD THESE OPINIONS. I would absolutely vote for a Christian, so long as they were pro-choice, pro-equality, and secular, because these are things that are important to me, just like I would not vote for an atheist who was against them. Really, the only reason I say my ideal presidential candidate is an atheist is because a) I'm an atheist and I think having an atheist in office would be extremely awesome, b) on paper, every single US president has, so far, been Christian (I say "on paper" because there is significant debate about the real religious leanings of several of the founding fathers, and I am personally of the opinion that many were actually deists), and c) I personally don't think that religion has any place in the US government, which was founded and built upon secularism. That said, I would also be super thrilled about a Muslim president. Or a Jewish president. Or a Buddhist president. Or a Pagan president. Or a Deist president. Really, I'd just like to mix up the religious atmosphere in US politics, which has unfairly been centered around Christianity for far too long for a country that is supposed to be secular and open to all religious views, and non-discriminatory based on those views.

Which segues into my next point, though this is more personal and less political: there is a definite stigma against atheists in the US today. Atheists were polled as the most distrusted minority in America (http://www.asanet.org/press/20060503.cfm), which to me is both shocking and yet completely expected. As George H.W. Bush was quoted in saying, "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God." (http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=George_H.W._Bush_and_the_Atheists) An atheist president would also no doubt help the atheist movement, where so many people are afraid to "come out of the closet" with their beliefs (http://www.thecrimson.com/article/2007/4/27/coming-out-of-the-atheist-closet/) (warning: article contains swearing), and I don't feel I need to mention again that discrimination against another person based on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof) is a violation of their First Amendment rights, and therefore classically un-American. Having a leader who was unapologetically atheist would, in my opinion, be a huge step forward to bettering the general public's attitude toward their fellow citizens whose only difference from them is a different belief system-- a belief that does not (or at least should not) affect anyone other than themselves.

This was... a lot longer than I expected it to be, and I am deeply, deeply sorry if any of this is offensive to anyone, I truly don't mean it to be. But that's my reasoning in a nutshell! Also, I'm definitely sure Ron Paul would have different views were he not a Christian, as many of his views are based in his belief in God. That's actually a really interesting thing to think about, would he have more or fewer followers if he were an atheist? I definitely think that he would have a radically different group of people championing him, and for all I know it may actually be larger than his following now, as non-religious people in the US take up over 16% of the population (taking the place as the second-largest religious group in the country) and are vastly under-represented, and would therefore probably flock to someone who shared their views. On the flip-side, I'm sure there would also be a large portion of the American people who would consider him crazy, amoral and/or unfit to lead, but again, it would a vastly different group from any who may currently hold any of those feelings.

I'm going to stop typing before this becomes unreadable, haha. Sorry for the length.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 21, 2011, 05:25:48 am
Thank you for an amazingly well-spoken post. :)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 21, 2011, 05:56:16 am
Thank you for an amazingly well-spoken post. :)

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lr6hrnx7Eh1qafrh6.gif)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 21, 2011, 10:18:32 am
...I was going to add something, but jaqua you just said everything I would have said, so I'll just leave it at "seconded".
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 21, 2011, 04:13:03 pm
Ahhhhhhhhhh thanks you guys!!!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 21, 2011, 06:26:09 pm
You're all coherent and politically engaged! So awesome. /gold star


I thought this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025#ixzz1c8I08H75) Matt Taibbi article on OWS was really cool. It takes a look at the movement's core complaints from a hardline economic standpoint. It's got facts and stuff! Facts are cool.

Here's a quote from the beginning to entice you into actually reading it.
Quote
"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."

Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.

"Listen," I said, "where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"

"Well," he said, "it's just, their protests are all about... You know..."

"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."

Other things with cool facts that everyone should consume: Miss Representation. It's a documentary which discusses the media's role in shaping the self-image, ambitions and career possibilities of women. It also talks about men, but to a lesser extent. The whole thing was pretty much bang on and made me cry actual tears of sympathetic frustration at some parts. Here's a trailer. (http://vimeo.com/28066212) It's about 8 minutes long, and has Condoleezza Rice in it. Condi Rice is totally an incentive.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 21, 2011, 06:56:59 pm
Mitt Romney is not a marionette for anyone. He was a businessman who understands how the private sector works.


I'm so glad to know you didn't vote for Barry.

As far as not being owned by anyone, well, Mitt Romney has received more money from lobbyists than any of the other candidates combined: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/10/mitt-romney-lobbyists_n_923323.html?ref=fb&src=sp  and he is generously being doused by Wall Street money: http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contrib.php?id=N00000286&cycle=2012   http://www.opensecrets.org/pres12/contriball.php?cycle=2012



But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.


Please, enlighten me! I would love to know how a champion of the constitution (libertarian, no less) would engage in this type of behavior. 

There was a lot of other stuff about Romney I was going to post, but I like to encourage people to do their own research. I can PM them to you, if you like, though.

Okay big problem there lass. Blogs like that have information that is at best...questionable. My experience has taught me this numbers can be doctored. And The Huffington Post in noted for havinag more than a few...fabrications. ANd as for Open Secrets.org it's known to be associated  with CNN and ABC News, and because of that I question the numbers and information they're producing.

The example I gave awhile back dear lady how he believes that the American Dollar should be replaced by gold and the gold standard restored. When in facact the  constitutional amendment CLEARLY states that the states shall simply not prodice their own currnecy. Not to mention the doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state> Now make no mistake I know we're a Christian country...but the other portion of that story is we're a country comprised of differing sects of Christianity all sorts of other beliefs. Think about it, Maryland was founded by Catholics...Mary land as in the Land of the Virgin Mary. The thing is the seperation of chruch and state works two-fold, iit protects not only the state from the church...it protects the church from the state allowing for differing sects of Christianity to be able to worship on main Street U.S.A> Up and above all eklse we don't need a church of the United States of AMerica. ANd unfortunately Ron paul doesn't belive in that necessary seperation. In fact he rationalizes his beliefs by misinterpreting the constitution yet again.  Those are just two examples of how Ron paul would manipulate the constitution and would even go as far as to dissolve the House and Senate via "Constitutional" means and declare himself President for life/Dictator of the U.S.

Like i said question the information and question the people giving out that information.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 21, 2011, 07:23:05 pm
If you find ABC and CNN skewed and untrustworthy, who do you get your information from?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 21, 2011, 08:03:03 pm
Quote from: Animeman73
Now make no mistake I know we're a Christian country...

Uhhhhh, except

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2F1.bp.blogspot.com%2F_BtQxoyQEA1U%2FRz8dqwBMkUI%2FAAAAAAAAAjg%2FIkxFDd29odk%2Fs320%2Fgeorgewashington.jpg)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 21, 2011, 08:11:19 pm
You're all coherent and politically engaged! So awesome. /gold star


I thought this (http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025#ixzz1c8I08H75) Matt Taibbi article on OWS was really cool. It takes a look at the movement's core complaints from a hardline economic standpoint. It's got facts and stuff! Facts are cool.

Here's a quote from the beginning to entice you into actually reading it.
Quote
"Well, I heard they're trying to decide what bank to put their money in," he said, munching on hors d'oeuvres. "It's just kind of ironic."

Oh, Christ, I thought. He’s saying the protesters are hypocrites because they’re using banks. I sighed.

"Listen," I said, "where else are you going to put three hundred thousand dollars? A shopping bag?"

"Well," he said, "it's just, their protests are all about... You know..."

"Dude," I said. "These people aren't protesting money. They're not protesting banking. They're protesting corruption on Wall Street."

Other things with cool facts that everyone should consume: Miss Representation. It's a documentary which discusses the media's role in shaping the self-image, ambitions and career possibilities of women. It also talks about men, but to a lesser extent. The whole thing was pretty much bang on and made me cry actual tears of sympathetic frustration at some parts. Here's a trailer. (http://vimeo.com/28066212) It's about 8 minutes long, and has Condoleezza Rice in it. Condi Rice is totally an incentive.

I have my rare moments of eloquence! I've learned to save them for when they're necessary because I'm a bumbling idiot most of the time.

THANK YOU FOR THAT ARTICLE AHHHHH I was having a discussion with my mom about the OWS movement and her biggest gripe was that there weren't any clear aims, so she couldn't take it seriously. NOW I CAN MAKE HER READ THIS.

Miss Representation is so gooooooood. Ugh I love feminist documentaries almost as much as atheist ones (which is really saying something).
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 21, 2011, 08:29:59 pm
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church  jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.

On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 21, 2011, 08:56:52 pm
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church  jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.
It's really narrow to say that pluralism is explicitly Christian, especially since it's a principle that is only practiced by some Christians and really really not practiced by many others. American pluralism owes a lot to political philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. And while there may have been a lot of different Christian sects on the continent at the time, none of the framing legal documents of the United States include Christian references.

The only possibly-related document which presupposes a god (and not even an explicitly Judeo-Christian god) is the Declaration of Independence, which is not legally binding in any way and plays no part in the legislative, executive or judicial institutions of the nation.

Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 21, 2011, 09:57:17 pm
Ahh grnted we have a seperation of church and state to ensure that there's no one ruling church  jaqua, but let's be honest we are a nation that was founded by differring sects of Christianity. But we were founded with the idea that people should be free to believe what they will so long as those belief do not involve bringing harm to others. Those are actually based on Christian ideals. I'm not a chruch goer but I believe in the goodness of Christianity itself. Just because we're a Christian nation doesn't mean that we have to think one way or another. that's another beauty we have in this country...freedom of thought.
It's really narrow to say that pluralism is explicitly Christian, especially since it's a principle that is only practiced by some Christians and really really not practiced by many others. American pluralism owes a lot to political philosophers like John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau. And while there may have been a lot of different Christian sects on the continent at the time, none of the framing legal documents of the United States include Christian references.

The only possibly-related document which presupposes a god (and not even an explicitly Judeo-Christian god) is the Declaration of Independence, which is not legally binding in any way and plays no part in the legislative, executive or judicial institutions of the nation.

This. Just because a nation was built BY people who held specific beliefs, does not mean it was made FOR those beliefs explicitly. The United States was created to be completely secular. The fact that the common people apparently no longer understand this shows how far it's strayed from this original ideal.

Also, to say that people are free what they want to believe and that this is a Christian idea is kind of denying every other religion who hold those claims, many of which I'm certain are also practiced in this country. Are they considered "lesser than" just because they have fewer followers? Also, to say that even though "we are a Christian nation doesn't mean we have to think one way or another" may be what you believe, but I'm sure there are lots and lots of very Christian Americans who would use your idea of a Christian nation to justify the vilification of anyone who doesn't share their faith, since obviously if you don't hold the same beliefs as the majority of your fellow citizens you don't belong there. It's similar to the "If you don't speak English, get out of my country!" argument, even though historically America has always been a nation for immigrants, by immigrants, and has never declared itself to have an official language... Just like it has no national religion.

Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)

Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.

Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 22, 2011, 08:16:29 am

But I firmly believe the Ron Paul would use and manipulate our sytem if made president to make himself esstentially president for life/dictator.


I'm afraid I still have not seen you explain this, or provide links to anything Ron Paul has written/said/supports that would suggest this.


Not to mention the doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state


Or this.


In fact he rationalizes his beliefs by misinterpreting the constitution yet again.


Or this.

Additionally,

Quote from: Animeman73 link=topic=15
how he believes that the American Dollar should be replaced by gold and the gold standard restored. When in facact the  constitutional amendment CLEARLY states that the states shall simply not prodice their own currnecy.


The statements you are making here are contradicting each other. The Constitution also says that that states are not allowed to use anything as legal tender unless it's backed by silver and gold. http://www.usconstitution.net/xconst_A1Sec10.html  So, really, going back to the gold standard would be following the Constitution. Yes, you've stated your objections to this, but you have failed to provide satisfactory explanations.

Thus far, all I have seen from you are statements of opinion and not any links that would help me understand how exactly Ron Paul would mistinterpret the constitution and "declare himself a dictator". Statements like "Not to mention the doesn't believe in the seperation of church and state" without any links or evidence to back up your claims do not really help me to understand your point at all.

Furthermore,


ANd as for Open Secrets.org it's known to be associated  with CNN and ABC News, and because of that I question the numbers and information they're producing.


Can you provide proof of this? A link? An article you read? Something! I'm starting to feel like a broken record.

OpenSecrets.org is a nonprofit organization that seeks to keep politicians accountable. While you are right that sometimes blogs can be shady, they can also be highly accurate and provide the public with information that otherwise would not be made available through mainstream media.

Thus far, I feel as though you have failed to back up your claims using anything other than your own opinion.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 22, 2011, 11:45:02 am
Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)

Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.

Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)

If anyone here has read the comic book Ex Machina (and if you haven't you should, it's great) the main character has the best idea I've ever heard when it comes to marriage: stop having the government give out "marriage licenses". We need to separate legal marriage and religious marriage. Have the government give out civil unions to any pair (or more, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) of consenting adults who want them. These unions would provide all the legal rights and obligations of marriage licenses to whoever has one. And then those people are free to get married as a religious ceremony at whatever congregation will have them. This gets rid of the religiously charged term "marriage" and focuses the debate where it should be, on the rights of individuals.

I sincerely doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but it always made sense to me.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 22, 2011, 07:35:47 pm
HalcyonFour: Oh but it is. And actually I've been quite clear and this is where this Moderate Democrats, Republicans, and Libertarians tend to differ and not be able to communicate with one another. But he short of it is i can tell you for a fact Ron Paul will not now, nor will he EVER be president of the United States. His ideas are too far out there andd those ideas pay too little attention to the consequences of what happens if they're put in place to ever be used. And here's another point where Ron Paul and i disagree. he thinks we should get rid of the Patriot ACt I happen to think it's necessary. Consider this since we created the Patriot Act since 9/11 we have not had a single terrorist attack on our Home soil....not one.

As to where i get my information I take a little from Fox and little bit from MSNBC and search for the truth between the lines. AS I've so often said an arguement is a three edged sword there's your side, his side, and then there's the truth.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 22, 2011, 09:20:00 pm
HalcyonFour: Oh but it is.

What is?

And actually I've been quite clear

No, you have not. You have failed to provide any links backing up your claims for your beliefs about Ron Paul. I am still waiting for them.

But he short of it is i can tell you for a fact Ron paul will not now, nor will he EVER be president of the United States.

When he wins Iowa, then let's have a talk.

His ideas are too far out there

I'm sorry. I didn't know that obeying the constitution, and defending my rights and civil liberties constituted being "too far out there"!




As to where i get my information I take a little from Fox and little bit from MSNBC and search for the truth between the lines. AS I've so often said an arguement is a three edged sword there's your side, his side, and then there's the truth.

So in other words, you have limited yourself to the mainstream media without doing any relevant digging.

Best of luck. I seriously tried.

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 22, 2011, 09:39:07 pm
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 22, 2011, 09:45:34 pm
Quote
On the Same Sex marriage thing i have a revolutionary idea, LET THE INDIVIDUAL CONGREGATIONS DECIDE. Don't have in federal Government oreven the states decide. SInce this country believes in freedom of religion...then let's let then individual congregations deccide their own fate. That's the great thing about this country no matter who we are we have the right to decide our own fate, make our own choices, and live with the consequences.
I fully agree that congregations should be able to determine who they will marry under their roof, but that's ignoring all the legal privileges associated with marriage. A legally married couple is next of kin, power of attorney, has hospital visitation rights, can more easily share bank accounts and mortgages and debts. These are matters of state government, and the church should not be the gatekeeper for access to these government services.

The churches can't be allowed to be the sole arbiters of marriage because not everyone has a religious marriage, either. Jaqua and I obviously wouldn't be interested in a church marriage since we're both atheists (and church ceremonies give me hives). Assuming we still wanted the symbolic value of an official wedding, we would need someone to officiate our marriage who is not a member of any clergy. (edit: accidentally implying Jaqua and I are getting married? OR ON PURPOSE IMPLYING?)

And if for no other reason, marriage should not be entrusted wholly to Christian congregations because it has never been an exclusively Christian institution. It's been around since Christianity was a twinkle in Constantine's shamelessly-revising eye. (Totally non-accidental implication that Christianity has a really problematic theological history.)

Also agreeing with a congregation's right to choose, and also agreeing that the church should not dictate marriage as a whole. A church would be a literal last resort for a location if ever I were to marry, because to me (feelings about religion aside) marriage isn't about being united in the eyes of a god, it's about trusting another person with half of your life. Not to mention the Christianity (and in fairness, other religions as well) of the past meant that marriage made your wife and her belongings your property, not your equal, and as a feminist that doesn't give me happy feelings. Obviously these practices and beliefs are outdated and no longer applicable to (most of) modern society, but it doesn't help me shake the knowledge of it.

Marriage, to me, should be between two consenting adults, regardless of gender, gender identity, or sexual preference. (like me and malaria wait what)

If anyone here has read the comic book Ex Machina (and if you haven't you should, it's great) the main character has the best idea I've ever heard when it comes to marriage: stop having the government give out "marriage licenses". We need to separate legal marriage and religious marriage. Have the government give out civil unions to any pair (or more, but I doubt that'll happen anytime soon) of consenting adults who want them. These unions would provide all the legal rights and obligations of marriage licenses to whoever has one. And then those people are free to get married as a religious ceremony at whatever congregation will have them. This gets rid of the religiously charged term "marriage" and focuses the debate where it should be, on the rights of individuals.

I sincerely doubt it will happen in my lifetime, but it always made sense to me.

Holy snap that would be awesome. That's exactly the system I'd like best.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 22, 2011, 09:47:58 pm
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?

Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 22, 2011, 09:56:00 pm
he thinks we should get rid of the Patriot ACt I happen to think it's necessary. Consider this since we created the Patriot ACt since 9/11 we have not had a single terrorist attack on our Home soil....not one.

Yes (http://www.delawareliberal.net/2009/02/08/terrorist-attacks-on-us-soil-after-911/) we (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x5671889) have. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/05/02/us-timesquare-evacuation-bombings-timeli-idUSTRE6411QA20100502)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 22, 2011, 10:02:57 pm
Jaqua, the Democratic Underground is painfully biased.  And as I said numbers and even so-called facts can be doctoreed.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 22, 2011, 10:19:48 pm
You clearly have a different philosophical view of truth than the rest of us. Bias doesn't mean everything is lies. It means it cares about specific information, and will gather and orient itself around that information. Feminist blogs have a feminist bias; that doesn't mean they will always consciously lie to support their own political point of view. It means they will be interested in stories and information that has to do with feminist issues. A blog about the effects of generational poverty is going to care about poverty statistics. No one is ever totally unbiased. Objectivity is a joke.

Did you even look at the sources on Jaqua's links? DU is clearly acting as in information gathering and organizing service, rather than a provider of raw data. The sources are all NYT and Reuters. The New York Times is the paper of record in the United States. If you can't rust the paper of record, there really is nothing left for you but personal experiential data.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 22, 2011, 10:21:57 pm
... Except I remember when the "Underwear Bomber" was national news, are you telling me that you don't? Because that speaks more to you being out-of-touch with the news rather than me "fabricating" it. Besides, you said earlier you watch Fox News, which-- since you obviously don't know-- is EXTREMELY BIASED. It's gotten tons of flack for its outright and blatant fabrication (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+fabrications) of the very real sort (http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths).

If you're going to disregard my information as false, you should also be discarding Fox as false. Just saying. (http://foxnewslies.net/) (and I don't know why I'm even bothering to do your research for you, since you're obviously not bothering to read these links.)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 22, 2011, 10:41:51 pm
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?

Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).

Is that what you do?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 22, 2011, 10:45:29 pm
... Except I remember when the "Underwear Bomber" was national news, are you telling me that you don't? Because that speaks more to you being out-of-touch with the news rather than me "fabricating" it. Besides, you said earlier you watch Fox News, which-- since you obviously don't know-- is EXTREMELY BIASED. It's gotten tons of flack for its outright and blatant fabrication (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+fabrications) of the very real sort (http://www.spitefulcritic.com/home/10-most-ridiculous-fox-news-lies-creative-edits-and-half-truths).

If you're going to disregard my information as false, you should also be discarding Fox as false. Just saying. (http://foxnewslies.net/) (and I don't know why I'm even bothering to do your research for you, since you're obviously not bothering to read these links.)

OMG thank you so much! It takes me so much time to find links to back up what I'm saying...and I never get a single one.

Animeman73, I really wish you would reconsider what you're saying. You state:

Jaqua, the Democratic Underground is painfully biased.  And as I said numbers and even so-called facts can be doctoreed.

Yet you refuse to acknowledge that your news sources are biased...do you honestly believe that Fox and CNN and the like are not biased at all?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 22, 2011, 10:47:46 pm
Objectivity is a joke.


I second that.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 22, 2011, 10:53:48 pm
fabrication (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+fabrications)


HOLY WOW, DUDE! I did NOT know about LMGTFY.  Thank you SO much for this!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 22, 2011, 11:10:11 pm
Also, maybe someone can answer this (completely unrelated to politics):

How the heck do you get photos and things on your signature?! I tried, but I guess my coding was really off. Do you use Photobucket or something?

Photobucket is an option! Just put the direct web address to the image you want between [ img ] [ /img ] brackets (though obviously without the spaces).

Is that what you do?

Yeah! You take your link, in this example http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg, and put it between brackets like this, [ img ] http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg [ /img ], and then you get this!

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8411%2FFoxlive_20090727.jpg)

(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 22, 2011, 11:11:25 pm
fabrication (http://lmgtfy.com/?q=fox+news+fabrications)


HOLY WOW, DUDE! I did NOT know about LMGTFY.  Thank you SO much for this!

i love lmgtfy so much *-*
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 22, 2011, 11:16:39 pm
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8411%2FFoxlive_20090727.jpg)

(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)
Egypt decided to switch places with Iraq for some reason?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 22, 2011, 11:27:56 pm
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8411%2FFoxlive_20090727.jpg)

(I feel this image keeps it relevant to the thread-- what's wrong with it, can anyone tell?)
Egypt decided to switch places with Iraq for some reason?


Yep! This was an image shown on Fox News. The fact that no one caught it is a little telling of the general population working at the "news" station. Though actually, since this was shown during the Egyptian rebellion, this may have been on purpose to try and discredit their movement (since obviously everyone in the middle east is an extremist Muslim and terrorist and America shouldn't help in any way).
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 23, 2011, 12:11:20 am
I seriously tried that with the images and it did not work. I guess I'll try again.

And yeah, shame on Fox for the Egypt thing. I wonder if they did it on purpose, to see how many people would catch it.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 24, 2011, 07:48:03 pm
It didn't? Oh no! Are you using a direct to image link? I think on Photobucket there's a direct [ img ] link you can use, in the little popup to links under the picture.

I ran across this (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111220020) in my tumblr feed today, and I thought I would post it because it's relevant to recent discussions.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 25, 2011, 01:59:03 am
It didn't? Oh no! Are you using a direct to image link? I think on Photobucket there's a direct [ img ] link you can use, in the little popup to links under the picture.

I ran across this (http://mediamatters.org/blog/201111220020) in my tumblr feed today, and I thought I would post it because it's relevant to recent discussions.

BAHAHAHAHA!

I totally was going to post this, too! But I decided not to, lol.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 25, 2011, 02:17:23 am
Yeah! You take your link, in this example http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg, and put it between brackets like this, [ img ] http://images2.dailykos.com/images/user/8411/Foxlive_20090727.jpg [ /img ], and then you get this!

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages2.dailykos.com%2Fimages%2Fuser%2F8411%2FFoxlive_20090727.jpg)


Thank you, good sir.

I finally realized the problem; my code WAS working, but the pictures just don't show up on the profile settings page. However, they do show up on the actual signature. In any event, thanks. Now I can sport my fancy Ron Paul banner.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 25, 2011, 03:50:48 pm
You're welcome to your opinions everyone but the fact still remains Ron Paul will NOT win the Republican primary norr will he EVER be president. The man has ideals that are not only too extereme but the guy is totally disinegenuous. I've read a lot of history na di knopw that tyrants and wannabe tyrants can be very appealing but when their agenda is closely scrutinized it comes out still the same. Rom paul definitely fits a lot of those categories.

And here's another reason Ron Paul won't win. His attitude concerning th Patriot act and Iran are very naive to the point of dangerous. Iran has Islamist Mullahs who are running it and AChmedinijad 9Sp) has all the makings for the next Adolph Hitler. Now if they get their hands on a nuclear device than bad things will happen I guarentee it. Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya". No Iran's people should be encouraged to ruise up against the fanatics in power that much is very true. But we also need to take a firm stance against the Iranian government. Not by negotiation but with a subtle military force amd working with Isreal. And thanks to the Patriot act as I said how many attack have there been against this country from terrorisyts since 9/11, none, nada, zip, zilch, zero. Any attem[pts made against us have been as the old cowboy expression goes "Headed off at the pass". I've heard it said often that the Patriotyt ACt is oppresive and they make mention of that one poor fellow who was nowhere near Spain at the time of the bomb attack. Granted the Patriot ACt isn't perfect, but hey that's the beauty about it, like this country the patriot act always has room for improvement.

Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them.  fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.

That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 25, 2011, 06:40:20 pm
Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them.  fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.

That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.

I'm sorry, but...I can't agree with you regarding Israel. The way the Israeli government is treating Palestine is wrong. Palestine is not free from blame, but neither is Israel. Israel has been persecuted, but that doesn't give them a right to persecute others. Both groups need to be willing to compromise a bit, and they need to figure out how to make a two-state solution work, because it's the only proposal being floated that doesn't leave someone oppressed. And the US government needs to be clear on this; that we will not stand for opression, and if it continues Israel risks losing its ties to the US.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 25, 2011, 09:20:13 pm
You're welcome to your opinions everyone but the fact still remains Ron Paul will NOT win the Republican primary norr will he EVER be president. The man has ideals that are not only too extereme but the guy is totally disinegenuous. I've read a lot of history na di knopw that tyrants and wannabe tyrants can be very appealing but when their agenda is closely scrutinized it comes out still the same. Rom paul definitely fits a lot of those categories.

Once again, please provide links and real arguments about these "categories" you are speaking about.

And here's another reason Ron Paul won't win. His attitude concerning th Patriot act and Iran are very naive to the point of dangerous. Iran has Islamist Mullahs who are running it and AChmedinijad 9Sp) has all the makings for the next Adolph Hitler. Now if they get their hands on a nuclear device than bad things will happen I guarentee it. Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya". No Iran's people should be encouraged to ruise up against the fanatics in power that much is very true. But we also need to take a firm stance against the Iranian government. Not by negotiation but with a subtle military force amd working with Isreal. And thanks to the Patriot act as I said how many attack have there been against this country from terrorisyts since 9/11, none, nada, zip, zilch, zero. Any attem[pts made against us have been as the old cowboy expression goes "Headed off at the pass". I've heard it said often that the Patriotyt ACt is oppresive and they make mention of that one poor fellow who was nowhere near Spain at the time of the bomb attack. Granted the Patriot ACt isn't perfect, but hey that's the beauty about it, like this country the patriot act always has room for improvement.

Propaganda. You obviously didn't read Jaqua's post, because he provided some examples about how we HAVE been attacked by terrorists since 9/11.

Another oproblem I have with Ronn Paul I can sum up in one name, Isreal. Isreal is one of the U,.S.'s closest allies in that region. We should be working closely with them not condeming them.  fifor defending themselves. If he turn our backs on Isreal that will be considered by the rest of the world probably the biggest ever schmuck move we could make. We need to maintain our close ties with Isreal up and above all else.



No. Just...no. The United States gives more aid to Egypt than it does Israel. Israel has nuclear weapons, they can take care of themselves. There is absolutely no proof that Iran has or is building nuclear weapons. Remember what happened with Iraq and the WMDs? We just HAD to go over there to start a war, didn't we? And it turned out that Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda. It was all LIES, all WAR PROPAGANDA, and now it's the same story with Iran. History repeats itself. We NEED to go to war, NEED to get involved before they blow us up...

The Israelis are the ones promoting war in the Middle East, by the way, by threatening to bomb Iran by the end of the year and increasing their illegal settlements. My Palestinian grandparents were ousted from their own homes in 1948. My grandmother had to spend her Easter homeless and in a cave because the Israelis threatened to kill them all if they didn't leave the land (google Deir Yassin massacres). And the Israelis continue building their settlements and propagating their segregation. Did you know that they literally have "Arab roads" and "Jewish roads" in Israel? This is akin to the black-white segregation the United States had in the South. Life is horrible for the Palestinians, and it won't get better because both sides have been burnt by the other.

How much do you even read about Middle Eastern politics, dude? I'm sorry, but I'm not buying into the war propaganda. All of this, "Israel is our ally, we should help them"? PLEASE. The Arabs can't even SNEEZE without the United States' approval. The United States has had a very heavy presence in the Middle East, and their alliance with Israel does nothing but exacerbate their relationship with the Arabs. In any event, you are correct in that there is tension in the Middle East: the Arabs are getting sick of our foreign policy, and I don't blame them. So if you believe that Ron Paul's views on foreign policy are "naive", that is your opinion, but I can assure you that he certainly understands Middle-Eastern politics better than the average American.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 26, 2011, 03:04:11 pm
Quote from: Animeman73
Islamists are not the sort of people you can sit by a fiore with a sing "Kumbaya".

Look out, your Fox News-induced Islamophobia is showing.

Do you honestly believe that everyone identifying as Muslim holds the same extremist religious views as Al Qaeda, that such extremism is actually just the tenets of their faith? If you do, I'm sorry, you desperately need to educate yourself at a source that doesn't include Islam-bashing in its repertoire.

If anyone has beliefs about the Patriot Act and Iran that "are very naive to the point of dangerous", it is you. I posted links for your convenience to see that yes, we have been experiencing terrorist attacks since 9/11. Just because a majority were stopped doesn't mean they weren't happening. Do you think we never stopped a terrorist attack BEFORE 9/11? Is that what you're implying? That the Patriot Act is the only thing stopping every terrorist plot from coming to fruition? If you do actually believe that, maybe you should actually research your claims before parading them around blindly. I doubt you will because it isn't something you've been doing until now, but I can dream.

I'm not going to comment on anything else because after Halcyon and Nero it'll just be redundant, so...

Quote from: Animeman73
That's just the way i see things you don't like well...the U.s. contarary to what a lot of folks think is STILL a free-thinking country.

I don't think anyone here is saying you're not allowed to hold your own opinions. That's why I love my country, we're all allowed and encouraged to have different beliefs. All we're saying is that we don't think you're researching things as well as you should be, and that honestly the person you'd be doing a favor for in that regard is yourself. At the end of the day it doesn't affect me if you think Muslims are as likely to strap suicide bombs to their chests as they are to shake your hand, it's just making you a less educated person, and lowering the opinions of those around you (unless they are similarly uneducated).
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 26, 2011, 06:27:39 pm
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.

Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on November 26, 2011, 10:56:54 pm
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.

Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.

Yes, you are right Chibachi.

I've had long talks with my uncle on Middle-Eastern politics--he spends a lot of time reading about this stuff. There is definitely an Islamist movement going on right now in the sense that you are talking about, but one thing people do not realize is that most of this is not rooted in religion. Though Islam has certainly played a growing role, it started because of threats to national sovereignty, their rights, and general foreign policy from countries like the United States. For example, the Arab-Israeli conflict is often thought to be about religion, but it is not. It is about LAND, resources, and ancestry. If you watch Fox, you'll never be able to glean any of this type of information, so I second what Jaqua said about that, Animeman.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on November 27, 2011, 01:37:23 am
^ Just a comment on your first point, jaqua, Islamist and Muslim are two very different terms. An Islamist is someone who believes that Islam is both a religion and a political system. Generally, (although the term is somewhat contentious) Islamists emphasize the enforcement of sharia and the elimination of non-Islamic influences (and sometimes people). It's often equated with militants and activists for Islam.

Although I would whole-heartedly agree that Fox News is anti-Islam, extremely biased, and a terrible source for information, I don't think Muslims in general were who Animeman meant here, and (assuming he's aware of the difference in the two terms) he has a somewhat valid point in this particular area.

My bad! For some reason Islamist = Islam in my brain up there, so I came to totally the wrong conclusion. Oops. Thank you both so much for correcting me!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 27, 2011, 01:52:39 am
^ No problem! It's a fairly common mistake, since Islamist is a less-common term (radical or militant are perhaps the most common) and it's so similar to Islam. I know I've mixed the two up before.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on November 27, 2011, 02:30:53 am
^ I'd be interested in seeing when the modern use of the term originated, and with whom. "Islamism" used to be used as a vaguely-insulting term for Islam, right up there with "Mohammamedanism". It's no wonder that it's often mixed up with "Islam".

(To me the ease with which it causes confusion makes the term dubious at best. It would be just as fair to call the Norway mass-murderer a "Christianist".)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on November 27, 2011, 02:44:27 am
According to Wikipedia, it was originally coined by the French in the eighteenth century as a general way of referring to Islam. It gained its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s with French academia, and was adopted into English around then. It is, as I mentioned, a somewhat contentious term, since its purpose is to separate Islam as a faith from Islam as a political system, and many people whom we might consider Islamists object to the separation of these ideas, and say that they are just Muslims.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on November 27, 2011, 03:28:40 pm
We've been talking a lot of about valid news sources and media spin, and I was reminded of this article (http://www.truth-out.org/why-iceland-should-be-news-not/1322327303/) on the Icelandic bankruptcy. It states that the reason that Iceland is no longer in the news is because it rejected an EU-imposed economic hegemony.

Quote
The belief that citizens had to pay for the mistakes of a financial monopoly, that an entire nation must be taxed to pay off private debts was shattered, transforming the relationship between citizens and their political institutions and eventually driving Iceland’s leaders to the side of their constituents. The Head of State, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson, refused to ratify the law that would have made Iceland’s citizens responsible for its bankers’ debts, and accepted calls for a referendum.

I feel like Iceland's overwhelmingly pro-people response to the banks' financial abuses is the ideal response to Occupy.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on December 01, 2011, 08:06:46 pm
Hello folks I'm back.. I had some problems with my monitor but I got them fixed.

First let me clairify something. The whole accusation of me being racist is absurd. First off Islamsists are indeed what I meant. I do happen to feel that this Islamist mentality is a perversion of Islam, just as the Spanish Inquisition was a perversion of Christianity. For anyone to call me a racist is absurd because you see I am a member of the fiorgotten Miniority...the handicapped and we get (Cough, cough, ahem.) rubbish from all groups. I have been bullied by the Black, the White, the Hispabnic, the Asian...ALL groups.  Does anyone realize that they used to lock people like me up in insane asylums...just because of a genetic defect? Thank God those days are gone. And because of this I've developed some authority figure issues with bullying types.

Fox news is NOT Islamophobic that's more propaganda put out there by people who are haters of Fox news. I grant you this FOX news commentators aren't exactgy the most accurate. Of course not they're giving an opinion. And I happen to especially disagree with FOX news' anti-union stance being that I'm a proud UFCW member. But nonetheless the whole talk of Isreal being part of some massive global war conspiracy is just another conspiracy theory.The questions I pose are these WHO are thse co-called members of the war-mongers conspuiracy, WHAT[/i do they have against the U.S.?, and WHY would they seek to destroy the economy of this country especially considering the fact it would cause them to collapse as well.

Oh and just so you know I've been doing a little studying of the constitution thanks to a little old website that haas the entire constitution in big print that I can read. And well I'm more convinced than ever that what I believe is is correct. You may not see it that way and that's fine, this is a free country. But I've found another reason to believe Ron Paul would never win. Recently a fellow by the name of Dick Morris put out a book for kids on politics featuring a dog. Well Dick Morris called Ron Paul a nut in his book and Ron Paul told his supporters to boycott the book hoping to try and hit Dick Morris in the pocket book. Ironically the exact opposite has happened. Now if Ron Paul would do that on the compaign trail can you imagine what he would do if anyone questioned him while he was in the White House. Chances are he'd use the constitution to have them eiither hanged for "The good of the nation" and he'd twist, filter, and pervert the constittution to do so.

Okay on another issue. Herman Cain's past as really come back to bite him in his patooty. It looks as though he's going to be the first to get "Kicked off the island", in short I think he's pretty much done. And based on what I've seen the race for the Republican nomination ot will probably come down to Newt Gingrich and Mitt Romney. Now I don't agree with everything these two say but I have to admit these guys have some good ideas about how to get this country going again. And frankly I think somebody needs to go supernanny on the Democrats in the Senate and Barack Obama.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on December 01, 2011, 08:46:18 pm
Okay, first - just because you're part of an oppressed minority does NOT mean you can't be racist, and it does not give you an excuse for racism. Minorities are fully capable of having their own prejudices and oppressing other minorities. The fact that you belong to a minority that's been heavily stigmatized and treated awfully sucks, but it's certainly no excuse for dumping on others. That's a ridiculous thing to say, and I sincerely hope you don't believe that.

Secondly, who exactly called you racist? I'm looking at the thread and I can find people who thought you were Islamophobic, but that was due to a misunderstanding of terms and anyway, Islam is not a race, it's a religioin practiced by people of many races.

Thirdly, please at least make an effort to check over your posts, it makes them very hard to read when they're full of typos and faulty coding.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on December 02, 2011, 02:04:55 am
First, Animeman, I'm sorry you suffer from vision problems (if what I'm inferring from your post is correct), and I'm sorry I misspoke and by proxy accused you of harboring feelings you do not. However, I'm going to agree with Nero that just because you are a minority doesn't mean you can't have anti-other minority sentiments (not using a specific "you", just a general one), and I want to remind you that you are not the only minority in this debate. I am part of a minority, and I know Malaria is as well, and I'm sure we're not the only two. Many minorities besides the handicapped have suffered horrors at the hands of majorities and minorities alike over the course of history. You're also not the only person who has been bullied. Hateful words and feelings can (and have) come from every race, nationality, gender, orientation, religion, or ability level. Saying someone is exempt from anti-minority sentiment because they are also a minority is naive.

Here's an example of Islamophobia from Fox News. (http://www.newshounds.us/2011/10/13/brian_kilmeades_and_fox_news_islamophobia.php) There are more out there. I don't feel like looking. And if they're all giving their opinion, shouldn't they at least be concerned with the accuracy of their facts, since millions of Americans go to Fox News as a news source? Many, many people take everything Fox says as gospel, so if they're assuming everyone's misinformed, biased opinion is fact, then this is a problem. And didn't you say earlier that Fox wasn't a biased news source? It's very difficult to have a news channel based primarily on opinions without bias being rampant. That is a fact of human nature.

Quote from: Animeman73
Recently a fellow by the name of Dick morris put out a nook for kids on poltics featuring a dog. Well Dick Morris called Ron Paula  nut in his book and Ron Paul told his supports to boycott the book hoping to try and hit Dick Morris in the pocket book. [...] Now if Ron Paul would do that on the compaign trail can you imagine what he would do if anyone questioned him while he was in the White HOuse. Chances are he'd use the constitution to have them eiither hanged for "The good of the nation" and he'd twist, filter, and pervert the constittution to do so.

Wait... What? Someone put out a book that had an negative opinion about Ron Paul, so Ron Paul asked his supporters to boycott it... And this means he's a murderous psycho who would kill people for disagreeing with him, had he the authority? I don't follow this thought-process. If I were famous enough to have someone give a negative opinion of me in a book and I had supporters, I'd probably want people to boycott it too. Doesn't mean that if I were president I'd have people hanged for disagreeing with me. What makes you think that would be his reaction? It's pretty clear from what he's said that he's all about the Constitution, and I don't see any indication that he would willingly misinterpret or "pervert" it to achieve his own ends.

I agree with you about Herman Cain, because he's pretty much a scumbag. I also agree that it will probably come down to Romney and Gingrich. I most likely will not be voting Republican in the 2012 presidential race, because if those two are on the ballot, neither will be getting my vote. Ever since Newt Gingrich said he fears a secular nation would be run by radical Islamists (http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/28/gingrich-fears-atheist-country-dominated-by-radical-islamists/) I haven't been able to take him seriously as an informed and intelligent person, since that sentence is so absurdly oxymoronic. Also, his statement (that I have paraphrased) that if you're not Christian you don't know what it means to be an American is deeply upsetting and offensive to me, as someone who loves America but is not, has never been, and never will be a Christian. Mitt Romney's God-charged speech (http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=23830) is off-putting due to his implication that he's all about religious freedom, assuming you are religious and pray to a god. This article expresses my sentiments about his speech on a political level, (http://reason.com/archives/2007/12/12/and-everybody-hates-the-atheis) and this article on a personal one. (http://www.democratdad.com/my_weblog/2007/12/an-atheist-repo.html) As far as I'm aware Romney hasn't actually said he's discriminatory against atheists the way Gingrich has, so he's so far the lesser of two evils, but anyone who ignores history to justify his labeling of an originally secular country as Christian only to turn around and tell me I'm the one who has their history wrong is not someone I'll ever vote for if I can at all help it. I have lots of other feelings about the political beliefs of Gingrich and Romney, but I won't get into them since I'm already too wordy.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on December 09, 2011, 12:32:23 am
I found this interesting article (http://floridaindependent.com/47862/new-fetal-pain-debunking-study-released) that may give a new perspective to the whole abortion debate.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on December 09, 2011, 11:19:39 pm
My philosophy on abortion is this. The decision is hard enough on a woman as is. Why have Government interfere...it should remain an issue between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. No if's, no ands, no buts about it.

And I can assure everyone out there the chances of Roe Vs. Wade ever being overturned are somewhere between nil to nonexistant. Because you see it's not just Democrats who support the Court upheld law, 50% of Republican women...yeah you heard me, Republican women believe in Abortion should be kept a matter of personal choice.

As I've stated the Abortion issue...it's the beeswax of the woman, her Doctor, and her God.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on December 10, 2011, 04:10:15 am
And I can asure everyone out there the chances of Roe Vs. Wade ever being overturned are somewhere between nil to nonexistant. Because you see it's not just Democrats who support the Court upheld law, 50% of Reopublican women...yeah you heard me, Republican women believe in Abortion should be kept a matter of personal choice.

AS I've stated Abortion issue...it's the beeswax of the woman, her Doctor, and her God.

I hope you're right, Animeman73... but popular opinion won't matter in whether Roe v Wade is overturned. All that matters is "Who's sitting on the Supreme Court". If a pro-life Republican gets elected next term and gets to replace one of the pro-choice judges, we're probably looking at major restrictions if not an outright overturn.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: jaqua on December 10, 2011, 05:15:47 am
My philosophy on abortion is this. The decision is hard enough ona  woman as is. Why have Government interfere...it should remain an issue between a woman, her Doctor, and her God. No if's, no ands, no buts about it.

And I can asure everyone out there the chances of Roe Vs. Wade ever being overturned are somewhere between nil to nonexistant. Because you see it's not just Democrats who support the Court upheld law, 50% of Reopublican women...yeah you heard me, Republican women believe in Abortion should be kept a matter of personal choice.

AS I've stated Abortion issue...it's the beeswax of the woman, her Doctor, and her God.

Couldn't have put it better myself.

If Roe v Wade is overturned I'm probably going to have to move out of the US. It will be the first step of what will likely be many in creating a country I no longer want to be affiliated with.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 11, 2012, 02:32:56 am
OK guys, it's been quite a while since I've posted. I've been on a MASSIVE media hunt. I was absolutely addicted to the information I found and I. Am. TERRIFIED of what is happening in this country right now.

Is ANYONE aware that Obama signed the National Defense Authorization Act? (http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2012/01/02/president-obama-signed-the-national-defense-authorization-act-now-what/)

Is ANYONE aware of what this does to us?!

I just got back today from a town hall meeting with Senator Merkley, and God bless that man, because he voted against it. I know that some people earlier on in this thread supported SOPA and PIPA but the Senator himself was talking about how the bill is dangerous to our free speech, and thank goodness he is actively in an effort to stop this.

Furthermore, the federal government has massively increased its TSA funding, and over 9,000 TSA checkpoints were issued on the streets in 2011. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-terror-checkpoints-20111220,0,3213641.story)

Does anyone else feel like America is turning into a police state?! I watched The Rise of FEMA on Youtube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Klqv9t1zVww) the other day, and I was absolutely speechless about the military attacking peaceful protesters with sound weapons.

YES. THE U.S. MILITARY ATTACKING ITS OWN PEOPLE AND DECLARING THEIR PROTESTING TO BE UNLAWFUL.

You don't have to watch the whole thing; the stuff I'm talking about starts at 57:00. It is very disturbing to me. If you choose to watch it, it is imperative that you watch until 1:14:00, at the very least.

We need to start talking about this!!!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on January 11, 2012, 05:50:25 am
I really enjoyed this piece by Glenn Greenwald (he rules) called Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/).

I'm pretty dang left-wing last time I checked (voted Nader in both '04 and '08 presidential elections), and there are things I would dislike about a Ron Paul presidency.. but the guy at least strikes me as being 1) consistent 2) honest 3) willing to talk about things that no one else is talking about.

NDAA is scary.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 11, 2012, 07:51:59 am
Sorry to put a damper on the ideological trip but it's time for a moderate's reality check.

Sorry but the U.S. NOT attacking it's own people and that whiole the rise of FEMA and police state nonsense was cooked up by ideological groups who don't undestand the reality to the kind of world we live in. I've heard how that whole Ben Franklin statem,ent about trading freedom for protection has been misuseed. Let me ask this does anyonme out there REALLY understand what a police state is?

Folks I know what a police state is. And consider this. If we were living in a police state don't you think the thought police would've come for you a long time ago? But they haven't, because there is none. We still have our freedom of speech. A police state is a government in which the Government actively opresses other people's thoughta and beliefs. And the U.S. has most certainly NOT become that. Anyone, in my opinion anway, who thinks otherwise is selling something.

And as for these so-called video I could take them tio any unbiased fact-checker out there and we could probably break down all the lies these videos are telling. The left is throwing a temper tantrum because they're losing control. The right is throwing a temper tantrum because the want control back. Which is why I believe uit's time for us Moderates Democrat and Republican to stand up together...take botht the left and the right by the an ear, give them both a good Jethro Gibbs head slap, and set them in the corner to think about all the damage they've caused to the country while we moderates fix things. The real truth is neither left nor right but down the middle moderate. And I for one call on the members of the silent majority to stand up and help end the petty political shinnanigans of both ideological extremes and help get this country back to the greatness for which we once stood. Because where the U.S.A. is concerned...our best days are NOT behind us! Because we don't die...just multiply!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on January 11, 2012, 08:22:32 am
Let me ask this does anyonme out there REALLY understand what a [police state is?

Folks I know what a police state is. And consider this. If we were living in a police state don't you think the thought police would've come for you a long time ago? But they haven't, because there is none. We still have our freedom of speech.

I'm wondering: How do you reconcile your statement with the fact that arresting peaceful protestors has become commonplace?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Drauska on January 11, 2012, 11:32:12 am
No one can be trusted.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on January 11, 2012, 11:47:57 am
Sorry to put a damper on the ideological trip but it's time for a moderate's reality check.
Why is everything you disagree with ideology?

Quote
Sorry but the U.S. NOT attacking it's own people
Definitely no problems with police brutality. Not against peaceful protesters, and not in impoverished neighborhoods or neighborhoods dominated by people of color.

Quote
and that whiole the rise of FEMA and police state nonsense was cooked up by ideological groups who don't undestand the reality to the kind of world we live in.
I don't have an opinion on whether or not the martial law in the FEMA camps was a symptom of a rising police state, but I find the bolded portion of your statement very boring. Security threats, real or imaginary, have historically been used by military and executive powers to accumulate power. It's sort of a given in modern historiography that war and security propaganda are used to squash dissent and reform. I, personally, am grateful to any political organization that is vigilant in regards to executive overreach. The only check on misuse of government power in a republic is an engaged citizenry. Exploring the possibility of abuse of power is the definition of civic virtue, whether you like what conclusions they're coming to or not.

Quote
I've heard how that whole Ben Franklin statem,ent about trading freedom for protection has been misused.
Everyone always argues that the Ben Franklin quote is being misused when the other side is using it. It's over-quoted to the point of irrelevance, and extremely easy to rationalize its application to almost any situation ever.

Quote
Let me ask this does anyonme out there REALLY understand what a police state is?
I feel like I have a fair idea. My definition of the police state would include constant surveillance without the requirement of a warrant and the ability to arrest and hold people without charges or due process or trial. Unfortunately, wiretapping and digital activity monitoring have been fairly commonplace for the last decade.

I still wouldn't consider the US a police state, because it lacks your usual climate of fear and suspicion of everyone around you. We could easily go that way, though. Plenty of democratic or republican states have turned authoritarian when the going got rough enough. Naomi Wolf actually wrote a fascinating analysis of the rise of fascist governments through history called The End of America. You probably hate Naomi Wolf, but I think it would be willfully ignorant to say that her argument is unsound.

Quote
Folks I know what a police state is.
Could you provide your definition? I've given you mine.

Quote
And consider this. If we were living in a police state don't you think the thought police would've come for you a long time ago? But they haven't, because there is none.
The police state doesn't include literally arresting everyone. None of us are community organizers or local party leaders. People who kvetch quietly among themselves without taking action aren't a danger to the police state. Even at the height of Soviet terror, people still gossiped in their kitchens. It isn't until you try to do something (like protest corporate control of the political process in the US) that you get pepper sprayed in the face and piled onto by multiple police officers.

Quote
We still have our freedom of speech.
What's freedom of speech without freedom of assembly to request redress of grievances?

Quote
A police state is a government in which the Government actively oppreses other people's thoughta and beliefs. And the U.S. has most certainly NOT become that. Anyone, in my opinion anway, who thinks otherwise is selling something.
Then clearly, I am selling you an alternate definition. Lucky for me, my definition is grounded in tangible government structures and not an extremely vague term like "oppression."

Orrr no one is selling anything, and are instead exercising their civic virtue and completing their civic duty by remaining vigilant in the face of government action.

But if we ignore that I find your definition problematic due to ambiguity, we could also consider the fact that it's too broad. You can be a theocracy, which requires people to hold a certain set of religious and cultural beliefs, without being a police state.

Quote
And as for these so-called video I could take them tio any unbiased fact-checker out there and we could probably break down all the lies these videos are telling.
Your certainty ahead of time that these videos are lying doesn't say much for your objectivity as a consumer of information.

Quote
The left is throwing a temper tantrum because they're losing control. The right is throwing a temper tantrum because the want control back.
This seems like a very reductive way to look at the political climate. Despite having a Democrat for a president, the Republican party, and conservative politics in general, have been key to the American political scene for the entire last decade. The Blue Dogs, your beloved moderates, have done just as much partisan damage as any of the pro-gun or pro-human rights legislators could've dreamed. Stupak-Pitts was a Democratic amendment to the healthcare bill, after all.

Quote
Which is why I believe uit's time for us Moderates Democrat and Republican to stand up together...take botht the left and the right by the an ear, give them both a good Jethro Gibbs head slap, and set them in the corner to think about all the damage they've caused to the country while we moderates fix things.
You seem really convinced that you've got an army of moderate legislators waiting to come out of the wings and do what you think is best, but if that's true, where are they in politics? The increasing polarization of our legal representatives is partly party machinations, true, but the parties wouldn't be able to operate this way if not for a dearth of other, more cooperative leadership.

Quote
The real truth is neither left nor right but down the middle moderate.
I'm willing to consider any cogent opinion, and so far you haven't presented me anything even remotely convincing. Just a series of slogans, mostly.

Quote
And I for one call on the members of the silent majority to stand up and help end the petty political shinnanigans of both ideological extremes and help get this country back to the greatness for which we once stood.
So you... want to re-elect Ronald Reagan?
I don't see that this country was ever greater than it is now. I think that's the varnish of nostalgia speaking. In the past, we had different horrifying problems, and now we have new ones. For example, no one's getting beat into paralysis on the Senate floor anymore, and the bathrooms are unsegregated. Instead, we have hilariously partisan politicking and the steady roll back of reproductive rights.

Obviously that's an extremely simple comparison, but the point I'm trying to make is that there were never any halcyon days. Speaking as a woman-assigned atheist Jew, I would rather be living in the US now than any US that has come before.

Quote
Because where the U.S.A. is concerned...our best days are NOT behind us! Because we don't die...just multiply!
Naw, we're definitely on the declining track of the Roman Empire. History's a spiral, after all, and patterns have a tendency to repeat themselves.

I mean, you're right, population-wise we're probably going to keep growing, but that doesn't mean we won't experience any dissipation in our national structure. Maybe we'll be forced to reorganize along our watersheds or agricultural needs, something cool like that.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 11, 2012, 02:37:34 pm
Peaceful, actually the soo-called peaceful protestors that have been arrested have been actively antagonizing the police. Now granted most protestors  out there want to follow the laws of the land and indeed the protest peacefully and don't insult the police.

But if the police were arresting every protestor out there then the jail cells would be more overflowing then they already are. Granted some police officer do have an attitude but those officers are few and far in between. Most officers out there are just trying to do their job. And we need to give the police the right to do their job.

The sad truth is the few protestors who are being arrested are the ones who are deliberately antagonizng the polcie. and these types either come in spoiling for a fight and/pr they're part of an anarchist group that decided to crash the party.

If hundreds of people protexsting were being arrested then the streets of this city would be practically empty. Sorry but that's more ideological pro-paganda. And another thing it's not a good idea to assume things about people in fact my family and I had some problems with some of the stuff Reagan pulled. Above all else he was anti-union, and I'm pro-union.  Also i was a kid when Reagan was in office. The truth is there will never be another Ronald Reagan. the only thing i want is a president who can get things done and get us back to a measure of prosperity.

And this comparison of American tio the Roman Empire is complete is utter nonesense. The very idea of comparing us to that is in and of itself an insut to this country. The ones who scream how we'rre a dictatorship or a police state are the ones with their own agenda. And usually that agenda doens't benefit the American populace. As for my definition of a police state I've explained it. The words are written but have fallen onn deaf ears. And you'd be surprise by how many moderates are out there.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 11, 2012, 06:40:35 pm
Shaking my head.

I've asked this before, and I don't mean to insult you, but Animeman...are you trolling? Sometimes I honestly wonder.

Also, did you even take a look at the video at all? You don't have to pay attention to Alex Jones and what he says about world government and the devaluation of the dollar, among other things, but the footage is what is important. Documented evidence that the U.S. military, along with the police--in clear violation of posse comitatus--are attacking its own people. We saw this with UC Davis, but this Rise of FEMA footage was taken almost three years ago. You can argue about the theatrics of the video, but the scene I was talking about (57:00 - 1:14:00) looked pretty clear-cut to me. I posted it on this forum because I wanted to know what other people thought about it, and whether it concerns any of you as much as it concerns me. Now, I know that there have been many incidents like this that have happened over the years, but my awareness has increased over the past couple of months, and I just really feel compelled to bring it up.

I also found this today:  In this article, the Department of Homeland Security admits to monitoring Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, etc...and interestingly, The Drudge Report. (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/01/11/us-usa-homelandsecurity-websites-idUSTRE80A1RC20120111)

Needless to say, new information keeps popping up. Please speak up if any of these sources seem questionable to you.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 11, 2012, 08:01:51 pm
I really enjoyed this piece by Glenn Greenwald (he rules) called Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/).

I'm pretty dang left-wing last time I checked (voted Nader in both '04 and '08 presidential elections), and there are things I would dislike about a Ron Paul presidency.. but the guy at least strikes me as being 1) consistent 2) honest 3) willing to talk about things that no one else is talking about.

NDAA is scary.
Code: [Select]

Excellent, excellent article. Thanks. I liked how he compiled all the video clips at the end.

Another really great one is called "What Makes a Progressive President?" (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/) It's really funny because the article comments about how in every single one of these types of progressive pieces on Ron Paul, there's always a disclaimer at the beginning: I'm not endorsing him! So don't come after me.

I also voted for Nader in '08! I voted for Paul in the Republican primary, and when he dropped out I voted for Nader. Weird, I know, but they have similar opinions about various issues. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE7MHgZ7kPo) Plus, I really love Nader's consumer advocacy.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 11, 2012, 08:04:20 pm
I'll be frank. No I'm not trolling. I do admit that lately my comments have been rather abrasive and I sincerely apologuize for that. But my opinions still remain what they are.

And the whole devaluation of the dollar thing is a myth another conspiracy theory. Basically, and this is my opinion everything that's been said doesn't make any sense at all. All this stuff about hidden world governments is a lie. This is why nothing personal but I don't understand Ron Paul or his followers at all. Nothing makes any sense to me. I'm not saying that you're insane, as a matter of fact if we met in person i imagine you'd be very sane and reasonable. Also that would be name-calling and that's wrong. What I do say is that the concepts discussed are wrong, inaccurate, and just ridiculously paranoid.

I grant you this I've been a bit rash in my language perhaops, but saying things like calling me a racist because Ihave differing political views that's wrong (The action is wrong that is.), and when people say things such as Americans are weak, lazy, stupid, and need a Big briother kind of guiding hand is good, while saying the being patriotic by saying things such as "U.S.A. rocks" and "U.S.A.we don't die, just multiply" is comparable to the Rman Empire and ad that's wrong. This thread is about expressing diffferent political points of views and you're going have to face the facts that not evryone is going to agree with you or think the way you do. that's the beauty of this country. You can say what you want to say, but that doesn't mean that i can' speak my mmind also. I'll do my best to mellow out the tone of words but I will say this I am a moderate Democrat, I voted for William Jefferson Clinton in my first election back in 1992. And I will ALWAYS be a Democrat and proud of it.

But I'll also say this I've met my fair share of Ron Paul supporters and well...they can get pretty mean and nasty when anyone even remotely questions their point of view. And the whole idea of a revolution or bringing down the forces of the "Shadow giovernment" have you ever asked yourself how that really makes people feel. I'm probably one of the older dudes on this site, but I say you might want to take a trip into the rural areas of the state or into the other sstates of the country and just ask people about their perspective on things, you might be surprised. have I made myself clear?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on January 11, 2012, 08:56:37 pm
Basically and this is my opinion everrything that's been said doesn't mmake any sense at all.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but as you said, they don't have the right to force or expect others to agree with them without evidence for that opinion. Heck, they don't even have the right to force or expect others to listen when they present evidence - but pointedly or repeatedly ignoring evidence could be seen as forfeiting any expectation of being taken seriously.

(Then again, that itself is only my opinion. ;))
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 11, 2012, 09:35:35 pm
Basically and this is my opinion everrything that's been said doesn't mmake any sense at all.

Everyone has the right to their own opinion, but as you said, they don't have the right to force or expect others to agree with them without evidence for that opinion. Heck, they don't even have the right to force or expect others to listen when they present evidence - but pointedly or repeatedly ignoring evidence could be seen as forfeiting any expectation of being taken seriously.

(Then again, that itself is only my opinion. ;))

Okay granted I'll take a closer look at the evidence but still articles saying things like the Government is spying on us via Facebook, in my opinions, is absurd and serves no gain for anyone.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on January 11, 2012, 10:46:37 pm
I tend to respond to your posts by quoting the portions I'm responding to. I would really appreciate it if you did the same, since it would make your responses easier to follow.

I'll be frank. No I'm not trolling. I do admit that lately my comments have been rather abrasive and I sincerely apologuize for that. But my opinions still remain what they are.
And we would all take your opinions much more seriously if you provided evidence.

Admittedly, I've been pretty lazy about sourcing my comments, but that's because I'm just... am lazy. And I keep assuming a fair amount information is common knowledge when it clearly isn't for you.

Quote
And the whole devaluation of the dollar thing is a myth another conspiracy theory. Basically, and this is my opinion everything that's been said doesn't make any sense at all. All this stuff about hidden world governments is a lie.
I'm pretty sure this isn't a response to anything I said, but I really wish you could provide some evidence. Anything, really. Even a White House Press Secretary saying something like "the dollar is still strong."

Quote
This is why nothing personal but I don't understand Ron Paul or his followers at all. Nothing makes any sense to me. I'm not saying that you're insane, as a matter of fact if we met in person i imagine you'd be very sane and reasonable. Also that would be name-calling and that's wrong. What I do say is that the concepts discussed are wrong, inaccurate, and just ridiculously paranoid.
I'm just gonna skip this, because I am apathetic to Ron Paul and will continue to be unless he becomes the Republican nominee for president.

Quote
I grant you this I've been a bit rash in my language perhaops, but saying things like calling me a racist because Ihave differing political views that's wrong (The action is wrong that is.),
We all assumed you were racist because the term Islamist is usually employed by racists in order to further dehumanize all Muslims and Arabs. Funnily enough, that's not a mutually inclusive group of people.

Sound like a racist, get called a racist. We might've jumped the gun, but I'm pretty sure you can see how we got there.

Quote
and when people say things such as Americans are weak, lazy, stupid, and need a Big briother kind of guiding hand is good,
When did any of us express or explicitly support that sentiment?

Quote
while saying the being patriotic by saying things such as "U.S.A. rocks" and "U.S.A.we don't die, just multiply" is comparable to the Rman Empire and ad that's wrong.
Patriotism is acknowledging the faults of your nation, working to improve upon them and loving the nation regardless. I don't acknowledge those statements as patriotic. They're nationalistic.

I said "modern Roman Empire" and you automatically assumed I was saying that that's inherently bad. That's your bias talking. I was just making a historical comparison, which is made widely and often. Even the Heritage Foundation (http://www.heritage.org/research/lecture/the-lessons-of-the-roman-empire-for-america-today), that bastion of conservative thought, sees the similarities.

Quote
This thread is about expressing diffferent political points of views and you're going have to face the facts that not evryone is going to agree with you or think the way you do.
I don't think anyone is upset that your political views are different. We just wish you would provide some evidence, any evidence at all, to backup your opinions. Instead, you just call everything we source biased or lies.

Quote
that's the beauty of this country. You can say what you want to say, but that doesn't mean that i can' speak my mmind also. I'll do my best to mellow out the tone of words but I will say this I am a moderate Democrat, I voted for William Jefferson Clinton in my first election back in 1992. And I will ALWAYS be a Democrat and proud of it.
Are you a Democrat if you don't believe in any of the positions of the party?

Quote
But I'll also say this I've met my fair share of Ron Paul supporters and well...they can get pretty mean and nasty when anyone even remotely questions their point of view.
Every candidate has supporters like that. There are people who stand with you 100% who can be huuuge bigoted jerks. That doesn't delegitimize your point of view.

Quote
And the whole idea of a revolution or bringing down the forces of the "Shadow giovernment" have you ever asked yourself how that really makes people feel.
I doubt that most Ron Paul supporters would present their policy aspirations quite that way on first brush with someone new. But assuming they did, could you provide some suggestions about what you think people's reactions are? I don't really understand what you're leading to here.

Quote
I'm probably one of the older dudes on this site, but I say you might want to take a trip into the rural areas of the state or into the other sstates of the country and just ask people about their perspective on things, you might be surprised. have I made myself clear?
No, I'm still confused as to what you're driving at.

edit: What if I never proof any of my posts before posting. Ever ever.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 12, 2012, 12:01:02 am
Malaria, a lot of Animeman's previous post was directed towards me. I am a Ron Paul supporter, which is why he talked about Ron Paul and some of the other things about which you were confused.

Since multiple people have already said it, I am tempted not to sound like a broken record, but I feel the need to repeat.

Animeman, you need to start examining the facts we are giving you. We are going through the time-consuming process of replying to each and every one of your sentences, as well as taking precious time out of our day to Google evidence and present it in a clear format so that we do not make brazen claims.

That said, I am glad that you finally admit to not clicking the links. Everything we have posted, you have refused to look at. And I personally take offense when people write things off by calling them "conspiracy theories" and then move on without checking the facts. The dollar is being devalued. Trillions and trillions of federal reserve easy money has infiltrated the monetary system both here and abroad, and on August 5th, 2011, for the first time in 70 years, the United States Treasury bills' rating was downgraded by  S & P  (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424053111903366504576490841235575386.html). This is very big news, and there does not need to be a conspiracy to recognize that the dollar is in very bad shape right now. We should not subject ourselves to foolish normalcy bias because we are unable to envision a world where the U.S. dollar no longer reigns supreme as the world's reserve currency. It  might take time, and it may never happen, but to dismiss basic economic principles about easy money policy by labeling it as a conspiracy does not equate to a good argument.

Furthermore, DID you click on "The Rise of FEMA" link? I'm assuming you did not. I asked you to simply watch 57:00 to 1:14:00. Just watch it! It's live footage of American soldiers attacking its own people. Why is it so hard to open your mind up? The only reason why I mentioned Alex Jones is because I know most people's opinion of him and conspiracy theories in general, and I wanted to warn you ahead of time so that you don't completely dismiss the footage, as you have clearly done. I just want to let you know that you don't have to agree with his opinions; I certainly don't agree with all of them. All you have to do is just look at the footage of the military kettling against the American people and attacking them with sound weapons (LRADS). It's very simple.

Anyway, thanks for recognizing that you have neglected to look at the evidence. At least we're getting somewhere now. And I applaud you when you stick to your guns in this thread. Though I must admit, I do tend to get frustrated with your posts, for the reasons stated by Malaria.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 12, 2012, 08:16:47 am
Everyone here says i should offer proof of who Ron Paul really is. Check out these articles:

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution__cuddly_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics?page=entire

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread792310/pg1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-hutchinson/ron-paul-civil-liberty_b_1174422.html

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

This took a great deal of time and research but I think it helps prove my point. And another thing i won't use the term islamist anymore, instead I'll use the term gangsters who have hidden behind the Muslim faith because that's exactly wheat theso-called Mullahs of Ira are.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 12, 2012, 08:48:34 pm
Everyone here says i should offer proof of who Ron Paul really is. Check out these articles:

http://www.alternet.org/teaparty/152192/5_reasons_progressives_should_treat_ron_paul_with_extreme_caution__cuddly_libertarian_has_some_very_dark_politics?page=entire

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread792310/pg1

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/darren-hutchinson/ron-paul-civil-liberty_b_1174422.html

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/04/10-reasons-not-to-vote-for-paul/

This took a great deal of time and research but I think it helps prove my point. And another thing i won't use the term islamist anymore, instead I'll use the term gangsters who have hidden behind the Muslim faith because that's exactly wheat theso-called Mullahs of Ira are.

Animeman, I don't remember doing it, and I don't recall seeing any other specific Ron Paul supporters in this forum, but when has anyone asked you to provide proof of who he is? Thanks for taking the time to post links. The first one in particular used so much straw-manning and ad hominem tactics, it took some effort to glean a cogent argument out of what the article was actually trying to say. The second piece was a forum thread. Since there were some pro-Ron Paul posts on that thread, I'm uncertain about what you wanted me to figure out from there. The third one sort of left me scratching my head, because from what I understand about the legislation, it basically reinforces the 10th Amendment, which reflects Ron Paul's strict constitutionalism. Thus, I'm not certain that their arguments were very effective. Interestingly, I was already aware of the fourth one. Adam Kokesh has done a piece addressing it. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zhuI_kppIE0) I, as well as reppy have provided some thoughtful pieces on Ron Paul as well. I would suggest you take a look at those since I have taken the time to read the links you have posted.

I already know you're not a Ron Paul supporter. I'm not trying to get you to vote for him, so I don't know why you posted those links. You've already said that you were impressed with Mitt Romney's business experience and that you'd be voting for him because of that. OK.

Did you watch the FEMA video?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 12, 2012, 11:41:49 pm
I did see the Youtbe video, interesting video. Can't say I agree with it or the information laid out therin, but it was an interesting and differnet perspective.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 13, 2012, 02:21:35 am
Thanks.

I really wasn't expecting anyone to agree with what was said. I'm just trying to get people to see what is going on. To see how the military is treating its own people. To let people know what is going on in their country when they don't see it.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on January 13, 2012, 04:35:22 am
I really enjoyed this piece by Glenn Greenwald (he rules) called Progressives and the Ron Paul fallacies (http://www.salon.com/2011/12/31/progressives_and_the_ron_paul_fallacies/).

I'm pretty dang left-wing last time I checked (voted Nader in both '04 and '08 presidential elections), and there are things I would dislike about a Ron Paul presidency.. but the guy at least strikes me as being 1) consistent 2) honest 3) willing to talk about things that no one else is talking about.

NDAA is scary.
Code: [Select]

Excellent, excellent article. Thanks. I liked how he compiled all the video clips at the end.

Another really great one is called "What Makes a Progressive President?" (http://www.salon.com/2012/01/10/what_makes_a_progressive_president/) It's really funny because the article comments about how in every single one of these types of progressive pieces on Ron Paul, there's always a disclaimer at the beginning: I'm not endorsing him! So don't come after me.

I also voted for Nader in '08! I voted for Paul in the Republican primary, and when he dropped out I voted for Nader. Weird, I know, but they have similar opinions about various issues. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dE7MHgZ7kPo) Plus, I really love Nader's consumer advocacy.

That's a cool video. I saw the video at the time where Ron Paul (with Nader) endorsed 3rd parties in '08. And I saw some of their interviews at around that time. But never saw this. And I will read that article soon.

I used to read Salon.com, but stopped because it started to grate on me after awhile. . .
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 13, 2012, 08:10:16 am
@HalcyonFour I know we've had our misunderstandings in the past and i admit I've been rather ornery (Gads maybe I take more after my Grandfather, God rest his soul, then I thought.) and do apoligize if I've seen like a troller, i get very...passionate about my plitical beliefs so much so that i get as stubborn as a mule. But if and the others here are willing to ley bygiones be bygones what do you say let's set the grief of the past aside?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 13, 2012, 09:27:59 pm
@HalcyonFour I know we've had our misunderstandings in the past and i admit I've been rather ornery (Gads maybe I take more after my Grandfather, God rest his soul, then I thought.) and do apoligize if I've seen like a troller, i get very...passionate about my plitical beliefs so much so that i get as stubborn as a mule. But if and the others here are willing to ley bygiones be bygones what do you say let's set the grief of the past aside?

Of course. I understand passion in politics as well, and polite discourse is always welcome. I'm just concerned about the state of affairs of our nation.

But I still would like to continue to let people know about various issues, particularly regarding civil liberties. I'm just so concerned about stuff, it's hard for me not to talk about it. I'll also try not to be what they would call a "Paulista". If I post anything, I will try to keep it relatively neutral, but sometimes it's hard.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 13, 2012, 10:22:37 pm
@HalcyonFour I know we've had our misunderstandings in the past and i admit I've been rather ornery (Gads maybe I take more after my Grandfather, God rest his soul, then I thought.) and do apoligize if I've seen like a troller, i get very...passionate about my plitical beliefs so much so that i get as stubborn as a mule. But if and the others here are willing to ley bygiones be bygones what do you say let's set the grief of the past aside?

Of course. I understand passion in politics as well, and polite discourse is always welcome. I'm just concerned about the state of affairs of our nation.

But I still would like to continue to let people know about various issues, particularly regarding civil liberties. I'm just so concerned about stuff, it's hard for me not to talk about it. I'll also try not to be what they would call a "Paulista". If I post anything, I will try to keep it relatively neutral, but sometimes it's hard.

Thanks i appreciate that.

You know as I get older, and start to reflect on the things I've seen since first really started to notice the world. And well somethig has occured to me. Some of your remember the tragic events of Columbine back in 1999 when several teens carrying automatic weapons stormed the school killing a number of students and eventually...themselves. In the days that followed the questions that follwed were, "How did violence on T.V., in video games, and music cause this?"
However I'm beginning to think the questiobns at the time were driven by fear. And fear is something even more dangerous and more mind numbing then anything in the human psyche. And well as i reflect i start to think with the low quality of T.V., music, and a number ofvideo games these days I've realized that in our fear the wrong questions were asked. Instead of asking how the media or video games caused this we should've asked this, "Where were the parents of the teen shooters in all this? And why didn't they notice what was goin on and get their kids some psychiatric help?

Bullyiing is a terrible thing and should be combatted in our schools that's a given. But this is why parents need to take a more active role in their kids' lives, so that way if the kid is having problems, they'll feel comfortable enough to go to their parents with their problems. Also parents need to have the courage to get their kids the help they need even if the kids don't quite know it themselves. There are some kumoriocn forumm goers who would understand this because they have kids of ther own. This should ringa bell with the Kumoricon goers who are parents and those who aren't. Because when a child starts wearing black, listening to dark music, and talking about suicide or shooting someone isn't that when any parent would freak out and get their kid help?

More importantly than that the politicians and PC parents groups need to get out of trying to regulate T.V and movies. Because the reason there's so much mean and nasty Sur-reality T.V. out there is because T.V. is being regulated into the ground. Now granted there have to be some regulations in place to protect kids and adult viewers from those who would take advantage of them, of course we need that. But we need to take the reigns off of the T.V. and movie industry so the writers, actors, and directors can do their jobs while the exxecs run the business end of things. The FCC still has a place i T.V. however the over regulation needs to stop so T.V. can get good again. More importantly, in my own opinion. T.V. could also use an anime revolution. Now that's the type of revolution I'd happily partake in!

So that's it put a leash on regulation and let the T.V. (and even the movie industry) get back to doing what they do best.

This is just my opinion, and have a nice day. :)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 16, 2012, 07:49:34 pm
Sorry to double-post like this but nobody has been here in a while. So I thought I'd put this in. People often talk about racism without even knowing what it truly was. But the Civil; Rights movement of the 60's understood. they understood all too well. I recommend everyopne here get a Histopry book on the Civil Rights Movement and/or the 60's and read up on it. And since this is the birthday of the legendaasry civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin luther King Jr. (Who to me was and always will be a true American hero.) I have a link ere that everyone sahould look at. look and listen there's a great deal to be learned from this.

http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 17, 2012, 07:23:24 pm
Sorry to double-post like this but nobody has been here ina  while. SO I thought I'd put this in. People often talk about racism without even knowing what it truly was. But the Civil; Rights movement of the 60's understood. they understood all too well. I recommend everyopne here get a Histopry book on the Civil Rights Movement and/or the 60's and read up on it. And since this is the birthday of the legendaasry civil rights leader Rev. Dr. Martin luther King Jr. (Who to me was and always will be a true American hero.) I have a link ere that everyone sahould look at. look and listen there's a great deal to be learned from this.

http://www.mlkonline.net/dream.html



Thanks for the link, Animeman. How ridiculous that because of "copyright laws" it's not legally available.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 17, 2012, 08:33:55 pm
If yopu're reffering to the measures congress is trying to pass. Here's the way I see it. Copyright is one thing but these bills would give unpresidented abuse of power abilties to a few small corporations run by umm...individuals who are less than adequate in certain areas (Nuff saif d for family friendly purposes.) and would stifle entrepreneurialism even more.

This bill would essentially kill the internet including Youtube. It's just another attempt by a few large companies espcially movie companies to steal creativity from us because they don't have any. Well if media big brother thinks he's going to take control of my life, got a new flash for them. I got a nice Jethro Gibbs headslap and a raspberry with their name on it. Also would anyone from the moderators mind if P put the link to a petition that's being sighed against these measures, or would that be going too far? I want to know before I take any action.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on January 17, 2012, 08:38:54 pm
...Animeman, she was referring to the fact that, as they state in the link you provided above, the video footage of the speech is not available online because it's copyrighted. You have to buy it if you want to see it.

Which is in fact pretty ridiculous.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on January 17, 2012, 08:52:47 pm
Also would anyone from the moderators mind if P put the link to a petition that's being sighed against these measures, or would that be going too far? I want to know before I take any action.

No worries, as long as the link is PG-13.

...the video footage of the speech is not available online because it's copyrighted. You have to buy it if you want to see it.

Which is in fact pretty ridiculous.

This.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 18, 2012, 04:56:17 pm
Oh sorry Halcyon my bad.

And here's the link for the petition. Let's stop SOPA and it's sister because if we don't Big brother will take over the internet. And I don't want socialism taking away my internet rights in the name of "PROTECTING" copyright laws.

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now#
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on January 18, 2012, 05:14:55 pm
Oh sorry Halcyon my bad.

And here's the link for the petition. Let's stop SOPA and it's sister because if we don't Big brother will take over the internet. And I don't want socialism taking away my internet rights in the name of "PROTECTING" copyright laws.

http://www.change.org/petitions/stop-the-internet-control-bill-now#

Man, I am with you except that this is not socialism. At all. In any way.

The protection of private property above all else (in this case intellectual property or IP) is a thoroughly capitalist notion.
Legal action that puts an unfair legal and economic burden on private citizens doesn't correspond to any particular political theory. It's just bad governing.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on January 18, 2012, 05:23:07 pm
^^ What Malaria said.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 18, 2012, 06:00:27 pm
Actually you're right on this...it is bad klawmaking, no it's worse it's EPIC FAIL lawmaking. And you're right copyright is a capitalist idea, and i do support copyright laws. The creators of stories and such should have the right to make money off their work, it's only fair.

What PIPA/SOPA do essentially is set up a system of power abuse where a few powerful movie companies who haven't bveen able to come up with anything creative can sue anyone, even a new company on the Internet for copyright infrigment, even when their work shows no sign of it. And that is stifling the Great Ameerican spirit of entrepreneurialism which is an integral part of how we became so great a country. Although the more I think about it, you're right Malaria, it's not socialist, it's worse, it's monopolistic, and monopolies mean bad news for the consumer. And likewise when there are a great number of companies on a certain somethingor creatinga  certain product or service to choose from, prices go down, jobs and customer service quality go up. After all with any private business...and this is something in my opinon A LOT of private companies have forgotten...customer service, is EVERYTHING!!!!


Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on January 20, 2012, 02:44:25 am
An open post to anyone who still believes SOPA/PIPA won't be abused... even without having those laws, the RIAA and MPAA have persuaded the DoJ to arrest the founder and some employees of MegaUpload and seize their domains as "criminal copyright infringers".

No, I'm not joking. I wish I were.

http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shut-down-120119/
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 20, 2012, 06:17:58 pm
OKay on to another topic.

When it comes to the idea of Gays and Lesbians being allowed tio adopt and raise children some have asked should they? My answer to that is...if they can provide a stable loving environment for that child then I say HECK YEAH!

I've heard some say that a child needs both their mother and father. Well let me respond with this, what if the hetero couple doesn't want the child or anything to do with the child? Does that mean a child has to be forced to associate with their biological parents just to sate someone else's ideology, I don't think so. Now granted a child might find it a bit odd living with two men or two women, but I think the gay or lesbian couple who adopts the child would be smart enough to explain things to the child when they're old enough. I'm about as heterosexual (As in I like women.) as they get but I strongly believe that gays and lesbians deserve the right to live with the same quiet dignity as the rest of us. I also believe that one opreferences in terms of...intimate company should not be factor in whether one is allowed to or not allowed to adopted a child. I'd bet any amount of money there are a alot of dignified gay and lesbian coupkes out there who would love to have a child to raise. Because with a lot of these law-abiding Gay/lesbian couples I'd bet any amount of money they could teach their kids good and bad and everrything else just as well as any hetero couple.

That's my view on things.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 24, 2012, 01:27:02 am
...Animeman, she was referring to the fact that, as they state in the link you provided above, the video footage of the speech is not available online because it's copyrighted. You have to buy it if you want to see it.

Which is in fact pretty ridiculous.

This made me giggle.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on January 24, 2012, 01:34:57 am
An open post to anyone who still believes SOPA/PIPA won't be abused... even without having those laws, the RIAA and MPAA have persuaded the DoJ to arrest the founder and some employees of MegaUpload and seize their domains as "criminal copyright infringers".

No, I'm not joking. I wish I were.

http://torrentfreak.com/megaupload-shut-down-120119/

Yeah, this has been all over the alternative media news.

Additionally, we may have a problem larger than SOPA and PIPA on our hands; it's called ACTA, and from my understanding, it's more of an international trade agreement and is not subject to the same kind of legislation as SOPA and PIPA: http://www.inquisitr.com/184832/acta-worse-than-sopa-and-classified-as-national-security-by-obama-and-bush/

My response to this is, why do we even need SOPA/PIPA if things like this can already be done. Why all of these attacks on free internet all of a sudden? My guess is that it is not solely related to piracy.

And sorry to revert back to the internet piracy stuff, Animeman. I just had to comment on ACTA.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 28, 2012, 08:03:16 am
Halcyon, it's all good. Granted people should have the right to make money off their own intellectual property but I agree that information itself should be free. And these acts (SOPA/PIPA and ACTA) are a blatent attempt at monopolizing information itself. This is a form of fascism and I'm as much against fascism as I am socialism.

And on the subject of monopolies that brings me to the first of my commentaries here in this section. While I promise to keep the language as always family friendly I will be offering my opinion. You can choose whether to say "Hear, Hear" or "I beg to differ, good sir." on this.

It's abundantly clear that Obamacare has fiscal and government disaster written all over it. I myself am not a big fan of it and I believe it's going to be defunded sometime in this or the next year. It's also pretty evident that Obama is a puppet. I mean there's no way he could've become president so quickly without having some powerful backers. But who are Obama's puppetmasters, the answer might surprise you. Believe it or not contrrary to what the TEA party and ideologues would have you believe it isn't the unions. Unions only want Health care for all their members. And almost all union members are hard-working, honest, law abiding citizens who just want to make a living wage and take care of their families. That's not too much to ask is it? And I can tell you it most certainly isn't the Doctors out there, my own dentist has made it clear as have the medical community here in the U.S. that they are against Obamacare, mainly because it would interfere with their ability to do their job more so then now.

So who really came up with Obamacare? The answer is...the heads of the major HMOs. Why so, well...maybe this is my Asberger's talking or maybe I'm on to something but in this world there are patterns in everything. And here's the pattern or the motivation for the major HMO heads. By putting Obamacare into place it will protect their profits and their pocketbook allowing them to play games and pull fast ones on their customers while insuring that there's no new competition. That's right boys and girls it's that old demon known as greed, with perhaps a serving of Sloth. And people wonder why Greed and Sloth are considered two of the 7 deadly sins. The major HMOs don't want new competition because that would chip into their profits, and force them to have to improve their customer service. In our capitalist system (Which while not perfect has helped us survive as a nation for several centuries.) when there's lots of competition prices get driven down, and the quality of customer service smd product goes up. After all in this game custmer service is a must if a company wants to attract more customers. But the HMO heads are only interested in their wallets, they don't care about who their clients are. And frankly that just makes me sick. With Obamacare the HMOs are using our own Government to protect their bottom line. This is why I believe Obamacare needs to be repealed, because it doesn't provide healthcare for everyone it just protects the profits of a few HMO execs.

And there you have it.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Griff_the_dragoon on January 29, 2012, 06:53:02 am
^ TL;DR
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on February 03, 2012, 01:09:48 am
It's also pretty evident that Obama is a puppet.

This.

Except I don't think it's the HMO groups like you were saying. I think it's Goldman Sachs and other Wall Streeters. Same people who funded Obama's campaign are now funding Mitt Romney's.

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on February 10, 2012, 08:56:15 am
Okay I'm not sure if this is the best place for this but I HAVE to get this off my chest.

My friend Peach has been in quite an infuriated state recently and so have I. A number of days ago a number of you probably heard a report about about a couple of kids 5 and 7 years old who were murdered by their father because they were starting to talk in regards to the killing of their mother. I feel sorry for the Social worker who was just doing her job in this case. But here's the part where things get political in an inappropriate setting. WHO of all groups just happens to show up at the boys' funeral...but none other than America's favorite hate-mongers Westboro Baptist cult, to me they're NOT a church they're a cult. Now to emphasize the point that I'm not a racist nor am i homophobic let me state that I view Westboro's twisted ideology with nothing but disdain and contempt. Showing up at the funeral of two innocent little boys to spew their hateful poison. I dispised Westboro before but now more than ever so help me if I ever come across any of them I'm going to forget my manners and give them the one fingered salute if you know what I mean. Bad enough that the Phelps family are manipulating weak-minded religious zealots but to show up at the funeral of two innocent boys taken from this world in so tragic a fashion just so they can force their beliefs down everyone else's throats. These guys REALLY make me sick!

And that's all I have to say about that.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chromophobic on February 11, 2012, 01:35:14 am
...I dunno if this has been mentioned since Im to lazy to read through all the posts..... ._. And I totally just discovered this today so I am out of the loop when it comes to political shtuff.............
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2F28.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lysgeeFM201qaaowno1_500.jpg)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Griff_the_dragoon on February 15, 2012, 01:53:19 pm
^ thought they had something for that... was it called Mcafee or something like that? Or was it a password to get on the computer???
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on February 15, 2012, 09:01:27 pm
-Sigh- They do have soemthing for it called parental controls. Oh well, some people never learn.

Okay time for another commentary:

Now I've heard some people say Iran isn't a threat. To that I respond, SAY WHAT!?!

Consider this, throughtout the country they have signs saying "Down with America" and "Death to the West". Now before everyone flies off the handle and says it's because of America's evil policies, consider this. Iran's Government has one the MOST oppressive policies towards women. their human rights violations towards their own people are unbelieveably horrific. And it's abundantly clear the real rulers the Mullahs of the country are bent on World Domination and nuking Isreal. But here's a major problem with that line of thought. Isreal has in it a prominent temple containing relics sacred to the prophet Mohhamad. So, why are the Mullahs of Iran so eager to blow it up when they now it contains holy relics of Islam. The answer is...when boils down to it when you get past the robes and the Quran they hide behind what you're left with is bunch of greedy, selfish old men who are using Islam as means to further their dreams for world domination. Now granted former ruler of Iran the Shah wasn't the nicest of people either, I'm not saying that. But these old men are trying to take over the World and so their enriching Uranium in order to create Nuclear weapons. And knowing how religious fanatics work, the scariest thing about them is...they may very well do it.

What's scarier is that thesse guys don''t understand the consequences of their actions. Consider this, if they blow up Isreal with a nuclear strike, the Middle East is a VERY small region. Enter into this equation a littkle something called Nuclear fallout which would make all oil and every ounce of land in the region radioactive for centuries to come and uninhabitable thusly cutting the world off from it's oil supply. So Iran would not only be destroying itself but it's neighbors as well. The problem is religious fanatics don't understand the concept of unintended consequences they just see their desires. Now their President is dangerous, and I think he could be a problem if he ever gets free of his leash. But Iran IS a threat because religious fanatics and nuclear weapons don't mix. Just something to think on.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on February 26, 2012, 02:52:59 pm
Sorry to double post like this but not much has been happening here for a while so i thought I'd put in my 50 cents on a certain matter. There are a lot of folks out there who have said that going back to the gold standard is the cure for our economic woes. Some have even said that mantaining the fiat system will cause the country to collapse just as other countries that use paper money collapse and Gold and Silver are the way. Not so fast I say. Before you jump on the gold standard bandwagon read this article from from Moneynews magazine, I think you'll find it very enlightening.

http://www.moneynews.com/StreetTalk/nourielRoubini-Reviving/2010/11/10/id/376602


Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on May 04, 2012, 08:33:54 pm
I would recommend that everyone here e-mail and call their senators to STOP CISPA. This is a new threat to internet privacy and censorship. It's getting ridiculous.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on May 15, 2012, 10:11:52 am
Well folks it's looks as though Mitt Romney's just about got this primary wrapped up.

ANd the latest Rassussen polls show that Moderates and Indpeendants are coming out more in favor of Romney than Obama.

First off let me say I have no problem with Obama's skin color. I don't judge people based on how much melanin content they have in their skin, I judge strictly on ability. Obama has proven incompetent, and Inexperienced. And that's why i hope yto God that Mitt Romney becomes president. Oh I grant you Mitt Romney isn't perfect, but let's be practical, Mitt Romney has the qualifications to get things done and get this country back on track. I believe if anyone can straighten out our books he can.

I won't say it'llbe easy. I believe EVERYONE is going to have to sacrifice something to get his country back on top. But hey sometimes we have to sacrifice something for the greater good, otherwise how would we change and grow?

Also while I can't place a link here because of all the foul language in it...there's a rant on Occupy Wall Street that Adam Corolla did a while back. I strongly recommend people view that.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on May 15, 2012, 10:57:14 am
Whenever anyone opens a statement declaring that they cannot! be! racist!, I assume they are pretty racist and self-conscious about it. Which is good. More people should be self-conscious about their racism. Lord knows we've all internalized a lot of vile ideas about people of color that we have yet to confront properly. And when I say we, I mean I'm racist, too, and that I recognize that that's bad. I also recognize that denying it won't do anything to resolve the pervasive, poisonous racism that underpins our social structure.

Your argument sounds like a 30 second pro-Romney commercial. I haven't actually learned anything from you that would make him a more compelling candidate. Those are just election cycle buzzwords.

I'm not sure what you mean by sacrifice. Do you mean taxes? Because I have some serious doubts that Mitt Romney, Professional Rich Person, will be all that eager to increase taxes on rich people.

I categorically cannot vote for Mitt Romney, because he said he would support a Personhood Amendment, which would eliminate women's access to hormonal birth control. I will not vote for anyone who tries to make people slaves to their reproductive capacity. If Romney wants to protect the precious babies, he can start with the foster system. Then he can move on to improving access to birth control and sex education, so there are fewer unwanted fetuses to begin with.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on May 15, 2012, 07:24:35 pm
Interesting perspective. But I must graciously but heartily disagree.

I mean that a lot of programs, even the most sacred cow of programs,  like or not are going to get cuts. It just has to be done. The trick is to find WHERE to cut in the right way that will leave the program leaner and healthier.

And I say with certainty Mitt Romney doesn't believe in forcing women to be slaves. I mean take a look at him and his wife Anne. She's not his property, she's his partner in an equal relationship. (And I give kudos to her because helping raise 5 boys, surviving cancer, and dealing with MS that is the sign of a warrior's heart.) I mean no sensible person Republican or Democrat wants that because forcing women to be second class citizens would be useless. But with the fact that we've spent outrselves into such a horrendous state we can't afford much more of anything.

As for the sex education, I agree better sex education and understanding of all options is the key. That kind of knowledge will give young people power to decide their reproductive fate. And oing so in a completely unbiased way will work even better. The problem isn't just getting the funding. There are ALOT of people out there who want to see sex education more extensive and that movement is growing everyday. Here's the big problemit's also getting the kids to listen. Because from what i've seen of our public education system there's a serious lack of discipline there. Kids are riding roughshod of the teachers, principals, and even parents to some degree. They're afraid that their kids will sue them or that if they spank them child protective services will come and take their kids away.  I've seen this lack of disicpline myself and this whole mentality of, "I don't have to do what you say or listen to you or anyone because I'm SPECIAL! I deserve my rights." It's a mentality that Adam Corolla talked about in his OWS rant.

Malaria I'll not tell you who to vote for. If you choose not to vote for Romney well...who am I to tell you what you can and can't do? But if the latest CBS and Rasmussen polls are any indication. Come next year we're going to see a change in the presidency. That's just my take.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Chibachi Nero on May 15, 2012, 09:23:12 pm
okay, animeman, i'm going to have to say no to basically everything you just said.

your third and fourth paragraphs especially represent a keen lack of any understanding of how the republican party is currently operating with regards to reproductive rights. no, mitt romney is not advocating that we literally force women into slavery. but he IS advocating that female-bodied people lose reproductive rights, which for many can lead to a loss of autonomy. if someone is forced by the government to give birth to a child they don't want, that's an immense physical, emotional, mental and financial strain on them. regardless of your personal stance on abortion, the right to decide what happens to their body should lie with the person themself, and not be dependent on the wellbeing of what is effectively a parasite.

the republican party right now has consistently supported legislation that restricts abortion rights. they have not, however, supported anything to increase comprehensive sex education. so no, romney being elected to president will not help in that regard. and frankly, as someone who is in high school currently, i find it a little offensive that you think we're honestly that bad. some students don't pay attention, but that's always been the case. romanticizing your past helps nobody. i had health class last year, and trust me, kids payed attention when we did sex ed. people really want to learn this stuff. the problem is, in fact, getting the funding, as well as keeping conservative groups from banning it entirely.

and in response to your second paragraph, frankly if the wealthy in our country payed a fairer share of taxes and we stopped spending so much on the military we wouldn't have to drastically cut so many "sacred cow" programs. considering that a lot of school funding is on the chopping block right now, i think we've moved past "making sacrifices" for the greater good and fully into "we need to figure out another plan because this ain't working" territory.

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on May 16, 2012, 09:34:14 am
Actually my good Chibachi Nero there are a lot of wealthy people who have been forced out of wealthy by being taxed too much. Now don't get me wrong everyone should pay taxes. But well, when the tax burden is placed on one type of people specifically "The rich". And well granted I beleive Reaganomics was a DISASTROUS failure. Clinton P think did a heck of a job in terms of the economy, he actually balanced the budget and got us a surplus. Granted this nasty recessiona nd deby did start on George W. Bush's watch, that much is true. But the problem her is OBama, Nancy Pelosi, harry Reid, and the ilk have hijacked my party and promoted programs which have made the beleeding worse.  Obamacare, which happened on Obama's watch, The bank Bailouts which Pelosi and the Democratic Congress sponsered. Oh make no mistake the banks should share in the blame.,..they did wrong and they should pay. And actually they're starting to pay because their stockholders are revolting against them. What's the one way to hurt a bank the most, hit em,' in the pocketbook. But blaming all priovate sector business and "The rich" for the actions of the Government and the banks well, I just don't see the right in that. Blaming SAFEWAY, Harley-Davidson, Gardenburger, McDonald's, and even Microsoft for the actions of The Congress aand banks...like I said the logic escapes.

In terms of my comments on sex ed. Okay granted I overgeneralized, and I apologize for that Chibachi Nero. And I'd bet any amount of money you probably understand studying hard and working hard. And like i said i agree we need comprehensive sex education programs. And I grant you there are bad apples in the Republcian party who don't wnat Sex Ed programs, and that I think is foolish. And i'm not romantocizing my past, in fact my past was horrible! My high School years were among the worst years of my life. I went to high school int eh early 90's during the time of the L.A. riots and the Rodney King incident. This was back in the early 90's when the barely had any understanding of asberger's syndrome.

Also you should know 50% of Republican womne, yeah you read right Republican women are for Roe vs. Wade. They want abortion kept safe and legal. And that's only right no Government or religious orgaanization has the right to tell anjy woman what she can and can't do with her body. It should come down to the woman, her doctor, and her God. In short the ball is in her court.

And i hope this doesn't come off as confromtation or anything but when exactly has Mitt Romney has never said he wants women's reproductive right eliminated?

You want there to be more money for schools and education here's the answer, now I'm not sayong complete degregulate all industry because that has disaster written all over it. We need regulations to protect workers, investors, honest businessowners, and the public. But what I am saying is give the bueiness owners out there some slack. Le those who have the money be given some ease from their Tax burdens and from unecessary regulation so they can start hiring. Give private sector business a chance to prosper, and we'll see more taxpayers in the system, and more money in the system. And when there's more money in  the system then we'll have more money for programs like comprehensive sex ed programs. it again copmes back to the issue of our stinky economy.

There are a lot of good law-abiding wealthy people who would be willing to give  apersona  job. But here's the thing we have to understand. If a person wants that high paying job or that million-dollar job, they have to start at the bottom and worj their way up.A lot of sucessful entreprenuers started off cleaning bathrooms, or flipping burgers. Hardly anyone gets that big break instantly. A lot of times like or not we have to work for it. I have 4 weeks vacation in my job as a courtesy clerk and I didn't get that overnight it took me 12 years to get it. The short of it is, don't expect anythingt o be handed to you on a silver-platter. Again ask any sucessful; rich person and most will tell you that they started at the very bottom of their profession. That's just how it goes. I understand that there ar always going to be people in this country who have more than me. that's always been the way it is and I'm at peace with that. And for all of Capital;ism's flaws, it's still the best sytem we got, and it does work. It's a sytem in which people are judged bytheir actions and deeds. I'm not saying worshp at the altar of random ruich people, but what I am saying is give them a beak, have a postive attitude, and respect them for the fact they drive their proverbial Rolls Royce because they worked hard and they built something.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on May 30, 2012, 07:41:25 am

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
- John Fitzgerald kennedy
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Malaria on May 31, 2012, 05:41:41 pm
4thEstate.net has put out an interesting breakdown about the sex of sources cited in the media, especially on women's issues. (I think they're everyone's issues, but that's only sort of related.)

Highlight: "For example, in front page articles about the 2012 election that mention abortion or birth control, men are 4 to 7 times more likely to be cited than women." Ugly feminist laughter. (http://www.4thestate.net/female-voices-in-media-infographic/#.T8f6J9VYu_r)

It's not enough to say that we believe that women deserve rights when prompted and leave it there. If we want our politics to be legitimately non-sexist and non-gender discriminatory, we need to be proactive in recognizing our biases in favor of recognizing the authority and reliability of men's voices over women's.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on June 23, 2012, 06:22:39 pm
Something interesting today on FOX news. Mike Huckabee had on his show a number of Millenials. And they ranged from Democrat, to Republican, to Independant.  yup there were people there who were planning to vote for Obama, ROmney, and even Gary Johnson the Libertarian nominee. And as always things were civil and respectful on Mike Huckabbee's show. I may not always agree with mike Huckabee but I give him KUDOS to him for keeping the  show nice, relaxed and very civil. That's the kind of class we need in poltics. We can disagree to our heart's content. But when it's all said and done we're Americans and let's go out for a berr and/or a buger, or well just to chat. Now doesn't that sound wonderful?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on July 22, 2012, 09:26:12 pm
Okay there's something I want to get off my chest. it seems to me that lately there have been some pretty nasty names thrown around by Democrats, Republcians, and independants. I from time to time unfortunately have given into the temptation. But recent ecevents and hanging around my parents for sop long have brought to this revelation/declaration. While my beliefs may at times be grating whether you support Obama, Romney, or even Ron Paul I make this promise. i will never ever use the terms libtard, Neo-con, or sheeple. I've found that those words can undermine the lines of communication. While we may not agree on everything I make this pledge never to use any of these words to attack anyone. I believe we can debate without the name-calling. That's the sign of a truly civil society, and now more than ever we need that.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on July 22, 2012, 09:30:15 pm
I don't think Neocon is a bad name, though.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservative
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on September 16, 2012, 08:01:39 pm
Well folks we have a new low in EPICALLY stupid, facepalm-esque laws. In the city of New York it is now illegal to seel 32 oz drinks. They SAY that it's part of the effort to combat obesity. Personally I think this law is facepalm absurd and has EPIC FAIL written all over it. I mean what gives the city of New York the right to play food and drink police. I mean banning 32 oz drinks to combat obesity? In the words of WWE superstar the Miz, "Really...really...really?". I think all this is going to is aggravate the problem and a majority of New York city people are going to rebel against this silly law. Obesity and combating it are a matter of personal responsibility. You can't legislate good health in people. Fitness like I said is a matter of personal responsibility. And banning 32 oz drinks is not going to solve anything. That's my take on it. Have nice day. :)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on September 16, 2012, 10:09:13 pm
Here's a video on the topic I watched awhile ago. It opened my eyes a bit. I really don't like the idea of telling people what to do with their bodies . . but the reality is that individuals do not live in a vacuum.  We all affect each other.

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 7): Drugs Cigarettes Alcohol...and Sugar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWnbMnnLo5w&feature=player_embedded)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: HalcyonFour on September 17, 2012, 12:19:41 am
Here's a video on the topic I watched awhile ago. It opened my eyes a bit. I really don't like the idea of telling people what to do with their bodies . . but the reality is that individuals do not live in a vacuum.  We all affect each other.

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 7): Drugs Cigarettes Alcohol...and Sugar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWnbMnnLo5w&feature=player_embedded)

With all due respect, reppy, I honestly couldn't take anything in that video seriously as soon as I heard the word "fluoride". This guy argues against the nanny state, but he is really advocating for using its disastrous results. They admit in the video themselves that the government has been telling us what to eat, and that is why we are so fat...yet they now want these same government bumblers to direct even more flawed and desperately uninformed policy? That is insanity!

One extremely important element that they do not mention AT ALL in this clip is the monstrous, disastrous government subsidies that go into sugar, dairy, corn, and other unhealthy food industries every year. These drive down their prices so low that they become a very cheap input in the production of virtually every food, a fact that the video actually mentions. The reason why sugar and high fructose corn syrup are an input in all of these industries is because they are subsidized by our tax dollars. Instead of regulating people's behavior, we should work to wean Big Agra off of these subsidies that encourage obesity!

Follow the money; I bet the folks producing this video are behind some new big pharma big agra or big pharma stunt that will protect the very industries it seemingly criticizes.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: reppy on September 17, 2012, 11:46:31 am
Here's a video on the topic I watched awhile ago. It opened my eyes a bit. I really don't like the idea of telling people what to do with their bodies . . but the reality is that individuals do not live in a vacuum.  We all affect each other.

The Skinny on Obesity (Ep. 7): Drugs Cigarettes Alcohol...and Sugar? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CWnbMnnLo5w&feature=player_embedded)

With all due respect, reppy, I honestly couldn't take anything in that video seriously as soon as I heard the word "fluoride". This guy argues against the nanny state, but he is really advocating for using its disastrous results. They admit in the video themselves that the government has been telling us what to eat, and that is why we are so fat...yet they now want these same government bumblers to direct even more flawed and desperately uninformed policy? That is insanity!

One extremely important element that they do not mention AT ALL in this clip is the monstrous, disastrous government subsidies that go into sugar, dairy, corn, and other unhealthy food industries every year. These drive down their prices so low that they become a very cheap input in the production of virtually every food, a fact that the video actually mentions. The reason why sugar and high fructose corn syrup are an input in all of these industries is because they are subsidized by our tax dollars. Instead of regulating people's behavior, we should work to wean Big Agra off of these subsidies that encourage obesity!

Follow the money; I bet the folks producing this video are behind some new big pharma big agra or big pharma stunt that will protect the very industries it seemingly criticizes.

The man in the video actually produced an hour and a half long speech criticizing high fructose corn syrup and sugar in general. So no, I don't think he works for big agra. =P It's an ~8 minute video that is part of a series . . you can't fit everything into it!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: superjaz on October 04, 2012, 11:17:21 am
Some things were said about PBS on the debate last night, that I don't agree with, so I leave you all with this

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net%2Fhphotos-ash3%2F581368_10151161870683930_1007881482_n.jpg)
*no maxs were harmed, just told him the dog wasn't a pony*
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 04, 2012, 08:27:50 pm
Okay I admit there are some VERY great things about PBS. I definitely disagree with Mitt Romney on that. But there are a lot of thing that i do agree with Mitt Romney on. And last night I can say without a doubt Mitt Romney won that debate.

First off let me state for the record I have NOT seen 2016: Obama's America, simply because I find that Micheal Moore-esque pseudo-documentarian stuff to be intellectually insulting and the reason why there's so much vitriol in this country. But the thing about Obama is how is it that a community organizer from Chicago becomes a Senator and later the President in such a short time period? The answer is, he had help. But now when Obama's being tested he cracks under pressure. And the whole "I don't have time for this" vibe he gave off last night showed clearly his inexperience in the position of executive officer of anything. The case of Barack Obama is a case of too much, too fast.  Barack Obama has shown himself to be the sort of person that believes, "It's my way or the highway". That to me is a sign of political inexperience and dare I say naivete. Maybe Barack Obama as my friend Peach pointed out (And she's a Republican) could have been as great as Clinton was. but like I said he got too mkuch, too fast, and too soon. He should have been allowed some time to grow and gain some experience. But we have to face facts that barack obama has shown hinmself to be inflexible, and an incapable president.


And in direct contridiction Mitt ROmney was the Republican Governor of arguably the most liberal state in the unions, and SOMEHOW he wheeled and dealed his way to creatinga  successful state economy and making Massechuttess (Sp?) a more tempting state to do business in. The is a man who understands who our allies are and who understands how to get this economy going again. Some folk have said Mitt ROmney was born with money and has a silver spoon in his mouth. For that matter some have accused him of not being an American citizen. Actuallly i did some research on that. (Research is good!) Mitt Romney is DEFINITELY an American because he was born in Detriot michigan the son of a former actress and later Governor George Romney. When he came of age Mitt actually took the whole of his inhertiance...and donated it to charity. Everything Mitt ROmney has ever gotten money-wise he earned through his own blood, sweat, and tears. that's right Mitt ROmney is a self-made millionaire. He never in his time at BAIN shipped abny jobs overseas, that's just propaganda. What mitt Romney can do is sit down with others even of opposing vuiewpoints and work with them to come up with a deal. Mitt ROmney knows how to play with others. True leadership is not just knowing when to lead, but when to follow and be part of the team. Granted there are things liek PBS that disgree with Mitt Romney on. But on a lot of things including how to fix this economy, mitt ROmney has the right idea. Mitt Romney has explained that this economy probably can't be completely fixed in 4 years. But if we elect him he can sure get us on the road to fixing things. Obama talked about Mitt Romney needing to be specific, this coming from someone who doen't know how to work with others, as my stepfather always said there's a difference between talking the talk, and walking the walk. Mitt Romney can talk the talk, and then walk the walk because that's the kind of guy he is. And that's the kind of man we need for the presidency.

And that's my thoughts on things.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on October 11, 2012, 06:33:41 am
Definitely NOT voting for "The Zero," but not keen on Mittens either.

Romney's point about PBS was "... but is it worth borrowing MORE money from China to keep

Sesame Street makes HUNDREDS of millions of dollars in franchise and licence fees from plushies and other toys, costumes, etc. They get about $7mil from US TAXPAYERS which is a small fraction (like about 6% or 7% of their total income. I think they are successful enough to go it alone without my wallet.

About Mitt vs The Zero being more American, that's a no-brainer; TeH One spent much of his boyhood growing up OUTSIDE of this country, so he's not passionate and not really fluent in specifically American cultural experiences - baseball, hotdogs, Mom & apple pie, 4th of July fireworks, Thanksgiving, Memorial Day, and the Pioneer Spirit of the Oregon Trail.

(That last one: we are -not- collectivists. We are -not- 'all in this together.' We fled to freedom from people who said we must share our sacrifices. We replied. 'Oh Yeah? Bye-bye,' and closed the shop when they tried to tax us, bought a wagon and walked the trail to economic freedom in small, freely associating groups. We did not expect government to be there ahead of us, providing bridges, guard rails, or mandating sanitation regulations or monitoring 'carbon footprints' of our campfires. If somebody broke down ['stumped' entered the American English language in the 1850s] we were free to assist but just as free to walk on by. We didn't like the fact that not everybody made it, but niether did we consider it a necessity: there was no 'No Pioneer Left Behind' act. THAT too is American - that most people can make it mostly on their own but American people are free to Make it Big and Keep It - none of the former Soviet Socialist republics ever invented Windows or iPhones, because no one is going to experiment late nights in a garage for an invention which becomes the Property of some Peoples Republic. Even today, China does not invent - they copy from the inventors: Americans.)

One thing I DO like about O. is that he's telling the rest of the world that "Just because USA has the means, materiel, or assets to go abroad and solve other people's problems, does NOT mean that we MUST do so." Previous generations such as my Dad us the phrase "America is the Policeman of the World" and I always hated that, because we never seem to drop off a bill for our overseas services - that gets paid in full and on time.  In Libya, O. told the NATO countries "OK, school's out, the USA has led these things for long enough that you all should know how to do it yourselves: this time YOU work the exam problems and we'll be the teacher who can help out in case you have trouble with a question, we will EXPLAIN the exam question but we won't DO IT FOR YOU - not this time."

That's one of my qualms against Mittens - he is the type of guy who thinks that we MUST be global peace makers and bridge and hospital builders even when we are past broke. I disagree. Syria - the land where people danced in the streets when the towers fell on 9-11-2001 - and now they're shooting at each other. The Zero is right on this one: Hang back and pass the popcorn.

Mittens is also a squish on gun rights and illegal aliens.

I will possibly vote Constitution Party as a matter of conscience, but this year's leader of ther party is a former Democrat from Virginia, so I don't know if I can really trust him. The other alternative is the Libertairan party, but generally I don't vote pro-pot either.

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: @random on October 11, 2012, 08:03:54 am
It's worth noting, though, that Romney didn't say he was going to cut just Sesame Street. He said he would want to cut off the whole of PBS, and federal money accounts for about 12% of their funding*. It wouldn't kill them, but it would likely result in smaller / rural markets losing service.

Personally, I rather suspect the reason he would like to do so has little to do with saving money... PBS' share of the federal budget is only about one-hundredth of a percent**. The real reason seems much more likely to be related to the far-right mantra that PBS indoctrinates people with liberal values - an assertion for which I haven't yet seen any reasoned defense. (If there is one, I would be interested in seeing it.)


* - The majority of which actually comes from private donations, not franchise fees.
** - You'd get a LOT more savings by ending corporate subsidies. Subsidies to the oil industry alone range from 30 to 170 times PBS's share of the budget, depending on whose estimates you believe.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 13, 2012, 08:11:08 pm
Well folks once again I have to get on my Soapbox about something. And since this is the appropriate thread to do so, here we go. -Gets on soapbox.-

There's a couple ballot measures this year that I think are of great importance. They are Ballot Measures 82 and 83. Those who are against these measures are claiming that the measures will allow out-of-state gambling interests to come in and wreck havoc in Oregon. The thing is I'm here to tell you...that is simply UNTRUE! If anything these ballot measures guard against that sort of thing. And the Oregonian Newspaper's Politifact section has called this along with the other claims by those against 82 and 83 "Pants on Fire" as in "Liar, liar pants on fiore". What meassures 82 and 83 would do is a loow an inspired group of entrepreneurs the chance to build a place called "The Grange". What it would be as a hotel, a gambling casino, and a shopping mall among other things. The most brilliant thing about it is they want to use the old Mul;tnomah Kennel Clun dog track. I'm all for these measure for several reasons.

1. The jobs in construction and the Grange area itself that would be brough in would help revitalize the Wood Village area, give the area of SOutheast Portland/Gresham/Wood Village a real injection of life and vitality. And since the Dog track closed Wood Village has been hurting.
2. The money that would be generated there would REMAIN here in oregon providing more income for all involved.
3. (This is the most personal) Part of the Grange would be a hotel. And don't get me wrong the Vancouver Hilton is a FANTASTIC hotel and I imagine the same can be said of the Red Lion on the Quay. It if The Grange came into being it would mean Kumoricon would have another hotel option. And I for one would LOVE to see a Kumoricon out here in the Southeast Portland/Gresham area. Besides that that the city of Vanncouver is a nice place but I for one would love to see Kumoricon come home to Portland.

I believe the ones who are against 82 and 83 are either forces that are generally anti-entrepreneurial or they workk for the other Gambling casinos here in Oregon who don't want to lose their Monopoly. And I for one have never liked Monopolies and believe that when there's more competition it drives prices down and drives the quality of custome service up. After all in private enterprise that's the name of the game. Also I think small businesses such as travel agents would benefit from the grange because it means all the gambling casinos and hotheir hotels would have to compete and offer special deals. and that's part of how travel agents get their business. Not to mention ther's all the others factors involved when gambling casinos / hotels compete.

So all my fellow Kumoricon goers who are registered to vote whatever your political affilation I ask you to join me in voting YES on measures 82 and 83. Nothing but good can come of the Grange.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: melchizedek on October 15, 2012, 01:32:09 pm
Here is my soapbox for the kennel club.

http://www.grey2kusa.org/pdf/historyOR.pdf

That racing track is an important piece of history.  Yeah, they couldn't renew their lease back in 2004 because they were operating at a loss.   I think it is a waste to dispose of the existing structure for a new one.  It is private property so ppl can do what they want. 

Also, the greyhound racers cited the reason for going out of business as tribal competition.  How well are they going to be able to compete against the tribes when the tribes and non-tribal casino are not on an equal playing field?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 15, 2012, 07:30:23 pm
Here is my soapbox for the kennel club.

http://www.grey2kusa.org/pdf/historyOR.pdf

That racing track is an important piece of history.  Yeah, they couldn't renew their lease back in 2004 because they were operating at a loss.   I think it is a waste to dispose of the existing structure for a new one.  It is private property so ppl can do what they want. 

Also, the greyhound racers cited the reason for going out of business as tribal competition.  How well are they going to be able to compete against the tribes when the tribes and non-tribal casino are not on an equal playing field?

Interesting thoughts my good fellow.  Still, I'm all for the Grange. ANd here';s what you need to know about the grange.

http://www.thegrangeoregon.com/
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 17, 2012, 08:33:21 am
Sorry to double post folks but I have to get this off my chest.

Well the folks for the grange have stopped campaigning for it which isn't a good sign. it's disappointing when something with so much potential geyts bushwhacked like that. But oh well, life goes on.

The presidential debate last night is comparable to the heavyweight boxing match between Muhammad Ali and Joe Frazier. And I have to say this debate didn't disappoint. Obama in the debate definitel;y came out swinging. Romney was consistantly on his A game. He made a alot of valid points about Obama's record on both foreign and domestic policy. Overall I think that Romney edgeed this one out. It wasn't easy but I think Romney gained a slight edge by the end.

This debate was so tense at one moment I figured Romney and obama would just simply toss aside civlity and get into an old fashioned Donnybrook (Fight) one thing is certain, noobody will forget this debate anytime in the near future.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on November 01, 2012, 09:53:24 pm
I'll just be glad and done when the election season is over so that we can know which [SERIES OF WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN CENSORED] will be in the White House and go on with the butchering of American values and privileges...
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: melchizedek on November 02, 2012, 10:41:48 pm
I'll just be glad and done when the election season is over so that we can know which [SERIES OF WORDS THAT HAVE BEEN CENSORED] will be in the White House and go on with the butchering of American values and privileges...
+1

I don't want either of them.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: acton on November 05, 2012, 10:44:34 pm
Taking my ballot over tonight as it is my tradition, I take to toe county election office.
I am for Romney and dismayed anybody can tell him and Obama apart. I see a lot conservative are grumbling but the problem is  the conservative wing no  compelling reason for me  to vote for any of the in the Republican party primary.  Ether we get unprincipled blow hards to big  government conservatives. Fort the record I am more closer to Objectivism Ie strongly individualist and Capitalist.

As for The Grange I voting no on both . I interested ending the state Monopoly on gambling but 82 and 83  is cronyism at its worst, allowing for the Grange but no competition.  I ether all in allowing private gambling or all out  and prohibiting private non Native American casinos, and State lottery.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 06, 2012, 05:56:18 pm
Hey folks, this is election night I know. But i have to get this off my chest. I too have voted against 82 and 83. What brought this change? Well here it is.

The more i examined the measure and the vagueries in it  the more I realized that some thing about this measure didn't feel right. And frankly super vague measures give me the creeops. And beides that John Kitzhaber put it best when he said, "We made a promise to the Indian tribes." and we've kept that promise. The indians are making money for their people thriough old fashioned capitalism. I've been to Spirit Mountain and Chinook Winds those places are in my opinion doing very well in making lots of money. Not tto mention the food at Chinook Winds is terrific. XDDDD

But anyway that's my take on things.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: superjaz on November 06, 2012, 06:43:04 pm
I voted and I am with you both on the grange thingy a.promise is a promise
And America has broken enough of those with natives Oregon is better  then that
lots if things were fishy about it, not counting the whole casino culture
(not saying anti gambling, I enjoy the (very very very rare) trip out to a casino see a comic, get some cheap buffet etc) like that they were from Canada and feels like Oregon money would be funneled there.


Anyway I will be happy to see the election stuff over voting pole calls and junk mail, and ads on TV
So I say no matter who wins lets all do our best to get by during these crazy days
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: acton on November 07, 2012, 06:38:10 pm
I've been to Spirit Mountain and Chinook Winds those places are in my opinion doing very well in making lots of money. Not tto mention the food at Chinook Winds is terrific. XDDDD

No it not gambling I just donating to the Native American Welfare fund. (at the blackjack table)

I suspect it will be worst for me next campaign season for calls and junk mail because I just registered as a Refusenik (independent) from Republican; I just got tired of bad campaigning or busting  my but for a moderate who better than a liberal only the get shot down by the Conservative wing in my former party. Then there immigration which the GOP still does not get it right, admittedly I more towards Objectivism than Conservationism.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on November 23, 2012, 02:30:56 pm
I woted FOR 82 and 83 because I think that capitalism means opportunity for ALL.
Making a risk to open a casino should be open to anyone willing to look into the risks,
just like opening a restaurant.

Also I had recently been to Vegas and saw how LAME the indian casinos are her in Pac NW vompared to the showmanship and combination of Class and Kitchty-Tacky that makes Vegas so fun to go and observe.

Spirit Mountain is great for a buffet stop during a trip to the mid southern coast, but c'mon.
I don't play blackjack but I DO enjoy craps occasionally.

I will also be switching from (R) to (Independnet) - I had been indie for many years but went (R)) to try to make a difference in the primaries.
All the good, conservative candidates who understood about risk and opportunity versus false security sold to you by taking other peoples money - got washed out by the squishiest crap sandwich left standing: Romney. Yuck.

Then the Repubs screwed with thr rules at the last minute to prevent thr Ron Paul delegates from Maine from being properly seated.

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on December 23, 2012, 08:57:11 am
Hello all I wasn't sure where to put this so I chose here. there's something i really want to get off my chest.

I have no doubt everyone here knows about the horrible shootings at Clackmas Town Center and Sandy Elementary in Newtown, Connecticut. Make no mistake what Adam lanza, the perpetrator did was wrong. All those children he murdered were little more than babies.

The thing is it's been noted that the guy has Asberger's Syndrome. So I think I'd better stop this potential train wreck before it gets out of hand. So I want to clear some things up about Asberger's Syndrome. First off it is true that our attention spans can be somewhat...limited. And when we get into something it is true we REALLY get into it. But when it comes to behavior people with Asberger's are some of the most gentle and kind individuals you could ever meet. Ask anyone who's got a friend or relative with my condition. Or ask anyone who knows me they'll tell you I'm in reality as gentle as they come. I have Asberger's syndrome myself. The thing that really ruffles my feathers, proverbially, is the "Liberal open-minded media" today has a nasty habit of stereotyping people such as me. They make us out to look like we're weak, stupid, and helpless or we're homicidal killers. And THIS is something that makes me really want to pull my hair out. I can tell you for a fact I am not weak, I am not helpless, nor am I stupid! I admit I make mistakes. What person doesn't? It's the nature of humanity to make mistakes. And people with Asberger's are noted as being highly intelligent. As matter of fact some speculate that Micheal Angelo, the guy who painted the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, had Asberger's Syndrome. My Mom has said if that's the case I should be all right as long as I don't start painting the mural of the Sistine chapel on our ceiling. And I can tell you I most certainly am NOT a homicidal killer. In fact the very thought of killing anyone espcially innocent little children in cold blood is something that I find absolutely disgusting! So my fellow Kumoricon goers I know that this month has had more than it's share of tragedy for us. But please don't scaopegoat people with Asberger's Syndrome. Adam Lanza had soem other things wrong with him. That 20-year-old young man was a powder keg waiting to explode. I ask all of you to get the facts about Asberger's syndrome.

Also siome folks on the left have said we need more gun control. Some folks  on the right have said we need to make more guns available and have armed security guards at schools. With all due respect having armed secuity guards at a school with children who are little more than babies I think is a terrible idea as it would scare the daylights out of those kids. The real problem isn't guns, it's mental health. We have to face facts for all our scientific development there's still so much about emotional instability and mental disease we don't understand. We need to increase funding to mental heaklth reaserach to make sure that people like Adam lanza and the terrible events at Sandy Elementary can never happen again. Dr. Chandra from 2010 put it best when he said, "Diagnosis is ony the first step, the process is incomplete unless it leads to a cure." And it's true diagnosing what Adam Lanza had would only be the first step we need to find beter treaments and cures. We have to be very careful here as there will be some constitutional implications. WHich is why I say pay very close attention on this subject. Because this is REALLY treading on thin ice.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on April 04, 2013, 08:20:25 am
Okay folks, I'm back from Sakuracon and I have something to say. I make it no secret I've butted heads with  a lot of folks and I'm not a big fan of any type of political extremism. Lately from extremmists on all ssides of the aisle I've been hearing talk about how America should be split up into one part Liberal, one part conservative, or go even further and start a new civil war. To that sort of thinking I say, "No!" and I'll explain why.

1. Historically speaking the last time we had a civil war the country nearly got ripped to pieces by it. And we still have a lot of enemies out there who want to take over the world and would love to see us implode and turn on one another. The last civil war brought a lot of pain, heartache, and bloodshed to this country. We don't need another civil war where brothers, sisters, cousins, even whole families are fighting and killing one another. Starting another civil war will do no good for anyone in this country.
2. Seperating people based on thought creates the possibility and the likelihood of the creation of litmus tests and thought police. If you've ever been to the Middle East and totalitarian parts of the world you'll know they have thought police there and litmus tests. I am avidly anti-thought police and anti-litmus test. Not only that but as I recall our own wonderful constitituttion frowns on those sorts of things.
 
This affects us anime fans because anime has a lot of material in it which teaches morals and values and makes people think for themselves. A person with a rather....twisted sense of logic in a totalitarian society might, and probably would, consider many of the ideas in anime to be subversive and a threat to their power. And in a society where thought police call the shots absolute power corrupts absolutely.

The truth of matters is yes we have differing ways of thinking and looking at the world. Yes, we all have our opinions and we can disagree to our heart's content. But as a whole we the people of the United States of America are better off together than we are apart. The alternative is far more horrible.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on July 23, 2013, 10:38:10 am
I should just take over the world and enforce my dominance... that'll solve everything.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on August 03, 2013, 08:55:56 pm
Lol! Dude you should meet my friend Brian. He's the head of a group I'm a part of the Crazy Author's Society. He's got a deviously evil mind and he wants to take over the world also.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on August 25, 2013, 09:53:02 am
Sorry to double-post like this but I thought it's necessary.

Well folks the Obama administration is at it again. Obama's teaming up with his corporate supporters to quietly try and sell SOPA 3.0. Another attempt to try what would essentially shut down places like FanFiction.net, Youtube, and the ilk. Another attempt by a small group of massive corporations to try and play big brother with humaity's creativity. In a sense they're trying to be thought police. And as you've probably read in one of my previous posts, I'm avidly anti-thought police.
I say let's get online o places like Change.org and such and sign petitions to let Congress know we've got our eye on them abnd if they try and pass anything like SOPA 3.0 we will use the power of the ballot box to go medieval on them.
 
Besides that here are a coupler easons why SOPA 3.0 won't work. 1. Do you think internet pirates give a flying fig about laws? they don't they'll just continue to do what they do. 2. SOPA would unnevessarily go as far as to criminalize the little guy or girl with the big idea. because then a massive glutted power-crazed corporation could just storm in and take the idea from that person and send them off to jail under the premise that they had the idea first. That's right, abuse of power and authority. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. That would essentially put ghundreds even thousands of innocent entrepreneurs and ordinary people in our already over crowded prison system call because a small group of corprorations think they know better than  "We the epople".
This kind of thing irritrates me because I don't want anybody telling me what I can and can't do or think. Terry Goodkind, a great fantasy author who wrote the Sword of truth novels once wrote, 'Freedom, I decide my own fate'. It means people should have the right to decide what they want to do with their lives, not have it dictated to them by a person,  group, or entitty of people. this has a lot to do with anime because if SOPA passes how long before those in charge go after companies like FUNimation and ban all abnime because they can't control it. Who among you my fellow Kumoricon goers will join with me in saying no to a bill which would do too little to help us and give too much to a platry few? Who will goin me in saing NO to SOPA 3.0?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on September 21, 2013, 11:32:30 am
Okay, to give this thread some life I thought I'd post this here. i was reading Willamette Weekly the other day and i heard mention that the Oregon or Portland Government is considering giving the okay to the Hyatt company to build a hotel near the Convention Center so as to give the palce some life.
Now on this subject I'm actually of two minds.
Pro:
It would mmean the convention center would get a lot more people and it would mean conventionm goers would have a place to go and rest after a hard day of convention goings on. It would definitely put Kumoricon one step closer to being able to access the convention center without much diffuclty.
Con:
The biggest problem I see with the idea is two words: THE COST! how much is this going to cost the Oregon taxpayers because this economy let's face is not exactly in the best of shape, in afct this economy is horrible. And i don't like the idea of taxpayers being burdeebned with more than we already got.
 
Like I said, I'm of two minds about this. I'll open up the discussion now to everyone else and see what your thoughts are.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: fairly_foxy on September 22, 2013, 11:46:47 am
Animeman73: Ever heard the phrase: Spend money to make money?

Do you think the hotel would be for free? XD If it is near the convention center, everyone will want to go to that hotel to be near the convention. Think about how much money businesses around here make off Kumoricon not counting the hotels. When people are in a hotel, they spend money. They usually are eating out, buying snacks, souvenirs.

When was the last time you attended con but didn't spend more than the entry fee? The fact is, you don't. You go to eat at Subway or whatever, you buy at least one thing from con. Maybe you have dinner with your friends at a restaurant before or after. Get some ice cream. Did you have to get a hotel? More money there. Did you have to ride a train or a plane to get there? Yay! And what hotel do you most want to stay at? The one that con is near or happening in or the one a couple blocks down the road?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: JaegerDarkness on October 07, 2013, 06:23:49 pm
THE TEA PARTY REPUBLICANS NEED TO REMOVE THEIR HEADS FROM THEIR ***** AND END THE GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, BEFORE OUR COUNTRY REACHES THE FISCAL CLIFF AND GOES SAILING INTO OBLIVION!!!!!!! WHO'S WITH ME, ON THIS?! *is very angry*
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: fairly_foxy on October 07, 2013, 09:06:22 pm
They are going to make us default on all our debts and we will no longer be a world power. :( Our money won't be the world's money.... they will probably pick someone more responsible who pays their bills.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 08, 2013, 04:36:46 pm
You're welcomer to your opinion Otaku_24, however, I think there are some things you need to be made aware of. The Republicans both moderate and TEA Party did NOT want the shut down. In fact they did all could to prevent it. They sent over a  number of bills from the House to the Senate that would've kept the government running. Harry Reid actually didn't allow them to get voted on. As much as it grieves to say so, that's what really happened, The Democrats under Obama and Reid started the shut down.

And defunding Obamacare was and is  necessary and I'll explain why I think that way.

You see overall Obamacare I say without a moment's hesittation has some good ideas. In fact the first 20 pages of it is littered with reforms that in my own humble opnion should've been put in place a long time ago. The problem with it is the other 200 pages of uncessary rules, regulation, and taxation. Not to mention there's no entrepreneurial incentive in it. And having that would help drive costs down by creatinga controlled market environment where people could take their healthcare across state line and basically it would make the Government -funded HMOs compete with one another like any business. It's simple capitalism, compettition drives down costs, creattes more jobs, and makes companies strive to have better customer service so they can get repeat customers. Granted it stands to reason they shouldn't profit by making people msierable, there's a moral way and an immoral way to make money.  As it stands Obamcare is just a means for the CEO's of the Government-funded HMO to squeeze more money out of the people while maintaining their monopoly. Not to mention there are both Democrats and Republicans understand that a tax on medical equipment, like what they have in the ACA, will just drive up costs. Not to mention, since the Obamacare websites have gone up they've had more bugs than a bait store. Obamacare has ome good ideas, the problem is it has a lot more bad ideas. The proverbial devil is in the details.

It's just like my grandfather always taught me, "There's no such thing as a free lunch".  I understand you're frustrated Otaku_24. Trust me on this dude when I say nothing would make me happier than to go to DC find the leaders of both sides in in this and give them a good old-fashioned Leroy Jethro Gibbs headslap. But since I can't we'll just have to make due by writing our Senators, Congresman, and even the president to stop with the ideological bickering and "Get er' done." But believe me Otaku_24 I understand your frustration completely.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: JaegerDarkness on October 08, 2013, 05:33:21 pm
MY RESPONSE TO Animeman73;

Here's what I think should happen;
1. END THE ****ING GOVERNMENT SHUTDOWN, RIGHT NOW!!!!!!!!
2. Raise the debt ceiling, so America doesn't go to heck in a ham basket. (You likely know what I mean.)
3. Revamp Obamacare (keep the good ideas and scrap the bad ones).
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 08, 2013, 05:59:16 pm
1. I understand you want the shut down to end right now. Unfortunately, sometimes that easier said than done. Though it does make mewant to pull my hair out.
2. And I agree we should raise the debt ceiling and they will. We just need to put in some spending reductions.
3. Revamp Obamcare, You darn tootin' on that good buddy!
 
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 14, 2013, 08:44:52 am
Sorry to have to double post liek this. But i think all anime fans are going to want to see this. And all pokemon fans.

Well folks, as if there weren't enough reason why the whackjobs out there fear the power of anime here's one from the Twlight Zone that will make you laugh.  America's favorite animal rights whackjobs in PETA are at it again. This time they're accusing Nintendo of promoting animal creulty through a game they've put out called, Pokemon XY. PETA says that capturing Pokemon and "forcing" them to battle promotes animal cruelty. Now seeing as how I'd bet dollars to doughuts (or riceballs XDDD) none of them have ever seen Pokemon this statement is laughable at best.
 
 And mind you this is THE SAME PETA that believes that our favorite feline and canine pets are nothing more than slaves and that seeing eye dogs for the blind is another form of slavery. in short theeir ideas of what constitutes animal cruelty are dangerously generalized and vague. Don't get me wrong it's important that we treat our animals with respect and dignity. I would NEVER lay a hand on a cat, dog, or horse in anything other than to pet it or scratch it on an area of the neck or head it can't get to.
 
 So to PETA for insulting the intelligence of anime fans and Pokemon fans, as well as making one the most RIDICULOUS accusations of the year...THIS WTH AWARD IS FOR YOU!!!l
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on February 11, 2014, 12:16:54 pm
...has it really been this long since someone posted in here?

Oh, well.

Anyway, I'm mainly posting this question out of curiosity, thanks to a political cartoon.

It sounds like many Democratic voters are believing that Hilary Clinton will get the nod as their party's rep for the 2016 elections.  What if she doesn't want to go for it, or something keeps her from being a contender?  Do the donkeys have realistic options in the event that Hilary doesn't go for it?  I can see Joe Biden being a possible one, but of the few that I know of, I think Andrew Cuomo or Mark Warner could make strong contenders.

As a Republican, I can say that I'm not sure who will make a serious push for the White House.  What I can say is that I like these as possible nods:
Mitt Romney
Paul Ryan
John Kasich
Jon Huntsman
Peter King - I hear that he's already announced his bid
Sarah Palin
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on March 01, 2015, 06:40:27 pm
Okay it's been a while since anyone posted anything here so i thought I would put my fifty bits in. Now I realize that everyone has their perspective be they Liberal, Conservative, independent, Libertarian, or whatever. But we should recognize three things 1. No one side is evil all sides have their virtues and their flaws simple as that 2. We are all Americans, we were born in this country so therefore we are American citizens. 3. Violent radical Islam represents a threat to all of us. If you've been watching the news you know about all those innocent people whom ISIS has so brutally slaughtered. This strain of Islam represents a threat to the world because it seeks to create a caliphate in which they can tell everyone what they can and can't do and basically eliminate free will itself. This is the greatest challenge of our generation and one of the biggest threats to the world since the U.S.S.R. and Nazi Germany. The scariest thing is since these guys genuinely believe, because of their faith, that all Americans should be slaughtered they just don't give a (Cough, cough ahem) hoot. If we don't go after them you can bet any amount of money they'll come after us.

Why should it bother those of us who attend anime conventions, well allow me to explain. As I've said so often anime has a knack for questioning the status quo and getting people to think. And violent radical Islam doesn't believe that people should have the right to think for themselves. And also, for those of who attend anime conventions, have you seen how some of the females at anime conventions dress. If violent radicalized Muslims were to see that they'd have a conniption fit there and then. And the last thing I would ever want to see is an anime convention be attacked by a fanatical religious zealot because it doesn't coincide with their rather twisted view of the world. And violent radical Islam is just psycho enough to pull something like that.

Whether you're part of the staff of this convention, or just an attendee everyone here on this forum who just talks here or has bumped into me at the convention I consider all of you to be just awesome, and I don't want to see any of you have your lives snuffed out by these psychopaths. And for that matter I don't want to see them use their political branch to try and outlaw anime or anime conventions. But the fact of matters is we have an enemy out there that wants to destroy us along with killing/enslaving every man, woman, and child they can in the name of their radicalized twisted religion. But tell me is wrong to want to protect your family, your friends, everything you consider precious. If the answer is it's not wrong then understand this, violent radical Islam is a threat to everyone and must be stopped, for all our sakes. And that's my thoughts.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on March 05, 2015, 08:58:19 pm
^

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fmrwgifs.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F05%2FMegara-Clapping-Gif-In-Disneys-Hercules.gif)

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwhatistheexcel.com%2Fwooobooru%2F_images%2F590214df4f2788966b6ec331e7fb6889%2F620%2520-%2520chris_jericho%2520clapping%2520gif%2520wwe.gif%3F)

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sharegif.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2014%2F01%2Ftumblr_ml87q0tkrp1re3x32o1_.gif)

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fimages.t-nation.com%2Fforum_images%2F5%2Fa%2F5a30a_ORIG-clapping_gif3.gif)

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2F38.media.tumblr.com%2Ftumblr_lx6ttwhgPS1r9x0sdo1_500.gif)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on March 25, 2015, 06:59:16 am
But the fact of matters is we have an enemy out there that wants to destroy us along with killing/enslaving every man, woman, and child they can in the name of their radicalized twisted religion.
Oh, and don't forget: they hang people and also throw people off buildings to to fall to their deaths, just for being ACCUSED (by others) of being gay...
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Flh5.googleusercontent.com%2Fjh5sciBLYlrWd7rEP29k72O3snDP-4f9FnpDmMsPOoA5eAnv8bL-f1KgDEm8OfrkNgCXv2nRiAnsE3jq7nBqsu7AmCQ8lsTQkR4B9d9ryhNWeSrmoVWV)
http://www.hyperink.com/Progay-Equals-Antisharia-bCF17D59844a13
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on March 27, 2015, 07:30:10 pm
Ah yes, a very despicable act which proves my point. And everyone you might want to read this. It's another example of just how despicable ISIS is.

http://www.newschannel10.com/story/28603897/isis-releases-kill-list-seven-texas-cities-included#.VRL7r5VEM-U.facebook (http://www.newschannel10.com/story/28603897/isis-releases-kill-list-seven-texas-cities-included#.VRL7r5VEM-U.facebook)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: JaegerDarkness on March 06, 2016, 09:08:42 pm
So, it's been quite a long while since the last post.

Assuming Hiliary Cilnton and Donald Trump make it to the November election, who would you vote for?

Personally, I'd vote for Hiliary. Just don't mention the email scandal, unless you want me to throw a trashcan at you, or destroy your billiard table.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on March 07, 2016, 08:57:08 am
Just don't mention the email scandal, unless you want me to throw a trashcan at you, or destroy your billiard table.

OK, instead I'll mention Whitewater, the Vincent Foster murder, shady cattle futures deals, shredding documents at the Rose law firm, falsely claiming to have been sniped at, and the double standard whereby supposed feminists have to stand by a woman who knew her husband was diddling or harassing a number of younger vulnerable women, then using her legal assets to threaten and suppress the women who tried to come forward.

If it came down to H vs Trump, I'd VERY RELUCTANTLY have to go for Trump. Hillary has said many times that she'll be attacking gun rights. I'm a machinegun collector. The transfer tax on a machinegun is $200. She said she wants to raise it to $10,000, and raise other FFL fees to $2500. So, duh, would I vote for that?

Trump's "touch back" proposal is EXACTLY what I had to do to get my resident alien / work permit in Japan. After working a short while, we had to leave Japan ONE MORE TIME, go to a Japanese consulate (we went to S. Korea - it was closest) and fill out my paperwork, then re-enter Japan. The system worked.

I also agree with Trump's proposal that the way to solve the various migrant crises is to get them to build safe spaces in their own countries. No one else can do that for them (which means USA shouldn't be wasting money trying.)

Trump scares me A LOT because he seems to think (like the current white house resident) that he will get to RULE, rather than LEAD. But the fact that he comes from any other background than lawyering is interesting. That's what I also liked about Ben Carson, until he started being a space-case on the campaign trail and flamed out.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: JaegerDarkness on March 07, 2016, 01:53:43 pm
Just don't mention the email scandal, unless you want me to throw a trashcan at you, or destroy your billiard table.
OK, instead I'll mention Whitewater, the Vincent Foster murder, shady cattle futures deals, shredding documents at the Rose law firm, falsely claiming to have been sniped at, and the double standard whereby supposed feminists have to stand by a woman who knew her husband was diddling or harassing a number of younger vulnerable women, then using her legal assets to threaten and suppress the women who tried to come forward.
*destroys your billiard table anyway* ****, I forgot about those other scandals. *headdesk* Donald Trump is WAY too scary for me to vote for him. But, I'd hate for you to be unable to "cheaply" build up your machine gun collection.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on March 18, 2016, 09:18:18 pm
I'm choosing to vote for Donald Trump myself. Okay i admit Trump is cuddly as a cactus, he's said things that make me go "huh", and he does have a few ideas I have, in terms of logistics, a problem with. Hillary is simply dishonest, she'll say anything. Not to mention there's something about her attitude towards people that grates at my nerves.

Not only that but the Democrats have been taken over by the Regressive Left. I've watched videos by people such as Sargon of Akkad, Undoomed, Thunderf00t, who are part of YouTube's growing pro-freedom movement, as well as the very witty Top Hats and Champagne. See who the Democrats are supporting these days organizations such as Black Lives Matter a known anti-cop group with some very nasty ideas and even nastier member,a  judgement based solely on content of character.

but the fact of matters is this. 1. Trump knows how to wheel and deal, 2. Trump hasn't been bought by any special interest groups and that scares the bejeezus out of a lot of extremists on both the far-left and far-right. 3. Trump actually wants to do something about our economy and illegal immigration problem as well as ISIS and he can actually get things done. 4. The GOP establishment have had 8 years to at least TRY and do something about our problems and they have not lifted a finger to do so.

Now in fairness do i think Trump is a saint and everything he says is right...NO! As I said there are a few things I disagree with him on. But I think in terms of pragmatism better him than Hillary.Hillary is not going to do anything because she's a Manchurian candidate for big corporations. Otherwise we'll have another four to eight years of incessant whining dividing and complaining. And i for one think it's about time to set aside the rubbish and, as Larry the Cable Guy would best put it, "Get er' done."

_Blasts trash cans with ki blasts- And please let's not have any trash can throwing that's very uncivilized.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on March 19, 2016, 08:11:49 am
Sorry to double post like this but something interesting came up. While watching the YouTube videos of a young New York city Liberal named Chris Ray Gun, I came across some fascinating information that provides another good reason not to vote for Hillary but instead vote for Trump. Many people on the Kumoricon forums as well as being anime fans are also gamers (people who play video games). Hillary Clinton, not so long ago, was one of those who attempted to go after video under the premise that they make poepl more violent. And there have been ample numbers of scientific studies since then that shows there's no correlation between violent behavior in people and video games, nor is there any correlation between people being sexist, and video games.

Hillary Clinton is part of a small but very nasty moemnt called cultural authoritarianism. Now consider this...if she becomes president what's to say she won't go after video games again. When it comes to control one thing I've leanred about rhe Regressive Left they don't give up so easily.

On a side note something we all might find interesting. The late Supreme Court Judge Anton Scalia (I hope I spelled that right) actually stood up for video games. That's right a conservative-minded constitutionalist judge stood up for video games as a form of art. Just something to think on everyone.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: JaegerDarkness on June 07, 2016, 03:28:34 pm
For those of you who want Donald Trump to be the next President, I give you a video, that MIGHT change your mind.

http://youtu.be/Lc-fGYnV4Rw

*dives into a spider hole*
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on June 07, 2016, 10:56:43 pm
Interesting video Otaku_24. I will see that video and i will raise you.

We'll start off with a man who's quickly becoming a  darling in conservative circles and is openly gay. Here is Milo Yiannopoulos on the Rubin report:

https://youtu.be/Fely6gd2Q-k (https://youtu.be/Fely6gd2Q-k)

Secondly this:

https://youtu.be/BuiW_Jagl4U (https://youtu.be/BuiW_Jagl4U)

And now for my own opinion. Contrary to what you may have heard on mainstream media Donald Trump is not a racist, he's not sexist, he's not a homophobe. He's not a racist becasue he's married to a Central European woman in his current wife. He's not a sexist because his daughter Ivanka loves her father and genuinely respects him, as he does her (And the same goes for his sons too.). Also Ben Carson and Herman Cain two black conservatives are in support of him which says a lot. Milo Yiannopoulos a gay conservative supports Trump.

Now it is true Trump does at times say stupid things, he can be a bit ornery sometimes. But the thing is he's growing and he's learning at an impressive rate. Trump is a very smart man who has built a number of top ate businesses. As for the comments that he had 4 businesses go under, my response is 4 businesses out of how many? Trump has multiple businesses that are doing extraordinarily well. Business in the private sector is a dice roll not everything is going to work out no mater how good you are. That's just how life is.

Donald Trump has a knack for knowing a bad deal and how to improve things. The fact of matters is Obama has made some abhorrent deals with Iran, with CAFTA and other things. Trump would take those deals and fix them because he's the master of wheel and deal. One of the biggest reasons to vote for Trump is, in my humble opinion, this is a man who is controlled by neither the left nor the right. Neither is he controlled by ideology the way Bernie Sanders is. Ideologues from both poltical factions have been running this country for too long, and for too long they've given us a big plate full...of absolutely nothing.We need someone from outside the political establishment who knows how things work.

What Trump is simply put is practical and balanced. He knows about the crud that's going on in this country and I believe he can fix a lot of it. That includes building that wall along our Southern borders to keep the Mexican Drug Cartels out and make it so any new immigrants have to go through the main gate. This is as much for the protection of the immigrants so they don't break our laws or end up as nothing more than cheap labor for big Corporations. And before anyone shouts. "Oh yeah, what if the Cartels decide to dig beneath the walls?" well that might be effective however if say a web of seismographs were put up around the wall that would make a difference. You see even the most quiet of drilling equipment makes a certain seismic vibration and seismographs are very sensitive. If we were to place them on our side of the wall and in places where the power couldn't be cut without someone noticing that would make things all the harder. Chalk one up for the science, chalk one up for technology!

We need Donald Trump as President because we need to get our respect back we need to secure our borders, get our economy going again, and we need to start kicking the tail of ISIS and violent radical Islam because they're still out there waiting for us. And if you've read my comments where violent Radical Islam is concerned you know my thoughts. And there are other reasons for Donald Trump to be president but I'm not going into them right now because it would take too long and this post is really long as is.

This concludes my thoughts. I hope I've come across as reasonable and logical, Otaku_24. And do please come out of the spider hole I promise I won't bite your head off, now if someone were to bully you while you were in cosplay I'd happily bite their head off! No disrespect here Otaku_24.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: JaegerDarkness on July 15, 2016, 09:36:21 pm
Donald Trump sucks and is an untrustworthy liar. Yesterday, in light of the terrorist attack in Nice, he tweeted that he was postponing his announcement of who he selected to be his Vice President. Fast forward, to today and he makes his announcement anyway (albeit on social media). I DO NOT TRUST DONALD TRUMP AT ALL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on July 16, 2016, 08:45:54 pm
Um...he postponed it out of respect for what happened in France. And well alternative media has become the new norm in this age of the Internet. What's so wrong with using the Internet to make his announcement. He's just making use of what's there. Bill Clinton did the same with his economic plan back in the 90's when the Internet was just getting off the ground.

Hillary has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that she's a liar, and she should've been convicted but there were dirty dealings behind the scenes. that's the only reason she got let off Scott free. Most anyone else who would've been in that situation with those E-mails would've been crucified. The system is rigged all right, rigged by the very same people who claim it is. Quite the hypocrisy there.

And with all due respect..I don't think Gary Johnson is going to do all that well. If some people want to vote for him that's their business. But whether you like Trump or not. He's our best bet for getting this country back on track, secure our borders,  taking ISIS down, and defeating the Regressive Left.
Title: Hillary Campaign Multiple Bank Withdrawal Scam
Post by: Prinz Eugen on September 16, 2016, 07:28:08 am
Are we AT ALL surprised:
http://observer.com/2016/09/exclusive-hillary-clinton-campaign-systematically-overcharging-poorest-donors/


(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Fnyoobserver.files.wordpress.com%2F2016%2F09%2Fimg_0511.jpg%3Fquality%3D80%26amp%3Bw%3D600)


PayPal also used to try this bologna on people. They'd profile for those least likely to be able to afford an attorney,
and delay, reduce, or omit payments owed. Then NY State AG gave them a $100K slapping.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Yu on September 20, 2016, 09:54:52 pm
I've been a gamer since before many gamers were born today. I love my videogames but not more than the welfare of an entire country, it's citizens and via international relations; the world.


Under normal circumstances I would never, ever suggest that anyone not have the right to vote but, well, anyone who thinks that thier videogames are more important than the rest of the world shouldn't be able to vote.


Not because I don't agree with thier opinions but because anyone like that has no concept of realiity to an alarming degree. People like that are dangerous, and, most likely, have no stake in anything that happens to the outside world.
I confess that I know many people like this. I don't feel any contempt or hatred for them more like..when they start trying to debate politics I just pat them on the head like a small child trying to get in on adult discussion to feel like a grown up. Just kind of..."this doesn't concern you, why are talking about it?" Not even in a condescending way but I feel like they only need thier stable jobs and videogame consoles. J'd appreciate it if they would not ruin it for those of us who have real stakes in what happens to the outside world."


Oh, and one quick PSA: if your response to someones concern over violence in games is to join a group which responds to everything with rape/murder threats  and general outrage you aren't helping the majority of us decent gamers.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 04, 2016, 08:05:16 pm
Okay, folks, gather round it's time for an Animeman73 memo.

Whatever your political beliefs are, the fact of matters is the next four years no matter who wins are going to be rough and only time will see who wins the presidential race and who doesn't. We all have our ways of thinking and believe it or not I'm not about to start forcing my beliefs down other people's throats. Because well...free speech and free will for everyone, no receptions! And truth told all this bickering on both sides is wearing me down as wellas  many of you out there.

I would ask one thing though...let's leave the politics and all the daily life drama stuff out of Kumoricon. We are going to attend this convention to have fun. And the staff and volunteers here work their rears off to make it all work. I know something about volunteer work because I volunteered a my local library for a year before I got my current job. Let's show these hard working guys and gals some love and appreciation by leaving the politics , the whole Dub Vs. Sub, Fan wars, cosplay wars out of it. We are united by our love of anime regardless of what side of the political spectrum we're on, no matter what color of skin we are, no matter what gender we are, no matter what our...romantic preferences are. We are united by our love of this amazing craftt known as Japanese animation or anime for short.

So let's go there to meet some great voice and artistic talent and to generally have a  good time. Let's leave all the drama behind. "Don't worry, be happy!"

And that's a memo.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on October 04, 2016, 10:07:07 pm
OK, so somebody needs to do a Cosplay of Ichiya from Fairy Tail, albeit with Trump-ish overtones:

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fi.skyrock.net%2F4238%2F87434238%2Fpics%2F3266384744_1_5_hjpKIcI2.jpg)


And then someone else can do Claire from the older anime Claymore, but when she's losing it and trying to prevent turning into a Hillary (or a Yoma.)
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2F4.bp.blogspot.com%2F-aJ5EKxPlSnA%2FUVA42uzH2qI%2FAAAAAAAAAcg%2FDxbZ40Ul8aU%2Fs400%2Fclaymore6100.jpg)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Tcbyogurt on October 08, 2016, 09:41:15 pm
My peers say voting for the third party is like throwing your vote away... Is that really so? Like they say it is truly Hillary vs Trump ... Say out of 100 votes, 20 vote third party, 41 vote Hillary and 39 vote Trump. Those 20 to the third party could have swayed the results... Is it like that?
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on October 10, 2016, 08:32:51 pm
At this current time, a vote for a 3rd party is a vote for Hillary.
This article makes an interesting point.
Trump is a vulgar charlatan, and Hillary is a shrewd, power-hungry Machievellian statist.
She would have been great working for Stalin - locking up those 'deplorables' into train cars for Siberia...


The writer (to me) says:

"Here's a perspective that I think makes a great deal of sense - quite apart from any ideological
considerations of the candidates' or your own, or the suitability of either candidate for the office, this one element pretty much gets it all to the bank, in my opinion. I know whichcourse I would choose, as a voter, if I didn't live in Oregon."[name]Forwarded from the Oregon Mensa list:<http://datechguyblog.com/2016/10/08/i-double-down-and-re-endorse-donald-trump-for-president-of-the-united-states/ (http://datechguyblog.com/2016/10/08/i-double-down-and-re-endorse-donald-trump-for-president-of-the-united-states/)>


If we concede that Donald Trump’s character is bad, would it be better for the country to have a[/size] president of poor character who will be under intense scrutiny by the press, pols and law[/size] enforcement agencies (Trump) or to have a president of poor character who will be given a pass[/size] and or defended by the press, the pols and apparently the FBI regardless of what she says or does[/size] (Hillary.)



Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 17, 2016, 06:53:10 pm
Hey, everyone, I have some information for you. As many of you know we live in turbulent times and well...the mainstream media these days has a knack of muddying up the waters quite a bit. Well, I'm proud to say...there's a solution. On YouTube there's a channel called the Rubin report hosted by one Dave Rubin, they interview all sorts of people Liberals, Conservatives, Libertarians, and Independents.  Th beauty about this is it's completely independent, no major networks are involved in this. if you're looking for honest talk about difficult subjexts in a respectable fashion, as well as discussing viable solutions then you should definitely check out, the Rubin Report.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on October 18, 2016, 01:57:32 pm
Got one of them bastards!


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-dem-fired-for-bragging-about-staging-violence-at-trump-rallies/article/2604861


DNC connected with violence at Trup rallies.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 21, 2016, 05:40:13 pm
Got one of them bastards!


http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-dem-fired-for-bragging-about-staging-violence-at-trump-rallies/article/2604861 (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/report-dem-fired-for-bragging-about-staging-violence-at-trump-rallies/article/2604861)


DNC connected with violence at Trump rallies.

I heard about that, and this is a reminder that my decision to change from Democrat to Republican was the right choice. Good greief the level of corruption in my old party is absolutely disgusting.
Title: Scott Adams (creator of 'Dilbert') Endorses Trump
Post by: Prinz Eugen on October 27, 2016, 10:12:31 am
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party


Simply because it's time to oppose the real bullies.
The safe-space bullies. The anti-free-speech bullies.
The enviro-fascist-bullies.


VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM THE BULLIES.


- - - -



.."the socialist pretends to have glimpsed paradise on earth. Those
who decline the invitation to embrace the vision are not just
ungrateful; they are traitors to the cause of human perfection.


Dissent is therefore not mere disagreement but treachery. Treachery
is properly met not with arguments but (as circumstances permit)
the guillotine, the concentration camp, the purge."


Roger Kimball
Title: Re: Scott Adams (creator of 'Dilbert') Endorses Trump
Post by: Animeman73 on October 27, 2016, 11:24:11 am
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152293480726/the-bully-party)


Simply because it's time to oppose the real bullies.
The safe-space bullies. The anti-free-speech bullies.
The enviro-fascist-bullies.


VOTE FOR YOUR FREEDOM AND INDEPENDENCE FROM THE BULLIES.


- - - -



.."the socialist pretends to have glimpsed paradise on earth. Those
who decline the invitation to embrace the vision are not just
ungrateful; they are traitors to the cause of human perfection.


Dissent is therefore not mere disagreement but treachery. Treachery
is properly met not with arguments but (as circumstances permit)
the guillotine, the concentration camp, the purge."


Roger Kimball

As a certain wascally wabbit best put it, "Aint' it the  truth"
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: BlackjackGabbiani on November 01, 2016, 03:20:24 pm
I've been a gamer since before many gamers were born today. I love my videogames but not more than the welfare of an entire country, it's citizens and via international relations; the world.


Under normal circumstances I would never, ever suggest that anyone not have the right to vote but, well, anyone who thinks that thier videogames are more important than the rest of the world shouldn't be able to vote.


Not because I don't agree with thier opinions but because anyone like that has no concept of realiity to an alarming degree. People like that are dangerous, and, most likely, have no stake in anything that happens to the outside world.
I confess that I know many people like this. I don't feel any contempt or hatred for them more like..when they start trying to debate politics I just pat them on the head like a small child trying to get in on adult discussion to feel like a grown up. Just kind of..."this doesn't concern you, why are talking about it?" Not even in a condescending way but I feel like they only need thier stable jobs and videogame consoles. J'd appreciate it if they would not ruin it for those of us who have real stakes in what happens to the outside world."


Oh, and one quick PSA: if your response to someones concern over violence in games is to join a group which responds to everything with rape/murder threats  and general outrage you aren't helping the majority of us decent gamers.


If this is about how Clinton led the charge against GTA, it does go far beyond "just games". It shows that a major political figure is pro-censorship, and the issue is being ignored BECAUSE it manifested about games. They need to be taken seriously like any other form of media, and if this had been about a book or a movie or a tv show, it would receive far more attention.



On another note, what's seriously grossed me out this time is that people are insistent to the point of literally ending friendships that we should only vote for the main two parties. Never mind that adherence to the two party system is what got us in this mess to begin with. And they blame Nader for Gore's loss in 2000, which is just plain factually false. There are excuses made every year to harass third party voters and this year it's just gotten worse. Yet the two main candidates are a war criminal and a bigoted rapist, and people violently insist that we have to pick one of those. Voting for who you believe is the best suited for the job is the backbone of democracy. Compromising our beliefs and voting for a candidate we can't fully support flies in the face of democracy itself.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on November 03, 2016, 03:02:24 pm
Voting for who you believe is the best suited for the job is the backbone of democracy. Compromising our beliefs and voting for a candidate we can't fully support flies in the face of democracy itself.


I think that that might work as long as the electorate is choosing a person they *like* form among a pool of candidates.


Unfortunately, the last time the electrate went in with that emotion would have been either 1976, 1980.
After that, as Scott Adams' blog most recently (http://blog.dilbert.com/post/152685424531) posted, it's been about stopping that which is the most feared.


Let's see:


1976: After the Watergate fumble forced Nixon to resign and Squishy Nothingburger Gerald Ford was sworn in, people did NOT vote for the republicans. We get Carter.


1980: After 4 years of liberal, wussiness and the 'malaise' speech, 18% inflation and a 444-day ordeal of American hostages, we picked Reagan because we were sick of liberal weakness abroad.


1984: Did anyone really like Walter Mondale? (And don't forget veep candidate Geraldine Ferraro.) No. Meanwhile, the evangelical conservatives of that day were ticked off at Regan for not restoring school prayer and not effectively fighting/repealing Roe V Wade. So we voted Whack-A-Mondale and were stuck with Reagan again.


1988: I'm from Massachusetts. Against Reagan, the powerhouse who went on to become one of the three figures to take down Soviet Communism in 1989 (Pope John Paul II and Margaret Thatcher - I have no problem with women in power. Also Golda Meir.) Michael Dukakis was another wuss-boy. He tried to man-up by being filmed in a tank, but it made him only look as tough as Pajama Boy, and it showed:


So we didn't really like Empty-suit, "Read my lips" Geo. H.W. Bush but that who we go stuck with.


1992:  H Ross Perot split the conservative vote and siphoned it off from Useless Bush, and we get stuck with Clinton, with the larger part of Americans having voted for someone else. Clinton attacks our gun rights, sells our missile secrets to China, fools around because he's married to a harridan from Wellesley College. Hillary starts legally threatening Bill Clinton's victims.


1996: the Republican Establishment throw another nothingburger Bob Dole to their conservative base. It fails, and we're stuck with Clinton.


2000: Coke-head The Shrub (G.W. Bush) vs the envirofascist nut-job who must be stopped at all costs: Al "Captain Ozone" Gore.
We save America for a little longer by dangling Ralph Nader the Corsair crash dummy in front of the real hardcore green leftist commies and split the leftist votes just like the Perot factor.
It does get funny that after losing, Gore gets snowed out of a number of speeches about global warming.


2004: We end up stuck with more GW Bush because nobody likes John Kerry.


2008: We end up with The Zero because McCain is a wuss-boy on illegal immigration, backstabbing real conservatives who are champing at the bit to control the problem.
Normal Americans who will later become Hillary's 'deplorables' are disoriented and cheezed-off at having to hear "Press 1 for English." But G.W. Bush, having married into the enemy camp, tries to backstab American workers with amnesty, even though we were *promised* no amnestry after the final one of 1987.


2012. Enough Americans stayed home rather than vote for Romney the elitist, America-destroying, out-of-touch capitalist pig who made his money with Bain Capital buying up American companies where much of the work required some brain skill plus upper-body strength - steel mills, tire factories, etc - mostly white workers with no college degrees.)  So were were still stuck with the Zero and his rudderless foreign policy and failing to close Gitmo like he promissed


2016: Who do we get? One  guy is half P.T. Barnum and half Hugh Hefner.
The other choice is Hell on Earth from Start Trek OST, 2nd Season Ep 8:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ag1EbxYKh_4
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=https%3A%2F%2Ftse1.mm.bing.net%2Fth%3F%26amp%3Bid%3DOIP.M00d3f7471b192a7d2c75e7bc8770c6fao1%26amp%3Bw%3D299%26amp%3Bh%3D242%26amp%3Bc%3D0%26amp%3Bpid%3D1.9%26amp%3Brs%3D0%26amp%3Bp%3D0%26amp%3Br%3D0)


This actress who played 'Stella' had Hillary's demeanor and voice down PERFECTLY.


Edit: the picture links failed to show up; I'll work on them later.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Yu on November 06, 2016, 03:12:10 pm
 Zero for Pres you say?


http://zeroescape.wikia.com/wiki/Akane_Kurashiki?file=AkaneVLR.png

http://zeroescape.wikia.com/wiki/File:ZeroCane.png

I would totally vote for them!

Their combined psychic powers we would be Omnipotent, so there goes the need for the CIA FBI TSA NSA ect. Think the war in the Mideast is unwinnable and our soldiers are merely cannon fodder? Me too! But who cares when you have an endless supply of militant clones ( who are obnoxious dicks) so it's no loss. Hell, we could them for everything we don't want to do like dangerous construction projects and medical research and even if they did get angry and rebel their too stupid to be successful on their own...oh and
... the Medical advancements under Cradle? Oh it would be a great world indeed.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on November 07, 2016, 10:01:40 am
No, I meant the zero-shaped Obama logo.

(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthepeoplescube.com%2Fimages%2FSunset_Obama.jpg)

"...and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."  Samual Adams
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Yu on November 08, 2016, 08:20:37 am
No, I meant the zero-shaped Obama logo.

....No ****. I was making a joke.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: JaegerDarkness on November 10, 2016, 09:39:53 pm
As much, as I hate Donald Trump, I wish him the best of luck in reuniting a fractured country. Also, peaceful protests are one thing, but the violence MUST stop, before someone is seriously injured or killed.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 12, 2016, 11:08:17 am
Holy jumpin' Jahosephat! I was expecting many things from this election. But nothing, absolutely nothing, could've prepared me for the glaring the emphatic way that Trump absolutely defeated Hillary Clinton. Now admittedly Trump's victory wasn't exactly a landslide but it was pretty much the next best thing. And words cannot begin to describe how relieved I am that it's over and Trump got the victory. Not only that but now the Republicans have control of the House and Senate, they have the ability to do some real good. And considering that the American electorate and the people will be watching they're going to have to do their job. Add to that the fact that Trump is the master of wheel and deal and there's the potential to get a lot done.

While I am admit I am enjoying this I'm not exactly gloating. I still have my writer's quota and various other projects to work on. So much to do, but that's just life for you. But since then people have been coming out protesting the fact that Trump won the election fair and square. One protestor who was interviewed by Neil Cavuto said they wanted Trump to "Go away!"
 The irony of it all is those who are protesting in the streets didn't vote. They just assumed Hillary Clinton would win, and there's an old saying that one should know what the real meaning of assume is. The thing is, where was the outrage when Hillary stole the primary from Bernie Sanders. Now I'll be the first to say I'm not a Bernie supporter, but the fact remains he got swindled in the Democratic primary.

Still, to those who say that Bernie should've been on the ticket because he would've won it, uh...I have to disagree there. Why is that? 1. I took a good long look at what Bernie Sanders wanted to do and to be bluntly frank he never laid out how he was going to pay for all that free stuff he was advocating for. And if there's one thing life has taught me it's that there's no such thing as a free lunch. Somebody pays somewhere. And with all the free stuff Bernie was advocating for it most likely would've come out of taxpayers, and the fact of matters is taxpayers are already stretched as is. 2. Remember Venezuela that country Bernie said was the gold standard for what he wanted to do for the U.S? Well earlier this year it's economy actually collapsed. The Soviet Union's collapse historically and Venezuela's economic collapse reminded us of this simple yet monumental truth. Socialism/Communism doesn't work, Marx got it wrong! So Bernie wouldn't have won the election because his ideas were disastrously wrong for this country.

Now another fear people have is that Trump is going to overturn Roe vs. Wade. Um....no, just no! It's not going to happen! Why is that? Because 50% of Republican women, that's right you heard me, Republican women are for Roe Vs. Wade remaining the law of the land. Simply because when it boils down to it sometimes bad things happen to good people, and there need to be options for if and when that happens. Besides which, currently we have more important things to worry about than Roe vs. Wade. So, no, Roe vs. Wade will not be overturned! Just relax it's simply not going to happen!

Trump/Pence are going to end Gay marriage. Again um...no, just no! The fact of matters is Donald Trump has basically given the Republican party a good swift kick and the rear and then proceeded to shake it up like a vodka martini.  Because of this we have people like Milo Yiannopolous the openly gay and fabulous mayhem-raising conservative, and people like Peter Thiel (I hope I spelled that right) one of the founders of Paypal and an openly gay Republican coming out of the closet.  Thereby disproving the stereotype that Republicans are homophobic. The Republican party has become more diverse and unique. And then you have Caitlin Jenner who's revealed he/she is a Republican that's just fact. And then you have organizations such as Log Cabin Conservatives a support group for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender Republicans and Conservatives.

This is all part of something that Dave Rubin of the Rubin report talked about. There's a political realignment that's been taking place. It's pitting classical Liberals (Such as myself), Conservatives, and Libertarians against what's been dubbed "The Regressive Left". The Regressive Left are practitioners of a system called Neo-Progressivism. YouTube commentator Sargon of Akkad actually did a couple of very interesting videos on this subject. i think you might want to check them out along with his video on the cult mentality as I think you'll find Sargon of Akkad's videos quite enlightening.

While we're talking about the Regressive Left, the biggest reasons they and the Democrats lost this election are these at least from my humble standpoint. 1. The Regressive Left fell victim to the old adage of Frederich Nietzsche, "Those who fight the monsters should see they do not become one. When you gaze into the abyss, the abyss gazes into you". Having won the culture war and sending the radical zealots of the far-right running for cover the Left started to become the very same monster they claimed to hate. They became more authoritarian. 2. Keeping with reason 1 it's a well known fact the American people have authority figure issues, especially bullying authority figure types. We Americans don't like being told what we can and can't do, think, say, feel, believe, or even eat. That's something people should decide for themselves "Free speech and free will for everyone, no exceptions". 3. The fact of matters is the ivory towers of higher education have been corrupted by this far-left ideology which is allowing for some very bad very hypocritical Marxist professors to have tenure and brainwash students into entitled, vicious, mean, and nasty monsters. Now I know for a fact not all Millennials are this way. I know most Millennials are actually really nice and decent people who just want to live their lives in the American way. Sargon of Akkad actually recently had a petition that was being passed around on Change.org asking that Social Justice for the humanities courses be suspended from our Universities, not eliminated, suspended. That way they can be investigated to see what works, what can be tweaked, and what is genuinely harmful to the students.  College should be about expanding your horizons, your mind, and getting the skills needed to go out and get a job in the workplace. And as it stands these social justice courses are harming what is supposed to be a free marketplace of ideas.  In the case of suspending these courses this is something i actually agree with because it's doing some real harm to the next generation. And I genuinely believe the Millennials and the generation to come have a great deal of whet I call "Unlimited potential for greatness".

In closing I genuinely believe the election of Donald Trump is a chance to start things over and this time get things right so we can create a better America so that everyone can have a chance to unlock his or her potential regardless of who they are. And for those in the Regressive Left, there's a place for you at this table of discussion. But understand there are going to be certain rules that MUST be obeyed. For starters no calling anyone racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic or any Tumblr-ism just because they have a different point of view. That attitude is part of how we got into this mess in the first place. Different perspectives are how we learn and grow as a people. Liberals aren't always right on everything and neither are Conservatives. Both sides have good and bad ideas.
Libertarians there's a place for you and Independents at this table as well. As Americans we want everyone coming to the proverbial table in good faith, to give us their ideas in a civil fashion. Name-calling, stamping feet, throwing temper tantrums, and labels isn't going to cut it anymore. The election of Donald Trump means it's time for this country to heal. We can still have fun and enjoy life but it's also time for all of us (me included) to start behaving like adults and discussing things in an adult manner. That's part of how we're going to make America great again.

Coming soon, I'm going to be talking about why dismantling the Electoral College is a terrible idea. This concludes my thoughts thank you for you time.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on November 12, 2016, 01:31:58 pm
... the violence MUST stop, before someone is seriously injured or killed.
I don't consider myself a conspiracy theorist, but does anyone know whether the violent vandals are being keyed by outer forces to flash-mob within the protests,
to make peaceful dissenters look bad?
This sort of stuff was tried at Tea Party gatherings - people showing up with misspelled signs, racist slogans, and iirc one noodnick shoed up at a rally in a Confederate uniform. The Tea Party adapted rapidly with "NOT WITH US" signs and arrows to call out out these agitators.
Maybe the same could be done by the dissenters - cluster around the violent protestors with signs and arrows so that the visual message is filled with "THESE A***OLES ARE NO PART OF OUR MESSAGE." 
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on November 12, 2016, 02:45:26 pm
Hey, so if Trump is so anti-woman, did anyone notice how just like in his private organizations, he placed women into HIGH positions of power, influence, and responsibility in his campaign structure?


Dilbert creator Scott Adams:
http://blog.dilbert.com/post/153040338656/while-you-were-looking-in-the-wrong-direction
"Trump succeeded in large part because of three brilliant, super-tough, ultra-effective women: KellyAnne Conway, Katrina Pierson, and Ivanka Trump. If you cried on election day because it was a bad day for women, perhaps you were looking in the wrong direction."
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on November 14, 2016, 07:07:44 pm
As much, as I hate Donald Trump, [...], but the violence MUST stop, before someone is seriously injured or killed.
He just said so ("Stop it!") in an interview with Lesley Stahl on 60 Minutes, yesterday (Sunday, 13-Nov-16)

AND he also said he has no problem with gay marriage, but wants to let the states work it out.
That way, in our divided nation we will have up to 50 different combinations of choices for where people can live and work and feel least the irritated by the ways that government impinges on local cultural preferences. Isn't that the way things are supposed to work out? So you can move to where you can find people you like hanging out with? Hint: Great book called "The Big Sort" by Bill Bishop.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on November 17, 2016, 11:31:15 am
Well, folks, I made a promise that I would talk about why dismantling the Electoral College is a bad idea, and I mean to deliver on that promise. But rather than just talk your ear off about it I'll show you what the Electoral College is and why it's better than the popular. And I'll do so with the help of Prager University. (And to the Kumoricon staff, don't worry. Everything on the Prager University YouTube site is completely tasteful).  Anyway here's my argument summed up by these Prager University videos.

What is the Electoral College:
https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU (https://youtu.be/V6s7jB6-GoU)

The Popular Vote vs. The Electoral College:
https://youtu.be/LXnjGD7j2B0 (https://youtu.be/LXnjGD7j2B0)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on December 07, 2016, 03:54:29 pm
Well, folks, I made a promise that i would talk about why dismantling the Electoral College is a bad idea, and I mean to deliver on that promise.


Because in this particular case, 57 urban, city-think Clinton counties would overrule the 'pursuit of happiness" on 3084 rural counties.
Hint: Urban culture is where cans and bottles are for recycling. Rural counties are where cans and bottles are for plinking.

Edit: Final tally is 2626 counties for Trump, 515 counties for The Lost Abuela.
Still the same point, though.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on January 25, 2017, 06:20:50 am
(https://www.kumoricon.org/apps/image_proxy/image_proxy.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fthepeoplescube.com%2Fimages%2FWings_Broken_Government_600.jpg)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on March 07, 2017, 06:43:53 pm
FUN PARODY VIDEO! Political, one-sided, yeah, too bad: we had 8 years of destroying our culture; now it's our turn to repel, deport, and rebuild. Maybe we'll even build our own rockets and space ships again. Remember when we used to that?
(Hah. Most people on this list weren't even born when we last lead the the world in space exploration...)


I also remember this: https://www.kumoricon.org/forums/index.php?topic=9276.msg374326#msg374326 (https://www.kumoricon.org/forums/index.php?topic=9276.msg374326#msg374326)
(Nothing personal, this is only an example.)
Back then I was set an example for how little to care about the other side.

Obama was NOT MY PRESIDENT. To me he was always The Zero, like his logo.
To him and his family I borrow a line from a founding American patriot (and a darn good brewer) Samuel Adams:
"...[G]o home from us in peace, ... and may posterity forget that ye were [ever] our countrymen.”
THAT's how you sign off from Obama. That is the send-off he deserves.


Rant off for now, here's the vid:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W7I92r9GqUw)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on May 02, 2017, 06:56:11 pm
Hello all it's been a while since I posted here. Well I have a bit of something that i need to get off my chest what with the recent events here in Portland, Oregon. Brace yourselves here we go!

This commentary came out when i was responding to a  friend on Facebook.


Here in Portland, Oregon we've had our fair share of trouble with Antifa.

 1. First there was the Anti-Trump rally where they attacked several police officers.

 2. Then there was the time in late February (After Trump's inauguration) where, in protest over the police chief refusing to resign over the protest incident, they actually blocked traffic in the area of Downtown Portland around what we know as Pioneer Courthouse Square. The police had no choice but to suit up and take them down.
 
 3. While the Berkley situation as going on The Multnomah County Republicans were planning to march in the 82nd Street Rose Parade, an annual; tradition here in my neck of the woods. However when Antifa got word they sent a letter to the parade officials basically saying they would pull the Republicans out of the parade and they had 200 members ready to go. The city and parade officials caved in and cancelled the whole event.
 
 4. The topper was the protests in downtown Portland on May 1st. The Antifa members actually started a bonfire on 3rd and Morrison, on the MAX (Our light rail system) tracks.
 
What concerns me more is that I attend the anime convention Kumoricon every year. My biggest worry is that Antifa might choose to show up there to beat up people and shut down the convention simply because of "Cultural appropriation" in the form of dubbed anime or the costumes.  This scares me a lot because there are a lot of anime fans especially female anime fans who come to the convention. And I know, with Antifa's lack of morals, my fellow anime fans could get hurt because of these political thugs who have no sense of laughter, joy, or fun.  I I genuinely wouldn't put coming after Kumoricon above these people.
 
Based on my own thoughts, and the evidence which shows a pattern of violent behavior, it's safe to say Jeff Sessions and the Justice Department need to label these people a domestic terrorist group. Whether a person is Liberal, Conservative, Libertarian, Independent, Apolitical or whatever, Antifa is a genuine menace! They're bullying entitled special snowflakes who need to be put int heir place! Antifa is more than just a nuisance, they're  a genuine physical threat to us all as Americans!
 
That's my thoughts.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on May 25, 2017, 01:18:56 pm
Well it's been a while since anyone put anything here so I figured I put in something.

Many of you may have heard about a local burrito shop that got shut down by SJWs. Why were they shut down? "Cultural appropriation"! That is White people owned the place and they were making Mexican food.  And let me just say that is the biggest load of balderdash I have ever heard in my life. Who in God's name died and gave these people the right to decide who can have what? The sheer level of arrogance and presumption here is hard to not notice.

Wat concerns me more about this simply put is how long until these people come after Kumoricon for "Cultural appropriation" due to the costume or dub anime. These SJW entitled brats are so full of themselves that they're not paying attention to the consequences of their actions, or who they're hurting. That espcially applies to the ANTIFA members of the Regressive Left.

This is actually something that Professor Jordan Peterson talked about, I believe he refers to it as "Ideologically possessed". When someone becomes so caught up in their ideology that they stop seeing reason or logic. ANd the sad thing is the more I see of these people the more I see tythey don't want to talk or be civil.

The irony of it is ever since the election of Donald Trump there's been a palpable change in the air. The political winds they are changing, and the more the Far-Left struggle against them, the more the winds of change strengthen. This is a big reason why the "Conservative Counterculture" AKA Cultural Libertarianism is sweeping the country. The Regressive Left have suddenly realized the winds are changing and are resorting to the same tactics of the tyrants they claim to br fighting against. That's quite the irony right there.

But getting back to the subject at hand these SJWs who shut down this Burrito shop had no business doing so! I strongly suspect the reason they did so was out of jealously and spite. The Far-Left are known for doing stuff like that simply because they want to make everyone as miserable as they are, simply because their lives are, or at least they think they are, so mucked up that the only way they can get ahead is go and throw mud at people who are more successful.  Perhaps these kids never got spanked by their parents enough when they were younger, maybe they got brainwashed by Marxist college Professors. I don't know and I can't say for certain without hard evidence. All i know is the Far-Left are going way too far, and I worry for Kumoricon simply because someone from the Far-Left may decide to come after the convention simply to climb up the social ladder of the victimhood Olympics that permeates the Regressive Left.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on May 30, 2017, 07:23:19 am

I don't know if you've read the book 'The Big Sort,' by Bill Bishop, but we responded by finally admitting we're *done* with Portland and SJWs in general. We moved out of Oregon have a new home in the northern 'burbs of Phoenix, AZ.


I have not seen a Bernie sticker in a whole month and I saw only one Hillary sticker about a week ago.
Feels great...


Also, for Memorial Day yesterday I flew the Bonnie Blue Flag.
Dating from 1810, it symbolizes the first star in our current flag - the Republic of West Florida.
(Which later got absorbed into Louisiana...)

Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on June 05, 2017, 10:00:10 am
^ Lucky... in a way.  (I hate the heat).  ;D

There was a free speech rally in the downtown Portland area that I wanted to go to, but I was sort of afraid that Antifa or some other rabid group would attack and possibly harm my son.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on June 05, 2017, 10:28:22 am
^ Lucky... in a way.  (I hate the heat).  ;D

There was a free speech rally in the downtown Portland area that I wanted to go to, but I was sort of afraid that Antifa or some other rabid group would attack..
And they did. Rainbow bullies, people trying to erase history, and people trying to tell you and me what kind of pronouns and grammar we can and cannot use. Exactly thy sort of people making anime cons and other fandom less fun for everyone. Who wants to go to a con and play "Corporate HR Employee Policies Handbook?" I'm out.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on June 08, 2017, 11:19:01 am
^ Lucky... in a way.  (I hate the heat).  ;D

There was a free speech rally in the downtown Portland area that I wanted to go to, but I was sort of afraid that Antifa or some other rabid group would attack..
And they did. Rainbow bullies, people trying to erase history, and people trying to tell you and me what kind of pronouns and grammar we can and cannot use. Exactly thy sort of people making anime cons and other fandom less fun for everyone. Who wants to go to a con and play "Corporate HR Employee Policies Handbook?" I'm out.

Yeah, I've been seeing a lot of YouTube videos of their "tactics."  I saw a sign that said "Antifa is free speech"; what a detestable joke.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on June 20, 2017, 08:37:28 pm
Well, everyone, here's some good news from the land of politics.

Many of you no doubt know about the Slants. Well for those who don't, a while back they tried to get their band name patented by the U.S. Patent offices. But they refused because the name was "Disparaging" towards Asian people. Now in these PC times times that might've held water were not for a rather large elephant in the room, the fact the members of the Slants are Asian.

Well while I was at work today i got the chance to read the paper and found out they've made history by winning their court case in the Supreme Court. In short the Slants can patent their name. Now I've actually been cheering the Slants on because well while I was at their Convention horror stories two or three years ago I heard their argument. And the argument they gave was simple, well thought out, and very logical. One of their members said, "Because we're part of the Asian community don't you think it should be up to us to decide what's offensive and what's not?"

This is a way of thinking I couldn't agree with more. Being offended is a very subjective thing. And somehow trying to keep the Slants from patenting their name when they in fact are Asian is more than just a little silly. This is a clear victory for Free Speech and Free expression. What this says is a bunch of Sourpuss bureaucrats and a bunch of pasty-faced beta males and aggressive radical feminists can't tell artists what they can and can't call themselves.

Having met the Slants at Kumoricon I can say The Slants are some of the nicest most down to earth people I've ever met. And in terms of music I've listened to some of it at Kumoricon and I can say they have a killer band with a unique sound that is all their own. And i couldn't be more happy to see The Slants get what they so richly deserve, a chance to actually make a living with their name and music like any successful musical act.

So to the Slants for winning this Legal battle the right way/the lawful way this Brisk Ice Tea salute is for you!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Erosempai on June 21, 2017, 11:57:58 am
On the topic of the Slants; I LOVE THEM. They have done so well and I can't wait to see them after their success after the courts. Nobody should use Urban Dictionary to justify any action in court to oppress a person/group.


Now for BRITISH stuff.


I hate Theresa May. I think she's always going to be like Hilary to me. She doesn't work like the working class ever, when even the QUEEN of the UK worked as an ambulance driver in WWII. MAY has and never will stand for rights of the poor, the hungry, and the living paycheck-to-paycheck life.


Say what you will about Jeremy Corbyn, but he's been a great example of helping all people. I really wish we had this in the US, but no. We have people who still read into the propaganda of socialism and how it will hurt instead of harm. (Forgive me if I have no sources at the moment I'm typing on my phone)


So right now, in light of the government breaking in the UK... I follow this instead of mistyped tweets and golf trips on my paycheck money.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on June 22, 2017, 04:22:54 pm
On the subject of the Slants here's a little something from Sargon of Akkad's other channel 'The Thinkery'. Sargon of Akkad is part of the YouTube skeptic community. Contrary to what the Regressive Left controlled media would have you believe Sargon of Akkad is not a member of the alt-right. In fact he is a Classic Liberal.

Anyway here's his take on the recent Slants win. I highly recommend The Thinkery and Sargon's main channel.

https://youtu.be/_FE3eSRnZ_4 (https://youtu.be/_FE3eSRnZ_4)
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on June 25, 2017, 01:15:03 am
I highly recommend The thinbkery and Sargon's main channel.

https://youtu.be/_FE3eSRnZ_4 (https://youtu.be/_FE3eSRnZ_4)

Same here.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on June 28, 2017, 08:59:11 am
When I was on Facebook today a site i frequent there DC Statesman asked an interesting question. Theya asked, "If you could erase anyone from history, who would you erase?".

Now being that i am a science Fiction and fantasy writer, and have watched plenty of the Outer Limits, i understand actions have consequences when i thought about it based on my own experiences this was my answer.

No one, I would erase no one from history. While it is true that people like Adolph Hitler, Nero, Joseph Stalin, Mao Zedong, Mussolini, even Fidel Castro have had evil ideas and have done terrible things, out of their evil there has come some good. Important lessons have been learned. These lessons are 1. Knowing how to do things and how NOT to to do things 2. What ideas work and what ideas have been shown time and time again to go disastrously wrong.

just some food for thought.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on July 15, 2017, 07:21:25 pm
Hey, folks, I have a link to share with you. I am a HUGE fan of Judge Janine Pirro. This woman in her opening statements on her show uses no profanity. SInce it is FOX they frown on profanity. But then again Judge Janine doesn't need to curse and swear up a storm to get her point across. And this opening statement is truth to power.

https://youtu.be/xw9pDoPNaBg
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on July 20, 2017, 01:21:56 am

Hey, folks, I have a link to share with you. I am a HUGE fan of Judge Janine Pirro. This woman in her opening statements on her show uses no profanity. SInce it is FOX they frown on profanity. But then again Judge Janine doesn't need to curse and swear up a storm to get her point across. And this opening statement is truth to power.

https://youtu.be/xw9pDoPNaBg (https://youtu.be/xw9pDoPNaBg)


This is a great one from the Judge.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on October 19, 2017, 11:46:28 am
It's been a while since I put anything up. But I decided to put this here. Now in the past I've made my thoughts on SJWs, And ANtifa clear, and as for Third-Wave feminism with all due respect to Milo Yiannopolous calling them cancer is too nice. A transgender friend of mine Tory pointed out they're a cult, just listen to their ideology with a reasonable and rational mind and you'll see.

Well I'd like to introduce all of you to a College Professor who is quickly becoming the bane of the Regressive Leftists everywhere, Dr. Jordan B. Petersen, a professor of Psychology from the University of Toronto. This is a man who has done extensive studies on dangerous ideologies including Nazism, so he undestands how things work.

Dr. Jordan B. Petersen on the whole it wasn't true Communism, Socialism, Marxism.

https://youtu.be/HXBjVau1w7Y (https://youtu.be/HXBjVau1w7Y)

Also if you really want a good moral indictment of Communism there's a book you should read and a movie you should see. The Book I refer to is "The Gulag Archipelago". And as for the movie it's an old one from the 80's I saw it in High School and it moved me down to the core of my being "The Killing Fields".

This is a big part of why i stand against the Regressive Left and this Post-Modernist/Marxist nonsense. Nothing good can ever come of it. In fact in the 20th Century Communism was collectively responsible for the deaths of 1000 Million innocent people, maybe even more. 100 Million people or more slaughtered by an ideology. That is something to think on before anyone thinks to embrace the Regressive Left or it's ideology.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Prinz Eugen on October 19, 2017, 05:35:26 pm

"The Gulag Archipelago
THAT Book changed my mind on a LOT of issues.
Like - the State will arrest you even without a case
because it's the terror effect on 25 people who knew you - family foirends, the grocery cashier who knew you,
your barber ("Am I next?")  That and getting arrested for 'failure to denounce.'


The mind goes on strike - we who can invent and improve will do nothing beyond exact orders.
(A bit of John Galt there, but then again Ayn Rand was a Soviet emmigrant.)


And soon there is only the State brand name for everything. The People's Bread, The People's shoes,
then shelves go bare, then bread and meat rations, and then - Venezuela.


If you're lucky the regime is toppled Ceaușescu style as a warning to the next would-be tyrant.
If you're even luckier, it topples early enough on in your own life so that when  everyone loses everything
(Socialism ends when liberals run out of everyone else's money - M. Thatcher)  - that you're still young and healthy enough to build a new retirement nest egg from scratch - in a free economic systeme where you don't have to share it with economic parasites.
Otherwise gruel and black bread for you until your last miserable day on this planet.



Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on January 25, 2018, 10:20:07 am
It's been a while since I posted here so i thught I'd put upa  post that I just put up on Minds.com.

Okay, folks, rant time. I live in Oregon. I've been living in this great state since 1978, when my parents, brother, and I first moved out here. I love Oregon and I love the city of Portland, Oregon. But I have to be honest. My state is in trouble, for that matter Portland is in big trouble. The increasing homeless epidemic, the drug epidemic, and a city and state Government that are apathetic to the will of the Oregon people is really starting to ug me. I remember I used to go to downtown Portland with my brother and my mother when i was a child. Back then we had places such as B. Dalton's bookseller, Meier and Frank, Newberry's and all sorts of great places. Even in the 90's there were some great places that i loved such as Egghead Software where I used to buy games.

A couple years ago when I was coming home from the last Kumoricon at the Vancouver Hilton and the d Red Lion Hotel. The city I swear to God looked like something out of that movie A Clockwork Orange. So many empty buildings so many homeless people. And what's worse is in recent years that problem has spread out into the towns and suburbs surrounding the downtown area. The Portland city council meantime sees fit to just throw money at the problem hoping it will go away and it isn't. In fact it's getting worse, to the point where as much as I love Oregon it's becoming as bad as California.  And I dislike that because I've sen how horrid California has become.

What's worse is our State Government continues to tax the rest of us into the ground while handing off freebees to illegal immigrants and homeless people while ignoring it's own citizens. This is absolutely unacceptable. as I know for a fact Oregon can do better than this, much, much better than this. So I've decided to start speaking out on this matter.

While i may not be able to do all that much about the other States of the U.S. what I can do is something about my own backyard. Whether we're Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or independent the fact of matters is the Regressive Left or the Far-Left that controls the Democrats and a number of states in our Union are driving this country into the ground all in the name of acquisition of power, and if the working classes get hurt in the effort, well in their eyes that's just too bad. And this is why I say everything the Regressive Left is offering I don't want. America and Oregon have to live free.
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on July 23, 2018, 06:24:04 pm
Hey, folks, I have a video from a Libertarian dude I like to watch Raging Golden Eagle. The true extent of SJW influence and damage is coming, and here's Raging Golden Eagle with hi thoughts. Be warned there will be som strong language.

https://youtu.be/QsC631wz_Ig
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Animeman73 on August 03, 2018, 06:43:45 pm
Unbelievable, the sheer unbridled dishonesty of Portland Mayor Ted Wheeler continues to astound me! But considering the fact he is part of the corrupt Oregon Democratic elite i shouldn't be too surprised. It's bad enough he ordered the police to stand down when that group of paid Occupy ICE thugs took over and even assaulted two ICE members, but even worse those polcie did nothing when two innocent food cart owners whose only crime was selling meals and food to ICE people, and in turn gave their money to help the homeless, were threatened by these Antifa-like thugs.
It's evidently clear mayor Ted Wheeler doesn't give a damn about the people of Portland. His only interest is apparently illegal aliens and giving Antifa-like groups what they want as well as the homeless. We have a downtown area that is rampant with homeless and Antifa/Leftist thugs, we have a mayor that doesn't care, and a city council that is exactly the same. If Portland is to start being the city of Roses it was meant to be again...Ted Wheeler and the entire Portland city council must be removed from office. When it happens I want it done...via the ballot box. the last thing i want is Portland to become Chicago, or worse L.A. or San Fransisco. Ted Wheeler and the enitre Portland city council have to go!
Title: Re: say ALMOST anything we want about politics
Post by: Washougal_Otaku on August 07, 2018, 02:45:59 am
It sounds like the current police chief has a pretty decent head on her shoulders, though, at least from what I heard in the recent interviews regarding the anti-FA protests against Patriot Prayer.