iran's version of a "working democracy":"you think women have RIGHTS? sorry, your party is banned..."
"you think israel shouldn't be wiped off the map?? sorry, your party is banned..."
"you think people should be allowed to dress how they likr, asscoiate with whom they like, and access whatever infidel web pages they like??? sorry, your party is banned..."
Quite true. Sucks to be them.
But actually.... no wait... I'm just gonna shut up.
|
But let me correct you on one thing: 'CANADA' TECHNICALLY NEVER HAD SLAVERY. BRITAIN DID. CANADIAN CONFEDERATION HAPPENED IN 1867.
touche :)
i appologize if i was out of line, i was just responding to the general "feel" of your take. in the absence of the particulars of your life, that is, your statement taken in a vacuum, it could sound a bit like throwing stones.
anyway, i really do enjoy this thread, a good "left/right" melee battle royale is always entertaining for someone not invested in the "conservative/liberal" blood war...
|
|
And that's why I like Libertarianism: I am a socially liberal fiscal conservative who loves his country and its freedom-loving ideals yet hates the bureaucracy that modern government has encrusted itself with which guzzles dollars from the public trough at an alarming rate.. Pork spending is definately a bipartisan issue in Foggybottom.
I also despise those who try to legislate their moral stance on a wider audience (and both major parties are guilty of this). This is one reason Barr is such a lousy choice for the Libertarian party. They whiffed trying for a politcal heavyweight (as if Barr was one, his big claim to fame was the Clinton impeachment brouhaha) and betrayed their core principles.
Once again,
WHIGS IN 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!Who's with me!!!!!!!!!!!!!! **AHHHHHHHHHHHHH**
Runs screaming from Delta House
actually, they lost me at harry brown...
Whig, you say? can i set up the 527's?
|
|
I don't vote. I refuse to choose between the lesser of two evils.
Why?
Look, you know whether or not you vote, one of the evils is going to win, given.
So, given that evil has to be in charge, wouldn't it be in your (and everyone's) interest that the lesser of those two evils is in charge? Better to try to have a say than leave it up to chance.
If there really is a lesser evil. If they're both equally as evil, well, as you were...
(Note: I don't actually believe that either of the candidates are evil.)
C'mon, Shiny. You need to vote. To paraphrase your hero:
"I vote the way Joe Strummer taught me to vote; I don't vote for someone, I vote against someone else. I vote in protest. It gets me up."
-Henry Rollins
Get your head around the idea that you may not love a political candidate as much as you love your favorite rock musician/D&D author/artist/pornstar/French existentialist (James <3 Camus) and get your ass registered to vote. If you aren't a participant in the process, you're dead weight.
anyway, i really do enjoy this thread, a good "left/right" melee battle royale is always entertaining for someone not invested in the "conservative/liberal" blood war...
Cool.
And I did say things that can be taken as throwing stones. Admitting it spoils the rancor, though, doesn't it? And hey, some of the posters on this thread have whacked on each other before...we don't carry any grudges. We get excited and even angry but in the end everyone usually walks away laughing it off.
Unless Sam and yellowdingo get into it. Then you might see the thread locked down.
|
anyway, i really do enjoy this thread, a good "left/right" melee battle royale is always entertaining for someone not invested in the "conservative/liberal" blood war...Cool.
And I did say things that can be taken as throwing stones. Admitting it spoils the rancor, though, doesn't it?
No. You're still a terrible person.
;-)|
|
anyway, i really do enjoy this thread, a good "left/right" melee battle royale is always entertaining for someone not invested in the "conservative/liberal" blood war...Cool.
And I did say things that can be taken as throwing stones. Admitting it spoils the rancor, though, doesn't it?
again, touche :)
edited that post up there...
Like I said before, we shall see.I feel grateful that it will be my descendants and not I who will be dealing with the flocks of flying pigs that will undoubtedly be around whenever those days should come to pass.
Well, like I said in an earlier thread, lets just see how history judges him. I can guarantee you years after you and I kick the bucket history will see him in a better light.
But since this will be "years after you and I kick the bucket," no. No, we won't.
Mr. Gersen,
As Mr. Zombie's legal counsel, I must inform you that you have attributed a quote to my client which he did not make. If you do not comply with this request, I will have no choice but to seek legal recourse (which may or may not involve smiting). Thank you for your cooperation in the delicate matter.
To: Sir Spitsalot, Esq.
From: Kirth Gersen, IPCC Effectuator
Re: Accusation of misattribution of quotation, CY 2008Dear Sir:
Surely one of your training is aware that, if your client is running for public office, there is no legal applicability of "slander," "libel," or "misquotation," vis-a-vis the aforementioned figure. Indeed, radio hosts frequently, and legally, rant that Senator Obama is a racist communist Muslim terrorist; and many industrious (but equally whacko) bloggers write poorly-reasoned exposes explaining how President Bush personally launched a missile into the Pentagon. Therefore, if I accuse your client of inordinate interest in faux onyx, or better yet claim that he eats the feces of diseased rats, said activity falls under the aegis of First Amendment rights.
Smiting, however, clearly falls under hate speech laws. Therefore, I must request that you desist immediately, or else be prepared to visit The Hague at the earliest convenient court date.
Yours (&cet.),
Kirth Gersen
Mr. Gersen,
My client is not running for any public office. In pointof fact, my client cannot run, but merely shamble at a slow pace, but I digress. Therefore, laws governing the legal applicability of "misquotation" certainly do apply.
In addition, and as further proof of your previous error, I direct you to page 4 of this thread, posting by the avatar entity self-designated as "The Jade" (Pathfinder Charter Subscriber), Yesterday (30 June 2008), 12:15 pm, in which said avatar identity specifically states the quote you falsely attributed to my client. Mr. Zombie's response to The Jade's post immediately followed at 12:59 pm.
So, once again, we'd like to request that you issue a correction of your error, and a clarification as to what my client truly said.
Furthermore, your threat of the Hague court, clearly falls under attempts to intimidate legal counsel with threat of violence or (since the U.S. does not recognize said court) illegal prosectution. I will notify the appropriate human rights organizations of your attempts to thwart a duly appointed officer of the U.S. Courts through nefarious means. I am sure they will take the appropriate response.
Sincerely,
Sir Spitsalot, Paladin-at-Law
|
How do you know if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent?
Is there a test?
Where is a Jeff Foxworthy like comedian when we need him?
"You might be a Democrat if...."
You might be a Republican if...."
"You might be an Independent if..."
Damn, I bet I could build a career off this s@$@. Now to go work on my stage fright....
If you eat French Fries, you're a Democrat, if you eat Freedom Fries, you're a Republican. If you are an Independent? Well, you eat onion rings.How do you know if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent?
Is there a test?
what if you like mozzarella sticks?
MMMM.... mozzarella sticks <Homer drool>
Ladies and gentlemen, the Mark Russell of the new Millennium... Aberzombie!
;-)
|
|
How do you know if you are a Democrat or a Republican or an Independent?
Is there a test?
You could try the Political Compass test. There's even an FAQ.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44
....busted.
Economic Left/Right: -2.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -5.44....busted.
*WHACK*
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -2.75
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.92
*Whack, WHACK!*
I was wondering when that dude was going to show up. ;-P
Hoo boy...
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
But since this will be "years after you and I kick the bucket," no. No, we won't.Like I said before, we shall see.I feel grateful that it will be my descendants and not I who will be dealing with the flocks of flying pigs that will undoubtedly be around whenever those days should come to pass.
Well, like I said in an earlier thread, lets just see how history judges him. I can guarantee you years after you and I kick the bucket history will see him in a better light.
Lol! Well, it kinda depends on how far science advances by the time I'm old. I might die at 80 or if they figure a way to stall the aging process I might live twice that.
Lol! Well, it kinda depends on how far science advances by the time I'm old. I might die at 80 or if they figure a way to stall the aging process I might live twice that.
The only problem is, it would apply across the board. I can't bear the thought of 120 more years of seeing Brad and Angelina stories at the supermarket checkout.
The only problem is, it would apply across the board. I can't bear the thought of 120 more years of seeing Brad and Angelina stories at the supermarket checkout.
Lol! Well, it kinda depends on how far science advances by the time I'm old. I might die at 80 or if they figure a way to stall the aging process I might live twice that.
That's true. The problem with a long lifespan would be marriage. Could you imagine being married to same the person for centuries?
|
That's true. The problem with a long lifespan would be marriage. Could you imagine being married to same the person for centuries?
It seems to me that anyone who gets divorced after two years is gonna do the same thing even if he and his wife are both going to live for centuries, and anyone who can live with the same woman for fifty years, is probably going to be able to live with her for two hundred and fifty years.
Biologically, we are only 'built' to be attracted to a single person for ~2 years. After that, we've either bred, or ain't gonna, and all the things that used to be 'charming' or 'cool' about that person start to look kinda annoying and other people suddenly look tasty again.
Half the people in the country remain together even after the 'glow' has faded, and their relationships are obviously being held together by something more substantial than biology. The other half get gone when it 'stops being fun' and they wake up and realize 'I'm not sure I even *like* this person...'
Interesting.
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -0.88
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.15
Though I have to say that test wasn't very objective. Several of the questions were highly biased.
|
|
I will say America is not more liked in the world, but then again, when has America EVER been liked in the world. 5 seconds after we rescued France's nazi collaborating arse, they were talking bad about us. Show me a time when America has been liked around the world, ever.
Firstly, this is pretty paranoid.
The majority of people like their own country first and everyone else second. But, I grew up in the eighties and nineties and the US was really popular over here back then; much more than it is now.
Secondly, The French did not, collectively collaborate. They were invaded; some resisted, some tried to make the best of it. Calling out all of the French because the entire nation didn't fight to the death with sticks and farming tools is laughable.
Its on the same ridiculous level as me (a Brit) moaning about US selfishness because you didn't commit until after Pearl harbour. That would be a ridiculous thing to say, because it would ignore the genuine complexity of the situation.
Basically, you've proved that rule about bringing up the nazis in internet debates.
Wouldn't have suspected that this would be my result but...
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21
Hey, right where the Dalai Lama is too... I am so much more 'real' and 'look better in a man-dress' than that dude. Please. Kundun? Kundon't.
|
|
Wouldn't have suspected that this would be my result but...
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21Hey, right where the Dalai Lama is too... I am so much more 'real' than that dude. Please. Kundun? Kundon't.
The graph thing had lines and numbers and I never learned that language, but yeah, I was near the Dalai Lama as well.
Closer to Gandhi, 'though.
Kinda weird, me being next to all the vegetarians, when I grew up butchering animals on a farm. Then again, some of the most anti-killin' folks I've met are veterans...
Guess it's not as fun as Rambo makes it look.
Rambo makes cutting people in half with fifty cals look like a lot of fun. The thing you don't get in the movies is the reek of free range viscera.
|
|
Wouldn't have suspected that this would be my result but...
Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: -4.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.21Hey, right where the Dalai Lama is too... I am so much more 'real' and 'look better in a man-dress' than that dude. Please. Kundun? Kundon't.
Where's that test?
grrtigger posted it above.
Hoo boy...
Economic Left/Right: -5.12
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -4.67
Ha!
I've got you all beat on the left and libertarian scales!Economic Left/Right: -7.25
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -7.79
A true Scandinavian leftist. ;-)
Firstly, this is pretty paranoid.
It is not paranoia if they are really out to get you. ;)
The majority of people like their own country first and everyone else second. But, I grew up in the eighties and nineties and the US was really popular over here back then; much more than it is now.
Ok, sure, some countries might like the US from time to time, but overall there hasn't been a time when the US was well liked. Also I wonder if people liked the US or merely the US popular culture during that time.
Secondly, The French did not, collectively collaborate. They were invaded; some resisted, some tried to make the best of it. Calling out all of the French because the entire nation didn't fight to the death with sticks and farming tools is laughable.
Sorry, obviously you are not an American. American like to poke their thumb at the French. In the US the French are seen as snobs and ungrateful, so some Americans tend to make hypberbolic statements about them from time to time. But it is more seen as the rubbing you'd give to a sibling then everything else. The US is indebted to France for its aid at the original founding and we were happy to help them during WWII. It just would be nice if they didn't always bad mouth us in public. (I say this as a French-Irish American, I'm a stuck up drunk ;D )
Its on the same ridiculous level as me (a Brit) moaning about US selfishness because you didn't commit until after Pearl harbour. That would be a ridiculous thing to say, because it would ignore the genuine complexity of the situation.
You are right, no doubt there. And there is a bit of shame in Americans to that fact. Of course, we have also done a poor job education our children about the fact that the reason Pearl Harbor even happened was because we were already involved peripherally.
Basically, you've proved that rule about bringing up the nazis in internet debates.
Actually that would be if I made a comparison to Nazis, I didn't so it does not apply. Though, the rule only says that the longer a discussion goes on that the probability of such a comparison approaches 1. You don't need any one to prove that.
The page the Political Compass has for the US Primaries 2008 is also quite interesting.
One thing that also has to be taken into consideration is this following excerpt:
"When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a mainstream conservative."
(Emphasis mine)
|
|
The page the Political Compass has for the US Primaries 2008 is also quite interesting.
One thing that also has to be taken into consideration is this following excerpt:"When examining the chart it's important to note that although most of the candidates seem quite different, in substance they occupy a relatively restricted area within the universal political spectrum. Democracies with a system of proportional representation give expression to a wider range of political views. While Dennis Kucinich and Ralph Nader are depicted on the extreme left in an American context, they would simply be mainstream social democrats within the wider political landscape of Europe. Similarly, Hillary Clinton is popularly perceived as a leftist in the United States while in any other western democracy her record is that of a mainstream conservative."
(Emphasis mine)
makes sense, europeans use the more classical definitions of the words "liberal" and "conservative".