View Full Version : Extreme Liberals are Just as Fascist as Extreme Right-Wingers
Parker2112
11-01-2010, 10:20 AM
Google CEO Eric Schmidt and film director James Cameron recently concurred that people who question the science of anthropogenic global warming are, in their opinions, "criminal".
The two made the comments during a recent on stage conversation at a private event in Silicon Valley.
"If that continues, business as usual as our leaders in Washington say is OK for us to do, we will have extincted 70% of the species on the planet by the end of the century." Cameron responded to Schmidt's line of discussion on global warming.
During the same conversation Schmidt stated, "There are people who in my view criminally doubt some of the science."
"I agree, criminally, I agree with that." Cameron interjected.
"People, we need to evolve mentally and philosophically to something that has never existed before." the Avatar director continued.
"We need to become techno-indigenous people of an entire Earth, not of a nation, not of a state, but of a planet."
Both extremes want to put their stamp of approval/disapproval on American life...
And both are just as hypocritical...
Cameron owns three large houses in Malibu, totaling 24,000 square feet - ten times the average US home. He also owns a 100 acre ranch in Santa Barbara and numerous private luxuries such as helicopters, Harley motorbikes, super cars, a yacht, and even a fleet of submarines. Nevertheless he demands that we all live with less because it is us that are responsible for killing the planet.
Cry Havoc
11-01-2010, 10:24 AM
Extreme Liberals are Just as Fascist as Extreme Right-Wingers
Who doesn't know this? The problem is that the right center movement virtually doesn't exist anymore (except for you know, some Democrats) and the slightly left of center movement is characterized (demonized) by the far right as so far to the left that they fell off the merry-go-round.
I'm a centrist who leans right on a lot of issues and left on some, and I'm perceived here as some kind of extreme anti-republican anti-conservative leftist. Because that's exactly what Fox News has been trying to impart since 9/11. No one watches or roots for the WWE wrestler that they don't care about. More people tune in if there's someone to love/hate.
Parker2112
11-01-2010, 10:24 AM
rAz7jyG0qfw
clambake
11-01-2010, 10:25 AM
why do you hate rich people?
Parker2112
11-01-2010, 10:53 AM
http://www.1010global.org/uk
Parker2112
11-01-2010, 11:01 AM
why do rich people hate me?
fify
Oh, Gee!!
11-01-2010, 12:49 PM
Its like yoni and darrin had a baby
j.dizzle
11-01-2010, 02:21 PM
Politics as a whole in this country is a fuckin mess these days. I got 7 year old cousins that are more mature then most of these "leaders". All these ppl in Washington are just making things worse & nobody cares about shit over there other then keeping their own jobs. Hopefully these politicians dont have as many bitchfits after these elections cuz its starting to get extremely annoying.
Parker2112
11-01-2010, 02:27 PM
Its like yoni and darrin had a baby
LOL...stuck in the two-party paradigm much? :lol
Parker2112
11-01-2010, 02:29 PM
This thread squarely at those who blindly cling to progressive ideals. I oppose those who blindly cling to conservative ideals as well...just ask Yoni and Darrin...
Because I believe these blind allegiances are killing the country.
Define 'progressive ideals.'
Parker2112
11-01-2010, 03:08 PM
Define 'progressive ideals.'
I think its pretty straightforward.
The critical part of that statement is not the part about "progressive" or "conservative", but the part about "blindly" and "cling to."
This approach has divided the nation, POLARIZATION BY DESIGN, and allowed wealth to overtake the will of the people.
Oh, Gee!!
11-01-2010, 03:17 PM
LOL...stuck in the two-party paradigm much? :lol
I meant the quality of your posts, not necessarily the content
RandomGuy
11-01-2010, 03:47 PM
Define 'progressive ideals.'
I think its pretty straightforward.
Then it should be easy to define.
Do enlighten us.
TeyshaBlue
11-01-2010, 03:58 PM
Then it should be easy to define.
Do enlighten us.
Death Panels!!!!111111!
RandomGuy
11-01-2010, 04:18 PM
Death Panels!!!!111111!
Abortions for everyone!!!!
Cry Havoc
11-01-2010, 04:23 PM
Define 'progressive ideals.'
In modern day conservative speak? It just means, "You disagree with me and I think you're a fascist/communist/Nazi sympathizer and that you hate America."
In modern day conservative speak? It just means, "You disagree with me and I think you're a fascist/communist/Nazi sympathizer and that you hate America."
As close as your answer probably is, I'm still waiting for it "from the horse's mouth."
In any case, such a vague term as "progressive ideals", without any definition or constraints, constitutes a total lack of an argument.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 12:04 AM
As close as your answer probably is, I'm still waiting for it "from the horse's mouth."
In any case, such a vague term as "progressive ideals", without any definition or constraints, constitutes a total lack of an argument.
http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164949, and also see the OP.
Global warming is a "progressive ideal", then? You reference the OP. Are you suggesting that "putting a stamp of approval on our lives" is also progressive ideal?
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 12:12 AM
combatting global warming is something progressives have championed for some time. Reducing carbon footprint through carbon markets and carbon trading, which means setting caps on what suitable carbon emissions are for corps and individuals. Is that not "putting a stamp of approval on our lives?"
And the geoengineering is just another facet of that as well. You dispute those things?
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 12:30 AM
It's not a novel take.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/0/0d/Liberal_Fascism_%28cover%29.jpg
Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left, From Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning is a bestselling book on the origins and nature of fascist movements (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Fascism) by Jonah Goldberg (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Jonah_Goldberg), a conservative (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Conservatism) syndicated columnist and the editor-at-large of National Review Online (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/National_Review). The controversial book, published in January 2008, reached #1 on the New York Times Best Seller list (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/New_York_Times_Best_Seller_list) of hardcover (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Hardcover) non-fiction (http://spurstalk.com/wiki/Non-fiction) in its seventh week on the list.[1] (http://spurstalk.com/forums/#cite_note-0)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Fascism#Summary_of_contents
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 12:48 AM
combatting global warming is something progressives have championed for some time. Reducing carbon footprint through carbon markets and carbon trading, which means setting caps on what suitable carbon emissions are for corps and individuals. Is that not "putting a stamp of approval on our lives?"
And the geoengineering is just another facet of that as well. You dispute those things?
What would you have us do? Do you believe we should continue burning fossil fuels as we choose?
You aren't exactly making a convincing argument when the position you seek to support is intelligible. Unless you're just making token statements, in which case, you're just wasting everyone's time.
Unless you're just making token statements, in which case, you're just wasting everyone's time.
Definitely the gist of this thread, IMO. Is this BS really worth anyone's time, including yours, Parker? So you read a book. So a guy said something. So both sides of the aisle follows the money. Why do you think this is new information?
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:02 AM
What would you have us do? Do you believe we should continue burning fossil fuels as we choose?
You aren't exactly making a convincing argument when the position you seek to support is intelligible. Unless you're just making token statements, in which case, you're just wasting everyone's time.
My position: Blind allegience to partisan politics destroys our country. My take: this board is full of this, and it sickens me. In addition: There are evil motherf*ckers on both sides, not just among neocons and repugs.
Now what would I do with carbon?
I dont know that there is anything that can be done, first of all...it may be too late, cuz the U-turn is gonna take tons. Second, there are those on the left who are attempting to use the scenario for personal gain and power, just as neocons have used terror wars for the same. I am not in favor of giving the power to tax to any international body, and I think thats where the left is pushing things.
So even though I would say we need to turn things around fast and reduce our consumption/pollution, I dont believe in granting power to corrupt manipulative politicians who have their eye on big $$$ through big govt.
A little perspective: After 9-11, many folks willingly wanted to shed their civil freedoms to neocons who were waiting with baited breath. Only now do we realize that the whole thing was a massive mistake. When will we see these attempts at "mass manipulation" for what they are, and in realtime?
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:04 AM
Definitely the gist of this thread, IMO. Is this BS really worth anyone's time, including yours, Parker? So you read a book. So a guy said something. So both sides of the aisle follows the money. Why do you think this is new information?
See above. Flatly laid out. Waste of my time? I havent heard anyone on this forum mouth those words, and if they had, I wouldnt waste my time.
"My position: Blind allegience to partisan politics destroys our country"
...yawn...
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:09 AM
"My position: Blind allegience to partisan politics destroys our country"
...yawn...
Thats the least important part of my post. And it was aimed at those it applied to (boutons, etc). Maybe not you. I am not really familiar with your posts/positions to be honest.
What is your take on the last 2 paragraphs?
Your position is the "least important part" of your post.. so what are you doing making a topic about it?
Look, if you want to make an argument, be specific.. this vague stuff is just no good, and not worth anyone's time IMHO..
As for those last statements:
Now what would I do with carbon?
I dont know that there is anything that can be done, first of all...it may be too late, cuz the U-turn is gonna take tons. Second, there are those on the left who are attempting to use the scenario for personal gain and power, just as neocons have used terror wars for the same. I am not in favor of giving the power to tax to any international body, and I think thats where the left is pushing things.
So even though I would say we need to turn things around fast and reduce our consumption/pollution, I dont believe in granting power to corrupt manipulative politicians who have their eye on big $$$ through big govt.
A little perspective: After 9-11, many folks willingly wanted to shed their civil freedoms to neocons who were waiting with baited breath. Only now do we realize that the whole thing was a massive mistake. When will we see these attempts at "mass manipulation" for what they are, and in realtime?
You ask a question, that isn't meant to be asked on a forum.. if you truly believe such "mass manipulation" is occurring, asking people whether they realize it or not online is not the correct course of action; it implies we are too blind to see it on our own, and need your help (I doubt this happens).. it also does really nothing to spread it around.
Yet it seems, if you were serious, you'd have more specific evidence in the OP than a Cameron quote. I really don't see how all your posts are even linked, tbh.. where's your proof? You're wanting to spread a net over what, exactly?
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:25 AM
Your position is the "least important part" of your post.. so what are you doing making a topic about it?
Look, if you want to make an argument, be specific.. this vague stuff is just no good, and not worth anyone's time IMHO..
As for those last statements:
You ask a question, that isn't meant to be asked on a forum.. if you truly believe such "mass manipulation" is occurring, asking people whether they realize it or not online is not the correct course of action; it implies we are too blind to see it on our own, and need your help (I doubt this happens).. it also does really nothing to spread it around.
Yet it seems, if you were serious, you'd have more specific evidence in the OP than a Cameron quote. I really don't see how all your posts are even linked, tbh.. where's your proof? You're wanting to spread a net over what, exactly?
1. We discuss mass manipulation on this forum weekly, and at times daily (Fox News, Tea Party, 9-11, etc.) so that assertion is false.
2. Isnt every volley from right to left an assertion that the opposing view cant see clearly and needs to listen to the other side? Whats your point?
3. Again, the OP was aimed at particular posters. If you dont take any value from them, simply disregard.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:27 AM
I am still very curious about your take on my comparison of 9-11 and Patriot Act and Global Warming and Global Taxation. You didnt really touch on that at all in your response
1 is what you consider mass manipulation, fair enough but only goes to show, we don't need another thread about it, especially one as vague and unfounded as this.
2 You seem to assert that partisan politics occur because people are, by and large, "manipulated". Everyone has an opinion, and the broad-reaching natures of the two-party system make it where one can easily find the best platform to support for their ideals. The only way to convince people to depart from either party is to make them believe there is a better party out there, one that can properly help their interests.
3 You haven't mentioned a specific poster as of yet, AFAIK.. I asked about the progressive ideals for just that reason, which you have not yet clearly defined, even in the context of this thread.
As for either side following the money, I did indeed touch on that.. that's what you call 'human nature,' and it has a lot to do with partisan politics, and at the same time, very little at all..
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 01:33 AM
1. We discuss mass manipulation on this forum weekly, and at times daily (Fox News, Tea Party, 9-11, etc.) so that assertion is false.
And how, exactly, is anything you said not a carbon copy of what's been said ad nauseam in the forum to this point? I don't mean this to sound hostile -- I'm honestly wondering if you feel that the position you put forth is original.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:39 AM
1 is what you consider mass manipulation, fair enough but only goes to show, we don't need another thread about it, especially one as vague and unfounded as this.
2 You seem to assert that partisan politics occur because people are, by and large, "manipulated". Everyone has an opinion, and the broad-reaching natures of the two-party system make it where one can easily find the best platform to support for their ideals. The only way to convince people to depart from either party is to make them believe there is a better party out there, one that can properly help their interests.
3 You haven't mentioned a specific poster as of yet, AFAIK.. I asked about the progressive ideals for just that reason, which you have not yet clearly defined, even in the context of this thread.
Actually, the two party system as a divide-and-conquer approach to keeping the electorate divided and weak.
The way you talk about it, it sounds like a blessing. It is actually a curse, and your views have indeed been manipulated.
And I already mentioned Boutons.
And what of those last two paragraphs?
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:42 AM
And how, exactly, is anything you said not a carbon copy of what's been said ad nauseam in the forum to this point? I don't mean this to sound hostile -- I'm honestly wondering if you feel that the position you put forth is original.
I confirm on a daily basis that 80% of posters here process everything through the two-party paradigm. I am openly criticising that fact. Who else on this board does that?
And what of the last two paragraphs, Cry Havoc?
The way you talk about it, it sounds like a blessing. It is actually a curse, and your views have indeed been manipulated.
...and you wonder why no one takes you seriously...
I am neither republican nor democrat, FWIW. I would consider myself libertarian, but you also consider yourself as such IIRC, and we are definitely not on the same page, y'know, 'reality'..
You misinterpret mere power, like what the two parties hold, as some sort of vast conspiracy.. there is no vast conspiracy as such, only the obvious cons of a two-party system. George Washington witnessed the birth of this system, and shunned it with every breath.
So you've done a questionable job of stating the obvious.. cool story, bro. The truth is, we agree that the two-party system "paradigm" limits our freedom.. but this "waiting with bated breath" nonsense is just that, nonsense. The global conspiracy to take our rights away doesn't exist.. you'll be better off when you realize this.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:57 AM
...and you wonder why no one takes you seriously...
I am neither republican nor democrat, FWIW. I would consider myself libertarian, but you also consider yourself as such IIRC, and we are definitely not on the same page, y'know, 'reality'..
You dont have a clue Zosa, about the Libertarian party line, because 99% of what I post is straight from it. You need to look into Ron Paul's words on the Fed, on the Iraq war, on the two party system, on big government, on the movement towards world government, etc etc
How can you call yourself a libertarian and not have a clue as to what the Libertarian Presidential candidate stands for?
You sound really lost when you claim libertarian leanings, then call the party line nothing more than conspiracy talk.
Do some homework on the party before you simultaneously claim them and denounce the platform. Cool story indeed.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 01:58 AM
Just search this board for Ron Paul threads and you'll begin to see what "your party" actually stands for.
You dont have a clue Zosa, about the Libertarian party line, because 99% of what I post is straight from it. You need to look into Ron Paul's words on the Fed, on the Iraq war, on the two party system, on big government, on the movement towards world government, etc etc
How can you call yourself a libertarian and not have a clue as to what the Libertarian Presidential candidate stands for?
You sound really lost when you claim libertarian leanings, then call the party line nothing more than conspiracy talk.
Do some homework on the party before you simultaneously claim them and denounce the platform. Cool story indeed.
You seem to believe classical liberalism is a recent invention.. you also fly right in the face of your own convention, by denying I am what I say I am simply because I disagree with you.. I also find it funny that you have now made this a personal attack on me.. that was your whole intention, wasn't it? Find someone to argue with, and feed your incoherent, unfounded anger..
Oh and, I did not denounce them, in any way.. I actually know my history, and know that the two party system is bullshit, but it has ever been the way in American history.. it has always had to do with blatant power, not this subtle conspiracy bullshit you love spewing.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 02:02 AM
but this "waiting with bated breath" nonsense is just that, nonsense. The global conspiracy to take our rights away doesn't exist.. you'll be better off when you realize this.
I never said a global conspiracy. I said neocons were waiting with baited breath. And if you think that global carbon markets wont siphon money out of our country, you havent done your homework.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 02:03 AM
You seem to believe classical liberalism is a recent invention.. you also fly right in the face of your own convention, by denying I am what I say I am simply because I disagree with you.. I also find it funny that you have now made this a personal attack on me.. that was your whole intention, wasn't it? Find someone to argue with, and feed your incoherent, unfounded anger..
Oh and, I did not denounce them, in any way.. I actually know my history, and know that the two party system is bullshit, but it has ever been the way in American history.. it has always had to do with blatant power, not this subtle conspiracy bullshit you love spewing.
No, not at all, but the "cool story bro" doesnt bring many brownie points IMB
I never said a global conspiracy. I said neocons were waiting with baited breath. And if you think that global carbon markets wont siphon money out of our country, you havent done your homework.
potayto, potahto, please get real..
and "no, not at all" is a solid counter-argument. Almost as good as saying I must not be libertarian because I haven't directly supported the Modern Libertarian party enough for your liking.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 02:06 AM
Im not angry. I am taking a stance as a complete outsider on this board. I piss off everyone on the board, liberal and conservatives. That comes with the territory for a true libertarian. And many of the issues that libertarians push are shunned by the mainstream media and by both parties of power, as much of it is shunned here. I accept that as the result of my own choice to remain true to my views, which dont parallel very many on this board
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 02:08 AM
potayto, potahto, please get real..
and "no, not at all" is a solid counter-argument. Almost as good as saying I must not be libertarian because I haven't directly supported the Modern Libertarian party enough for your liking.
Explain your take on libertarian views please. Im not sure what Modern Libertarian tenets your referring to, but Ron Paul has been in the party for decades, preaching the same messages. Im just curious what your talking about
There's no reason for me to explain myself, none whatsoever.. you haven't explained yourself in this thread to near my satisfaction, or anyone else's, it would seem.. just the same conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 02:10 AM
There's no reason for me to explain myself, none whatsoever.. you haven't explained yourself in this thread to near my satisfaction, or anyone else's, it would seem.. just the same conspiracy mumbo jumbo.
I thought so.
I thought so.
fwiw, libertarianism is much wider in thought than you obviously limit yourself to.. you are no better than the "idealists" you hate when you simply parrot the party line any time someone challenges you, as you have in this thread.
Karl Widerquist writes of left-libertarianism and libertarian socialism as being distinct ideologies also claiming the label "libertarianism".[4] However, many works broadly distinguish right-libertarianism and left-libertarianism as related forms of libertarian philosophy.[5] Also identified is a large faction advocating minarchism, though libertarianism has also long been associated with anarchism (and sometimes is used as a synonym for such), especially outside of the United States.[6] Anarchism remains one of the significant branches of libertarianism.[7]
On that disparity, further (bolding/underlining mine):
Roderick T. Long defines libertarianism as "any political position that advocates a radical redistribution of power [either "total or merely substantial"] from the coercive state to voluntary associations of free individuals",
I have no reason to state my beliefs, in any case.. you can say "you thought so" all night, as I have don't have any reason to think you are doing anything except looking for someone base enough to be a sparring partner.
Wild Cobra
11-02-2010, 04:23 AM
What would you have us do? Do you believe we should continue burning fossil fuels as we choose?
You aren't exactly making a convincing argument when the position you seek to support is intelligible. Unless you're just making token statements, in which case, you're just wasting everyone's time.
Please.... Don't put me in a position of defending Parker.
His statement one of enforcement, but he asked a couple valid questions. I doubt his view are to allow carbon unrestricted. Doesn't seem like his style, but it did appear as a rather unbiased response from him for once.
RandomGuy
11-02-2010, 09:50 AM
Define 'progressive ideals.'
I think its pretty straightforward.
Then it should be easy to define.
Please define "progressive ideals". I have asked twice already, and zoSa once. This makes it the fourth time.
You seem to disagree with them.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 10:05 AM
fwiw, libertarianism is much wider in thought than you obviously limit yourself to.. you are no better than the "idealists" you hate when you simply parrot the party line any time someone challenges you, as you have in this thread.
On that disparity, further (bolding/underlining mine):
I have no reason to state my beliefs, in any case.. you can say "you thought so" all night, as I have don't have any reason to think you are doing anything except looking for someone base enough to be a sparring partner.
Your case is an intersting one to me, zosa, because you obviously dont support the two parties in power, and you want to latch on to something outside the mainstream political majority to reflect your beliefs, and yet you unwittingly denounce much of the Libertarian party platform (which you subscribe to?:rolleyes) as being "conspiracy" based. Do you understand the implications here?
They are this: The mainstream media and the two parties still control your perspective, to the point that you dont even know the substance of Libertarianism, and you are brainwashed to denounce views outside of the majority, including your own party (:rolleyes) as conspiracy fodder.
This is manipulation of the masses to a tee.
And its amazing to see first hand, honestly.
Have fun trying to find Libertarianism through the views of MSM, Dems, and Repubs that you have been endoctrinated into. Its going to be a bumpy ride. Or more likely, you never will.
Or better yet, stick to the places your most comfortable: the majority views that will tend to align your position with half of the electorate on any given issue. This will provide shelter for you, and will keep you from standing out in a crowd (which seems to be important to you).
It will keep you in the pasture with the flock, safe from ridicule and heckling, and you will find your direction at the shephard's staff and the dog's nip. This may be the place for you...cuz everybody aint meant to wander the countryside unsupervised.
Best of luck to you.
~Parker2112
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 10:06 AM
Then it should be easy to define.
Please define "progressive ideals". I have asked twice already, and zoSa once. This makes it the fourth time.
You seem to disagree with them.
I already did. Looks like you cant fucking read either. Eat a dick.
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 11:21 AM
Still trying to discover why Parker2112 made this thread, other than to bitch about how partisan our country has become. Which is hilarious and obvious simultaneously, given that Jon Stewart had a 3 hour rally about it on Saturday and about 300,000 people showed up in support of that viewpoint.
Yonivore
11-02-2010, 11:22 AM
Still trying to discover why Parker2112 made this thread, other than to bitch about how partisan our country has become. Which is hilarious, given that Jon Stewart had a 3 hour rally about it on Saturday.
I thought that wasn't political.
Parker2112
11-02-2010, 11:24 AM
Still trying to discover why Parker2112 made this thread, other than to bitch about how partisan our country has become. Which is hilarious and obvious simultaneously, given that Jon Stewart had a 3 hour rally about it on Saturday and about 300,000 people showed up in support of that viewpoint.
Even if that was the only reason, whats your point? It was evidently enough to bring you here, and keep you here?
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 11:33 AM
I thought that wasn't political.
It wasn't. It was decidedly anti-political. It was a collection of people who think that both parties are two heads to the same monster, and an observation of how ridiculous it all is. It obviously had a lot to do with politics, but it wasn't political in the sense that, "We are affiliated with this party/movement/etc. and we want to be heard." There was no direction, no definitive rallying cry to support "X" candidate, or "Y" party or system. It was simply a day of fun and humor, and chuckling at the entire process. The closest it came to being political was the simple statement that our media has become too politically biased and lacks any real objectivity anymore.
Even if that was the only reason, whats your point? It was evidently enough to bring you here, and keep you here?
Yes, because I'm wondering if at some point you'll actually assert yourself and make a statement that's not patently obvious. If you keep bumping this thread to the top with responses, I figure you must have a point unless you're trolling, which is becoming more of a possibility with ever generalized, "We need to change the system" 1960s era statement you make.
It's not that I disagree with you. It's that you're spending a lot of energy to say a lot of words, and I'm waiting for a hint of originality in them. I click on the thread hoping I won't be disappointed, but so far, it's pretty much the same thing for 3 pages.
boutons_deux
11-02-2010, 12:05 PM
False equivelance
There's nothing in the center or left that even remotely compares with the organized, bad-faith extremism of the right wing.
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 12:11 PM
False equivelance
There's nothing in the center or left that even remotely compares with the organized, bad-faith extremism of the right wing.
I disagree. The far left is just as bad, they just aren't as loud as the far right for the time being.
Your case is an intersting one to me, zosa, because you obviously dont support the two parties in power, and you want to latch on to something outside the mainstream political majority to reflect your beliefs, and yet you unwittingly denounce much of the Libertarian party platform (which you subscribe to?:rolleyes) as being "conspiracy" based. Do you understand the implications here?
They are this: The mainstream media and the two parties still control your perspective, to the point that you dont even know the substance of Libertarianism, and you are brainwashed to denounce views outside of the majority, including your own party (:rolleyes) as conspiracy fodder.
This is manipulation of the masses to a tee.
And its amazing to see first hand, honestly.
Have fun trying to find Libertarianism through the views of MSM, Dems, and Repubs that you have been endoctrinated into. Its going to be a bumpy ride. Or more likely, you never will.
Or better yet, stick to the places your most comfortable: the majority views that will tend to align your position with half of the electorate on any given issue. This will provide shelter for you, and will keep you from standing out in a crowd (which seems to be important to you).
It will keep you in the pasture with the flock, safe from ridicule and heckling, and you will find your direction at the shephard's staff and the dog's nip. This may be the place for you...cuz everybody aint meant to wander the countryside unsupervised.
Best of luck to you.
~Parker2112
I've been rather vague in my views to this point. That hasn't stopped you from branding me based on multiple faulty presumptions, parroting the modern libertarian party line, and overall, being a jackass.
Here's what I have to say in response: I don't technically align myself with ANY party. There's a humongous reason why I said, ".. but you consider yourself libertarian, and you don't live in reality.." I knew this BS was coming. You are a sheeple just like everyone else, parroting "your views", which Ron Paul told you.
I especially enjoy how you believe one must submit to these off the wall conspiracy theories and pointless observations of fascism ("..and you are brainwashed to denounce views outside of the majority, including your own party (:rolleyes) as conspiracy fodder.") in order to be a libertarian.
I mean, wow.
Best of luck finding someone base enough for such an argument.
Winehole23
11-02-2010, 01:48 PM
Best of luck finding someone base enough for such an argument.Plenty more where that one came from. It only takes one person to beat off.
Wild Cobra
11-02-2010, 01:56 PM
I disagree. The far left is just as bad, they just aren't as loud as the far right for the time being.
Not only that, but it isn't news anymore when they do dumb things, like the guy who stepped on the MoveOn worker. has the parties been reversed, it wouldn't have been news.
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 02:04 PM
Not only that, but it isn't news anymore when they do dumb things, like the guy who stepped on the MoveOn worker. has the parties been reversed, it wouldn't have been news.
You're delusional. A woman having her head stepped on at a political rally is going to make waves regardless of her political affiliation.
Do you really mean to suggest that it was on the news because she's liberal, rather than, you know, being a woman who's being abused by men for no reason?
:rolleyes
Wild Cobra
11-02-2010, 02:07 PM
You're delusional. A woman having her head stepped on at a political rally is going to make waves regardless of her political affiliation.
Do you really mean to suggest that it was on the news because she's liberal, rather than, you know, being a woman who's being abused by men for no reason?
:rolleyes
I'm saying such news wouldn't be a news item in my state if the candidate was liberal, the activist conservative, and the stomper liberal.
Actually, I'll retract that. The news would be the conservative activist charging the candidate and being a threat, having to be taken down. The head stomping would have been edited out of the news.
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 02:14 PM
Actually, I'll retract that. The news would be the conservative activist charging the candidate and being a threat, having to be taken down.
You mean, exactly like the message Jack, Yoni, and yourself have attempted to communicate?
You basically just lambasted the "liberal media" for potentially using the same tactic that conservatives in this forum are actively employing. I find that very odd that when you guys do it, it's just being objective, but if it was coming from a liberal source, it would be intentional obfuscation.
The head stomping would have been edited out of the news.
You guys certainly seem to be doing all you can to minimizing it. When it happened and you were defending it, he was just "holding her down", but flip the situation and your conservative sign-holder would be getting goomba-ed by Mario? You could not be more transparent if you tried.
Wild Cobra
11-02-2010, 02:21 PM
You guys certainly seem to be doing all you can to minimizing it. When it happened and you were defending it, he was just "holding her down", but flip the situation and your conservative sign-holder would be getting goomba-ed by Mario? You could not be more transparent if you tried.
Please show me where I agreed the stepping on was justifiable.
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 02:45 PM
Please show me where I agreed the stepping on was justifiable.
You didn't, but you spent the entire thread justifying the behavior. It's like the captain of his team taking responsibility for a loss by saying, "Yeah, it's my fault we lost this game, but all of our players suck." You're pardoning the incident, making acceptable space for it to exist, even as you obliquely state that it's wrong. You find yourself torn between your allegiance to your partisanship and your sense of morality. So you make room for both. It's an ambiguous response to the situation, clearing your conscience even as you pander to your party.
You mean, exactly like the message Jack, Yoni, and yourself have attempted to communicate?
You basically just lambasted the "liberal media" for potentially using the same tactic that conservatives in this forum are actively employing. I find that very odd that when you guys do it, it's just being objective, but if it was coming from a liberal source, it would be intentional obfuscation.
Cry Havoc
11-02-2010, 02:46 PM
double post
Wild Cobra
11-02-2010, 02:53 PM
You didn't, but you spent the entire thread justifying the behavior. It's like the captain of his team taking responsibility for a loss by saying, "Yeah, it's my fault we lost this game, but all of our players suck." You're pardoning the incident, making acceptable space for it to exist, even as you obliquely state that it's wrong. You find yourself torn between your allegiance to your partisanship and your sense of morality. So you make room for both. It's an ambiguous response to the situation, clearing your conscience even as you pander to your party.
Bullshit.
I drew a clear line at the stepping on her shoulder, repeatedly saying there was no justification for that. All before that was.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.