Reply With Quote
"My position: Blind allegience to partisan politics destroys our country"
...yawn...
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...
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:
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.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?
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.
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..
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.
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?
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?
...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.
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.
Just search this board for Ron Paul threads and you'll begin to see what "your party" actually stands for.
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 bull , but it has ever been the way in American history.. it has always had to do with blatant power, not this subtle conspiracy bull you love spewing.
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.
No, not at all, but the "cool story bro" doesnt bring many brownie points IMB
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
Last edited by z0sa; 11-02-2010 at 02:19 AM.
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.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions