The W
Views: 100069056
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
26.10.14 0200
The W - Current Events & Politics - We got cartoons all up in your grill!
This thread has 27 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2448 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (25 total)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#1 Posted on
Sorry, but this couldn't possibly have reminded me of the majority of this board any more if I wrote it...

Click Here



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"
---Homer Simpson
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Ah...This Modern World is usually fun...
cranlsn
Liverwurst








Since: 18.3.02
From: Sussex, WI

Since last post: 16 days
Last activity: 1 day
#3 Posted on
Damn that Richard Dreyfuss, damn him!!!

heh...

If I can't take a joke, I should just go hang up my "C.W.A" card.

Seriously though, Fuzzy....you think us conservatives are the majority on this board? I usually stay out of most of the political threads just because there's such an even mix, and it tends to degenerate into "Bloodsucking conservatives" vs. "flaming liberals" arguments.

jmodo



DJ FrostyFreeze
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Hawthorne, CA

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 2 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.95
Agreed, but WHO YOU CALLIN' "FLAMING"?!?!?! :)


(EDIT: I better ad a "smiley" up there so anyone cruising the politics folder looking for an argument to start doesnt get the wrong idea)

(edited by DJ FrostyFreeze on 7.10.02 1343)


This is just GREAT
Take a picture, write it down.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#5 Posted on
Actually, I discovered in a thread in the wrestling folder that veered in the wrong direction that liberals may well outnumber conservatives on this board in general - but most of them stay out of this folder.



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"
---Homer Simpson
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#6 Posted on
See, that is funny. It is mocking both sides subtly, and moking them about the issues. I hate cartoons that are simply BLATANT propoganda... which there are a lot of out there! It is one thing to make light of politics, but to present these people as total morons (I HATE the "idiot gunslinger" Bush cartoons), just because you belong to one party or the other, is really a turn off...



Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 1-3!
On the road to oh and sixt... Wha?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2832 days
Last activity: 2675 days
AIM:  
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
That was super lame.

Conservatives have a stranglehold on the terms of debate? What country does he live in? No one even *thinks* about individual rights anymore. I have a friend who is very, very liberal, and whenever I even mention my libertarian politics he harps on me for being greedy. When we stop living in an age where wanting what one has earned is defined as greed, THEN you tell me conservatives own the debate. When a desire for less gov't and more freedom is seen as normal, and not as selfish, then come talk to me. And let's not get into Social Security reform, as anyone who wants to gut that failing system obviously wants to push Grandma over a cliff.

And give me a break... "all" conservatives are up against is cartoonists and college professors? Speaking as a (until recently) college student, the college campus is the most intellectually stifling environment I've ever been in.

Edit: And way to lump in "progressive taxation, environmental protection, and abortion rights." Three things that a.) clearly go together and b.) any enlightened man should clearly support.

(edited by PalpatineW on 8.10.02 0015)


Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
    Actually, I discovered in a thread in the wrestling folder that veered in the wrong direction that liberals may well outnumber conservatives on this board in general - but most of them stay out of this folder.


Probably because most liberal arguments are impossible to defend...
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4369 days
Last activity: 4366 days
#9 Posted on

    Originally posted by Grimis

      Originally posted by OlFuzzyBastard
      Actually, I discovered in a thread in the wrestling folder that veered in the wrong direction that liberals may well outnumber conservatives on this board in general - but most of them stay out of this folder.


    Probably because most liberal arguments are impossible to defend...



Actually, that's not totally true and is, in fact, a vast overstatement. Of course, you may have intended it that way... If so, uh... Ha. Ha. You certainly got the lie-berals with that one. Ahem.

I've found that being a liberal/leftist, or more specifically, a socialist, is a very defendable political stance to take... if one is a Christian. To be certain, a good portion of an American liberal's tenets don't jive with Christianity, but then again, neither do all those of the Republicans.

How could a "thinking" Darwinian liberal justify to others the thought of loving and helping another simply because he is a "fellow man" when that goes against the very grain that brought us our success?

How could a sincere, true-blue, conservative American Christian justify to others the concept of "what's mine is mine" when it goes against the teachings of the book he calls his moral compass? And no, I'm not talking about "I Told You So", I'm talking about the Bible.

Read Acts and many of the epistles. You'll be calling Paul a "pinko commie faggot" in no time.

--------------------------------------------------


    Originally posted by PalpatineW

    When a desire for less gov't and more freedom is seen as normal...



Did you read the Patriot Act? People don't complain and grouse about Ashcroft because he's a fundy, you know. I wouldn't call the Bush administration the standard bearer of 'less gubment' because we got $300 a year ago... If you think ANY administration is going to give up any power then I have some realy nice property to sell you in South Florida.


    Originally posted by PalpatineW

    the college campus is the most intellectually stifling environment I've ever been in.



Amen.

As for the cartoon... Not too bad, but it's really pretty vacuous. Every side has its renegade posuers.



Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#10 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Fletch your arguments are intriguing, but I do not agree with them at all.

Socialism is impossible to defend regardless of your religious leanings for two reasons: one, socilaism ignores and discounts the Darwinian instinct for self-preservation; and two, the fact that socialism is doomed to failure because it provides no incentives to achieve. This is a simplistic, but truthful, repudiation of socialist thought.

Secondly, I try to keep the discussion of politics far outside of the religious scope. I do believe that religion is important for politicians to use as a moral compass, but certainly not as the be all and all all of one's political persuasions. I consider myself a Christian, but am not a member of any church or denomination.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst








Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 18 days
Last activity: 11 hours
AIM:  
#11 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    That was super lame.

    Conservatives have a stranglehold on the terms of debate? What country does he live in? No one even *thinks* about individual rights anymore. I have a friend who is very, very liberal, and whenever I even mention my libertarian politics he harps on me for being greedy. When we stop living in an age where wanting what one has earned is defined as greed, THEN you tell me conservatives own the debate. When a desire for less gov't and more freedom is seen as normal, and not as selfish, then come talk to me. And let's not get into Social Security reform, as anyone who wants to gut that failing system obviously wants to push Grandma over a cliff.

    And give me a break... "all" conservatives are up against is cartoonists and college professors? Speaking as a (until recently) college student, the college campus is the most intellectually stifling environment I've ever been in.

    Edit: And way to lump in "progressive taxation, environmental protection, and abortion rights." Three things that a.) clearly go together and b.) any enlightened man should clearly support.

    (edited by PalpatineW on 8.10.02 0015)



Perhaps that's because you're talking to your friend who's very, very liberal.

I have a friend who's very, very conservative, and everytime I mention something about Bush warmongering in Iraq, he harps on me for being anti-American. Your point?



"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree."
---George Carlin

"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!"
---Homer Simpson
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4369 days
Last activity: 4366 days
#12 Posted on
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Fletch your arguments are intriguing, but I do not agree with them at all.

    Socialism is impossible to defend regardless of your religious leanings for two reasons: one, socilaism ignores and discounts the Darwinian instinct for self-preservation...



Indeed. I agree with you on that point.


    Originally posted by Grimis


    Secondly, I try to keep the discussion of politics far outside of the religious scope. I do believe that religion is important for politicians to use as a moral compass, but certainly not as the be all and all all of one's political persuasions.



Discounting religion when it comes to politics, just because YOU don't let it dictate your choices is very shortsighted. The impact of the Christian Coalition on Reagan's victory in '80, and to a lesser extent '84, cannot be ignored. Primarily because that lobby has been a cornerstone of Republican politics ever since. For a Republican to run and scoff them would very likely mean defeat.


    Originally posted by Grimis
    ...and two, the fact that socialism is doomed to failure because it provides no incentives to achieve. This is a simplistic, but truthful, repudiation of socialist thought.


Tell a Christian Socialist (or any Christian for that matter) that he has nothing to achieve by communal living, paying high taxes for the public good, and donating generously to the poor (once again, see Acts). Your "repudiation" is simplistic indeed. So simplistic that it ignores just how deeply religion effects the choices of many, Christian or otherwise.

In the end it is a repudation of socialist thought only because you want it to be.

(edited by Fletch on 8.10.02 1115)


Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2832 days
Last activity: 2675 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
Fuzzy: Eh. I see what you're saying. Maybe I'm just jaded from three years of living in Amherst, MA.

Fletch: How about another simplistic repudiation: Separation of Church and State. And, if you don't think that's enough, do you think you have the right to impose your religion on everyone else? Because socialism is a form of government, your argument from religion really falls flat. If you want to practice it on a small scale, in your own community with a bunch of willing volunteers, sure. But you'll never (hopefully) find an entire nation of willing volunteers here in the US. And I really think you're oversimplifying to a dangerous degree when you suggest taxes are for "the common good."

Besides, you can give to the poor without giant, compulsory gov't programs. If you belong to a church, I'm sure that church does so generously.



Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1272 days
Last activity: 1069 days
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29

    Originally posted by Fletch
    Discounting religion when it comes to politics, just because YOU don't let it dictate your choices is very shortsighted. The impact of the Christian Coalition on Reagan's victory in '80, and to a lesser extent '84, cannot be ignored. Primarily because that lobby has been a cornerstone of Republican politics ever since. For a Republican to run and scoff them would very likely mean defeat.


I was speaking more personally than politically. Trust me, they're still out there. We have our own little "God Squad" in my local GOP club and they are nothing but a pain in the ass.


    Originally posted by Fletch
    Tell a Christian Socialist (or any Christian for that matter) that he has nothing to achieve by communal living, paying high taxes for the public good, and donating generously to the poor (once again, see Acts). Your "repudiation" is simplistic indeed. So simplistic that it ignores just how deeply religion effects the choices of many, Christian or otherwise.

    In the end it is a repudation of socialist thought only because you want it to be.



Isn't any repudiation a repudiation only because we want it to be?

Palp is right in that nothing is saying you can't go what you want to do, living communally, and donating. Unfortunately for you "High taxes" and "public good" are mutually exclusive terms becuse they retard growth and economic propserity, thus giving a disincentive to personal success, thus brininging down the standard of living.

By the way, your proposed Christian Socialist form of government has a name: THEOCRACY
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4369 days
Last activity: 4366 days
#15 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Fletch: How about another simplistic repudiation: Separation of Church and State. And, if you don't think that's enough, do you think you have the right to impose your religion on everyone else? Because socialism is a form of government, your argument from religion really falls flat. If you want to practice it on a small scale, in your own community with a bunch of willing volunteers, sure. But you'll never (hopefully) find an entire nation of willing volunteers here in the US. And I really think you're oversimplifying to a dangerous degree when you suggest taxes are for "the common good."

    Besides, you can give to the poor without giant, compulsory gov't programs. If you belong to a church, I'm sure that church does so generously.



Read a few posts up. I'm not stating how I believe (I am neither a Christian nor a socialist), I'm merely providing what I feel to be an academic response to Grimis' statement: "Probably because most liberal arguments are impossible to defend..."

What I am doing: stating one way in which a liberal argument can be defended.

What I am NOT doing: saying how I think things should be.

I'm theorizing, not proselytizing.

There is a very big difference.



Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong








Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1318 days
Last activity: 84 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#16 Posted on
The problem with liberal arguments is that most times, they begin at the heart. At least for the rank and file democrats. They think- oh, our homeless problem should be taken care of by "the government!" As if the government was some huge, mysterious entitiy that exists to take care of us all. A Republican will take a different stace, and agree that the homeless should be taken care of, but that is not the responsibility of the federal government. It would be a tremendous tax drain, and that money comes out of the pocket of individual taxpayers, and we should not tax them for something that would be better and more efficiently left to the private sector, or local governments. Said Republican will then donate a sum to a homeless shelter, or something like that, and suggest others do the same. (because he/she really IS a good person)
Then the Democrat leadership will twist the Republicans words, claiming that the evil Republican cares nothing for the homeless. The liberal media (yes, there is a liberal media, dammit!) will broadcast footage of the Republican claiming that the federal government has no buisness dealing with a homeless problem (editing out his suggestions that local governments are better equipped to handle the problem). And of course no mention of the donateion is EVER made... back to the rank and file democrats- this is what they see, and their ideas are re-inforced.
Republican=evil, and government not taking care of the homeless is equally evil.
So they believe wholeheartedly that Uncle Sam's job is to care for the homeless, but they have no other reason than "it is evil not to."

(edited by Pool-Boy on 8.10.02 0924)


Craig Reade
"Pool Boy"

Detroit Lions! 1-3!
On the road to oh and sixt... Wha?
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4369 days
Last activity: 4366 days
#17 Posted on
    Originally posted by Grimis
    Isn't any repudiation a repudiation only because we want it to be?


Certainly. But only a select few 'repudiations' can be universally true.


    Originally posted by Grimis
    This is a simplistic, but truthful, repudiation of socialist thought.


True to you maybe, but not to me. See above, or http://www.m-w.com for further reading.


    Originally posted by Grimis
    Unfortunately for you "High taxes" and "public good" are mutually exclusive terms becuse they retard growth and economic propserity, thus giving a disincentive to personal success, thus brininging down the standard of living.


Hi Grimis. My name is Fletch.

Beyond that what the fuck do you really know about me?

It is possible, you know, to discuss a particular point of view and not hold it as gospel. What's so hard to understand about that?

And how are you defining personal success? There are other measures for that than ones bank account. As many in the GOP, I'm sure, will tell you.


    Originally posted by Grimis


    By the way, your proposed Christian Socialist form of government has a name: THEOCRACY



Edmund Stoiber would disagree with you.

For further reading look to: http://personal.centre.edu/~samhat/Europol/Rutan.html
Just because I link to it does not mean it's how I believe. One would think I wouldn't have to be this careful...

If the link doesn't work, let me know.

(edited by Fletch on 8.10.02 1329)


Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2832 days
Last activity: 2675 days
AIM:  
#18 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
    Originally posted by Fletch
    Read a few posts up. I'm not stating how I believe (I am neither a Christian nor a socialist), I'm merely providing what I feel to be an academic response to Grimis' statement: "Probably because most liberal arguments are impossible to defend..."

    What I am doing: stating one way in which a liberal argument can be defended.

    What I am NOT doing: saying how I think things should be.

    I'm theorizing, not proselytizing.

    There is a very big difference.



Well, Fletch, if you start defending a certain point of view here, odds are that a.) you will be associated with that point of view, and b.) others will try to continue the debate that you started.

I replied to your post because I think what you said is wrong. I don't care about you, personally. I was responding to your argument, period.

As far as your seeming defense of socialism in response to Grimis goes...

It doesn't matter, at all, what *you* think defines success. You don't have the right to dictate someone else's definition. i.e., just because you don't believe in material comfort, this does not give you the right to deprive your neighbor of such comfort.

(edited by PalpatineW on 8.10.02 1726)


Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
El Nastio
Andouille








Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
ICQ:  
#19 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.33
I wonder how many 'uppercase' Conservatives there are around here. It'd be interesting.

Edit: And way to lump in "progressive taxation, environmental protection, and abortion rights." Three things that a.) clearly go together and b.) any enlightened man should clearly support


1) I haven't looked into PT as much as I should, but I admit it looks like it's pretty neat-o.
2) I like enviromental protection.
3) Abortion I don't like. At all.

Am I merely 2/3's "enlightened"?



Habs: 6-1-0-0. Lost to the Mapleleafs (ARG!).
Renegades: Last place. All you need to know.
Man of the Week: Jose Theodore hasn't lost a step.
Goat of the Week: CBC for not signing Ron MacLean right away.
Next VG Review: Chorno Cross.
Next OSVG Review: Mike Tyson's Punchout

~EL NASTIO!
Fletch
Cotechino








Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4369 days
Last activity: 4366 days
#20 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Well, Fletch, if you start defending a certain point of view here, odds are that a.) you will be associated with that point of view, and b.) others will try to continue the debate that you started.


So, tell me again how this makes *me* responsible for the knee jerk reactions and snap judgements of you and others? It's not my fault that people don't have decent reading comprehension.

I prefer to blame that on Bill Clinton. Or George W. Bush. Depending on what kind of mood I'm in.


    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    I replied to your post because I think what you said is wrong. I don't care about you, personally. I was responding to your argument, period.


Blink. Blink. Did my eyes just go insane? When did I ever give you the indication that I needed a verbal hug from you or anyone else?


    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    As far as your seeming defense of socialism in response to Grimis goes...It doesn't matter, at all, what *you* think defines success. You don't have the right to dictate someone else's definition. i.e., just because you don't believe in material comfort, this does not give you the right to deprive your neighbor of such comfort.

    (edited by PalpatineW on 8.10.02 1726)



So... Let me get this straight... It doesn't matter, at all, how I define success. But it does matter, very much so, how the haves (oh, and you) define it? Who's doing the dictating here?



Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Here's a good article
Next thread: West Coast Port Shutdown
Previous thread: FINAL TALLY
(2448 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
For "both sides," that seems a little one-sided. Grimis, learn some restraint already. That this went 90 minutes without a response should have shown you that none was necessary.
The W - Current Events & Politics - We got cartoons all up in your grill!Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.145 seconds.