Post: #51

(02-16-2012 02:31 AM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:20 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:11 AM)MSW2007 Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 12:03 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  By the way, how can anybody be a Gamer and be shitty pansy leftist? The answer?

You can't be. Because leftists are fucking pussies.

Yet by self-admission you rank yourself as a Beginner when it comes to game level. What do you know about the game, Master? Or the personalities that dwell in the field?

Hilarious.

Keep drinkin' the Fox News Kool-Aid, Bubba, you'll be fine...

Didn't momma ever tell you curse-words was for people who didn't know no better?

Really? I can rank myself? Didn't know that. In my user profile it seems unchangeable.

Here's the logic.

Anybody who expects government to solve their problems are pussies.

Leftists expect government to solve problems.

Ergo, leftists are pussies.

So my desire to have police protect me, firemen to save me, lawyers to defend me, the roads to be well paved, free education, and a hell of a lot of other things makes me a pussy?

well, kind of. the other little problem no one wants to really think about is that all that "free" shit isnt really free.

Post: #52

Gerald Celente's predictions for 2012. Interesting.

Post: #53

(02-16-2012 12:03 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  More fucking stinkin' horseshit.

This old man should not be allowed to participate in any political threads.

It sounds like he's really angry.

(02-16-2012 12:03 AM)tenderman100 Wrote:  Really? How about these constitutional scholars?

http://tv.nationalreview.com/uncommonkno...ViODg4NjE=

Really, watch this and THEN get back to me.

Grandpa, the National Review is the conservative pro-Bush magazine. They endorsed George W both times. Of course, they will tell you a million reasons why Al Gore is the devil.

Tenderman100, I know that sitting there watching Glenn Whateverthefuck and reading the National Review will make you paranoid. Just trust me when I say this though: Even though the President is darker than you, he's not coming to your house to take your gun and give it to other darkies so they can shoot god. Enjoy your golden years.

Or, I bet you got whippersnappers on your lawn. Take our anger out on them.

Aloha!

Post: #54

(02-16-2012 11:49 AM)Hencredible Casanova Wrote:  Gerald Celente's predictions for 2012. Interesting.

Very interesting. Good analysis even though some of the things have yet to come, but I believe they're strong possibilities. This is one of those things that I like about that channel (RT)



[/quote]

Post: #55

Guys who throw around, "Left wingers must be a pussies" crack me up.

I've boxed in a ring, fought MMA, had nose broken in fights. What about you "alpha male Republicans"? When's the last time you got into a fight on the street, or entered a ring or cage for the fun of it?

Al Franken challenged National Review editor Rich Lowry to a fight after Lowry called liberals pansies. Lowry punked out like a little bitch.

Jeff Monson is a radical left winger.



If you need to show how tough you are by associating with a political party, I have bad news for you, Nancy.

Post: #56

I have a question. When is the last time any of you changed anybody's mind about anything talking politics? If any of you really want anything to change you would be advised to support a 3rd party whether that be the tea party, occupy movement, or something in between.

Post: #57

(02-16-2012 03:26 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  I have a question. When is the last time any of you changed anybody's mind about anything talking politics? If any of you really want anything to change you would be advised to support a 3rd party whether that be the tea party, occupy movement, or something in between.

I'm a Ron Paul guy. I think G is, too.

In America, that makes you "left wing."

I read a funny comment elsewhere that is true: "Republicans would rather have Obama in the White House than Ron Paul. This shows you what Republican's true priorities are."

Post: #58

(02-15-2012 05:50 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  It's funny...Guys say, "Paul can't win," while simultaneously using dirty tricks against him.

Why not just win fair and square?

Why cheat if he's no threat?

That one is easy. While Ron Paul is not a threat in terms of winning the nomination, he could cause Mitt Romney to lose the nomination.

In the most recent case, Maine, screwing Ron Paul was meant to prevent Mitt from losing all momentum. If Paul been announced the winner in Maine, that would have been 4 straight defeats form Mitt Romney. It would motivate his opponents to stay in the race longer, More importantly, guys like Santorum and Gingrich (though, mostly Santorum) would get more money into their campaigns, perhaps even money that would have gone to Romney, because Romney no longer looks like "Mr. Inevitable".

As it stands now, if/when Ron Paul is announced to be the ACTUAL winner of Maine, the announcement will be drowned out because of the Arizona and Michigan primary results. It will be an afterthought, the way Rick Santorum being announced as the actual winner of Iowa didn't have a huge impact.

The ideal situation for Romney would have been to have vanquished all serious candidates by Super Tuesday or earlier. That isn't going to happen. There is a VERY strong chance that this could go on to June, or even not be settled until the convention in August.

This would be HORRIBLE for Romney. As we have seen, since Romney really has no stated vision for improving America, his only defense when faced with serious challengers (e.g. Santorum and Gingrich) is to flood the airwaves with negative ads. Because he has so much money, it works.

However, it also leads to his own approval numbers and likability numbers dropping. In addition, this moderate Republican has to continuously project this image of being a hard right winger to win the nomination. The longer he has to project that image in the primary, the less likely independent voters will forget it in the general election.

If you would have asked me this time last year whether I thought President Obama would be re-elected, I would have said no with a strong degree of confidence. At this point, I think that it is HIGHLY likely that he will win re-election. Short of a MAJOR dip in the economy this summer (still possible), I can't see any of the republican candidates recovering.

Post: #59

I am actually more concerned about the fact that Fidel Castro called the Republican primaries "the [greatest competition of idocy] and biggest collection of stupidity and ignorance that I have ever seen". When a senile communist dictator is criticizing you for being stupid, then you know things have REALLY gone downhill.

Post: #60

(02-16-2012 03:39 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:26 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  I have a question. When is the last time any of you changed anybody's mind about anything talking politics? If any of you really want anything to change you would be advised to support a 3rd party whether that be the tea party, occupy movement, or something in between.

I'm a Ron Paul guy. I think G is, too.

In America, that makes you "left wing."

I read a funny comment elsewhere that is true: "Republicans would rather have Obama in the White House than Ron Paul. This shows you what Republican's true priorities are."

I believe if you polled every ron paul supporter and told them they had to choose either democrat or republican, 50% + 1 would choose republicans. I cannot agree with your statement that being a Ron Paul guy makes others perceive you as left wing. I'm a Ron Paul guy too and nobody would consider me left wing.

Post: #61

I am a libertarian, minarchist, anarcho-capitalist. I would like to dismantle almost all of the state. In the absence of that, I'll settle for Ron Paul.

Post: #62

(02-16-2012 08:55 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:39 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(02-16-2012 03:26 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  I have a question. When is the last time any of you changed anybody's mind about anything talking politics? If any of you really want anything to change you would be advised to support a 3rd party whether that be the tea party, occupy movement, or something in between.

I'm a Ron Paul guy. I think G is, too.

In America, that makes you "left wing."

I read a funny comment elsewhere that is true: "Republicans would rather have Obama in the White House than Ron Paul. This shows you what Republican's true priorities are."

I believe if you polled every ron paul supporter and told them they had to choose either democrat or republican, 50% + 1 would choose republicans. I cannot agree with your statement that being a Ron Paul guy makes others perceive you as left wing. I'm a Ron Paul guy too and nobody would consider me left wing.

Ron Paul is on the right. That's more or less concrete. However, he has a huge appeal to the left side of the spectrum (hardcore anti-war among other things), as well as being the best bet to save the economy (which is the only thing people give a shit about right now). In short, he's on the right, but he has a lot more left wing appeal than other Republican candidates.

Post: #63

Guys.


The left-wing/right-wing debate is pathetic shit.


You're tooling yourself if you consider yourself on either "wing".


There is no left-wing. There is no right-wing.

These are constructs used to control the masses. Stop using these fucking labels, for fucks sake. Stop being sheep.


Ron Paul isn't left-wing, or right-wing. He's a conservative (in the sense of defending old policies) who upholds the virtues established by the U.S. Constitution. This doesn't make him right-wing or left-wing.


The terms right-wing and left-wing were used to describe political parties in the French Revolution. Do your history.

And what did the USA's founding fathers do with the French Revolution?

Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.


So please, everyone, do yourself a favor. Dignify yourself. Stop using the terms "left-wing" or "right-wing".

Post: #64

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

Post: #65

Jeb Bush is the 'The Best Man'.

Post: #66

(02-17-2012 01:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

No, the left-wing is closely aligned with neo-liberalism and the right-wing is closely aligned with neo-conservatism. In practice both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives love the power of the state and are fascists. Republicans don't cut spending and democrats continue to wage war.

Ron Paul is by definition a classical liberal.

Post: #67

(02-17-2012 02:42 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 01:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

No, the left-wing is closely aligned with neo-liberalism and the right-wing is closely aligned with neo-conservatism. In practice both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives love the power of the state and are fascists. Republicans don't cut spending and democrats continue to wage war.

Ron Paul is by definition a classical liberal.

This is correct.

Bush, Obama and Romney are fascists.

No one seems to realize this.

I like Classic Liberalism:

Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty.

Post: #68

(02-17-2012 01:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

U mad?

Sam's a smart kid - probably smarter than you.

You've never contributed anything of note to the forum.

Focus on adding value to the group before spitting all over your computer screen.

It doesn't impress anyone. Plus, most regulars have thick skin, so it doesn't even work at offending people.

Post: #69

(02-17-2012 01:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

Man, your reading comprehension sucks ass. Of course meanings behind words change over time. Did I ever deny this?

RIGHT NOW, I want YOU to stop worrying about these pathetic labels and semantics. They're just designed to divide and conquer the masses. Get it?


Instead, just argue in terms of actual policies - i.e. what should or should not be done. Don't say, "We need more left-wing politicians" or "we can't have any more right-wingers!", because then you're a total tool for someone else to manipulate.

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningless. Do not be blinded by the sophistry behind these ancient terms.

Post: #70

(02-17-2012 02:45 PM)thegmanifesto Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 02:42 PM)durangotang Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 01:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

No, the left-wing is closely aligned with neo-liberalism and the right-wing is closely aligned with neo-conservatism. In practice both neo-liberals and neo-conservatives love the power of the state and are fascists. Republicans don't cut spending and democrats continue to wage war.

Ron Paul is by definition a classical liberal.

This is correct.

Bush, Obama and Romney are fascists.

No one seems to realize this.

I like Classic Liberalism:

Classical liberalism places a particular emphasis on the sovereignty of the individual, with private property rights being seen as essential to individual liberty.

The added benefit G is that it shouldn't hurt your international swooping a bit! If a chick asks if you are a Republican or conservative, you can answer with "nope, I am a classical liberal."

The world loved a non-interventionist, liberal America.

Post: #71

(02-17-2012 02:53 PM)MikeCF Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 01:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

U mad?

Sam's a smart kid - probably smarter than you.

You've never contributed anything of note to the forum.

Focus on adding value to the group before spitting all over your computer screen.

It doesn't impress anyone. Plus, most regulars have thick skin, so it doesn't even work at offending people.

I'm not mad.

Also, I don't really have much to say in the form of game. As someone who was sexually abused multiple times over a sixth month period when I was eight, I have, as a result, avoided things like sexual tension. I'm working on it, but for now, I stay quiet in the game forum since I don't have anything to add. I argue in these political threads from time to time, since I find politics really interesting. Even then, I usually stay quiet. I looked at my "stats" and I only post one out of every three days on average.

I doubt Samseau is smarter than me. If anything, we're around the same level of intelligence.

Also, I'll be honest. I don't truly know how to conduct myself on a forum. I've always had trouble with this kind of stuff. Shit, I have trouble properly expressing myself in real life. Last night my pledge brothers were having a serious talk with me about how I am quiet and in this shell. How I act like I have zero confidence. They were telling me how I needed to stand up for myself and be open with them. See, the thing is is that on a daily basis, my mother would say things to me that attacked me on a deep emotional level. On a daily basis she would make me feel like I was worthless. See, this is the problem I have here. I don't really know how to conduct myself in a way that commands respect. Ever since I was a kid I didn't like myself. Now I know I'm going off on a crazy tangent, but I'm just saying this because I've been thinking about it a lot. Mike, I promise you, I'll shut up on this forum for a long time until I've overcome my bullshit if that makes you happy. I need to anyways, since I don't have nearly as much time to fuck around on random websites as I did last semester.

Also, I think you have the wrong picture of me. I bet you think I'm some fat sweaty slob, typing away spitting mad on my computer. In real life, I'm actually 6'1", broad shoulders, wear nice clothes, and I have a good looking face. I'm about 30 or so pounds overweight, so I'm a little bit chubby, but soon enough that weight will be gone, since I've started eating healthier and hitting the gym.

(02-17-2012 03:20 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 01:20 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  

(02-17-2012 12:13 PM)Samseau Wrote:  Nothing. Nothing at all. They stayed mostly neutral. Why? Because not a single one of our founding fathers were "left-wing" or "right-wing", which has to do with Marxist/Socialism bullshit. They didn't want to get embroiled in a senseless war to fight for "left-wing" or "right-wing" ideals, as they mostly knew back then it was fucking crap.

You seem to be incapable of understanding that words and concepts change meaning over time, as they become integrated into other cultures. It doesn't fucking matter what left-wing or right-wing meant 150+ years ago. RIGHT NOW, left-wing is closely aligned with liberal and right-wing is closely aligned with conservative.

Man, your reading comprehension sucks ass. Of course meanings behind words change over time. Did I ever deny this?

RIGHT NOW, I want YOU to stop worrying about these pathetic labels and semantics. They're just designed to divide and conquer the masses. Get it?


Instead, just argue in terms of actual policies - i.e. what should or should not be done. Don't say, "We need more left-wing politicians" or "we can't have any more right-wingers!", because then you're a total tool for someone else to manipulate.

The terms "left-wing" and "right-wing" are meaningless. Do not be blinded by the sophistry behind these ancient terms.

They aren't meaningless. They are based in guiding political ideologies. You act like the party system is some unnatural construct, even when it arose before our government was even in place with the federalists and anti-federalists. Even then, the party system that our country has today arose immediately after George Washington stepped down. This is with Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton. Jefferson being for state's rights and Hamilton being for a strong federal government. Hamilton even went as far as using the military to stamp out a rebellion from the farmer's that were angry with being overtaxed as a show of overarching federal power.

The only real problem I have with our party system is that, a small group of people with extraordinarily large amounts of wealth are able to distort our party system. This coupled with interests groups, truly distort who our government focuses on. This my frustration with the U.S. government. I'll link to Federalist 10 again because it describes better than I could: http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa10.htm. James Madison warned against "factions" (presently called interest groups) arising and distorting the political system. Lo and behold that is the way things currently work today. I know I'm talking in circles here, but I'll say it again. The party system isn't the problem, it's the people distorting our government for their own selfish desires that is the problem. Our government was designed to take care of the public good. The only problem is that our founding fathers did not foresee how things like media and super wealthy corporations would be able to override safeguards that they put into place.

Post: #72

All or Nothing -

You should contact Mixx for a little of the Lifestyle coaching.

Your post reminds me that I should be more sensitive to other people on here.

Post: #73

(02-17-2012 06:28 PM)All or Nothing Wrote:  <snip>

All good, bro.

The late teens/early 20's are rough years.

PM if you have any questions or wanna chat.

Post: #74

Quote:They aren't meaningless. They are based in guiding political ideologies. You act like the party system is some unnatural construct,

False. The party system has nothing to do with political ideologies. The parties try to label each other with ideologies, but that's just to use tools like you.

Post: #75

(02-17-2012 07:41 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:They aren't meaningless. They are based in guiding political ideologies. You act like the party system is some unnatural construct,

False. The party system has nothing to do with political ideologies. The parties try to label each other with ideologies, but that's just to use tools like you.

How to get fired in under five minutes: