I'm going with Saddam's regime. The Iraq-centric conflict in the Gulf can arguably be said to have started in 1980, when Saddam launched a more-or-less surpise attack against its neighbor, Iran. In that conflict, at least 300,000 of Saddam's Iraqi citizens were killed, most of whom were conscripted foot soldiers.
You always seem to ignore large portions of reality to attempt to justify a war which a vast number of people knew before and everybody knows now was based on outright lies. Whether it's your inability to actually admit to the fact that you were wrong when you were attacking those who actually bothered to inform themselves about the issue or some other reason isn't really relevant, but it is something you owe to yourself and the rest of us to get figured out.
For example, it must have completely slipped your mind that Saddam was our puppet at that point, that we supplied him with the weapons he used in the war and that we supplied the Iranians their weapons as well. Right, but obviously we bear no responsibility for that. Good lord, take personal responsibility for our actions?!?! You're right, I'm some crazed communist to want to do that.
So, a large chunk of those deaths are ours. We supplied him with the gas he used on the Kurds and then betrayed them, so a lot of those are ours too.
Next stop: his attempt to take over Kuwait by force. In reversing that invasion and pushing Saddam's troops back out of Kuwait, another 20,000 or so Iraqis were killed, sacrificed again by Saddam to his expansionist ambitions.
Oh, gee, what do you know... we told him to go ahead and invade Kuwait. So had we not done that, then odds are he wouldn't have invaded.
Again, we own a lot of those deaths.
See, you seem to have a habit of jumping up to defend America against anyone slagging anything we do. That's great and all, but it's known as jingoism and it is a bad thing. To be a patriot means loving your country, but that doesn't mean sycophantically leaping to its defense whenever anything uncomplimentary is said against it.
It means informing yourself about what it actually does and standing up *against* it when what it does is wrong.
What you continually do as in your rant about the guy from England who you said must be a northerner etc. is take some trivial detail i.e. the fact that he said the Abu Gharib torturers were southern and rant on about what an evil dipshit he is for that while ignoring the actual meat of the post.
Fact: America does brutal, disgusting, inhuman and criminal things.
You by taking the tack you do on every one of these issues show your support for all of them. If you would ever take an honest approach rather than a gung ho America can do no wrong and you're a dirty fucker if you think it ever can, then you might actually be able to deflect some of the criticism into more useful courses. When you continually refuse to acknowledge *any* responsibility whatsoever, all you do is make yourself look dishonest or ignorant.
Sorry, Dude, I'm just really sick of that mindless America is the bestest coolest everything because we are circular reasoning clusterfuck attitude that has no possibility of ever doing anything positive and serves solely to allow the shitbags who commit atrocities in our names with our money to continue.
Get this through your head: We are not always right by definition.
Unfortunately, the problem with this analysis is that the US was complicit in this genocide. We provided the WMDs, and we betrayed the Kurds to Saddam after convincing them that they would have our support.
So, of that 100K+, a large percentage count as ours as well.
I have a half-terrabyte LVM partition for my MythTV box. I just sent another one to my mom for her birthday.
Granted, I'm a geek, but she isn't. I think we'll be seeing more people "needing" a lot of capacity as MythTV and other homebrew PVRs grow in popularity.
I believe in personal freedom. However, I am constantly amazed that our country (USA) has legalized gambling
I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that the USA has much in the way of gambling laws. Las Vegas and Reno allow gambling but I don't think most of Nevada does.
Indian casinos are technically (in some ways) not in the USA.
Riverboat casinos are common even where gambling is otherwise illegal.
when there are so many other "sins" still illegal that are much less harmful IMHO. (Marijuana, prostitution.)
Federal marijuana laws are completely wrong, but prostitution is legal in some areas. A few counties in Nevada are the only ones I know of, but there might be others.
It's just one of the funny things about this nation. Personally I'm happy there are these huge differences because if I hate something enough I can still move to a different state. It's a hassle, but far less so than moving to a different country.
Ah, but this tax is assessed and collected by greedy people with good math skills:-)
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Anti-gay stance? What anti-gay stance?
That would be the anti-gay stance of a different poster in a different thread. Mea Culpa. Sorry about that.
Many would have no problems living in a nation that implements such rules you have problems with.
Many had no problems living in Germany in the 30s and 40s, but I fail to see how that makes it a philosophy on equal footing with many others. My point there stands if you completely ignore the holocaust as well.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
eally? I said nothing of the sort. The only thing I can assume you are referring to is my statement that I'm pro-life --
I was referring to your anti-gay stance.
I believe that the government has one objective, and one objective alone: to protect its citizens from force and fraud.
Which is 100% inconsistent with this attitude.
Look, either you believe that the purpose of the government is to prevent force and fraud (like you said) or you do not believe that. You by your stance on gays do not believe this. Further, you believe that a valid purpose of government is to use force *against* its citizens.
That is an insurmountable contradiction.
This is a simple and self-consistent philosophy
Certainly, but it isn't your philosophy no matter how much you try and tell yourself that it is.
The fact is that you can believe one or the other, but it is not possible to believe in both due to the simple fact that they are contradictory positions.
My positions are irrelevent, and given only as an example for the argument against your assertion that opinions of right-wing thought should not be present in this forum.
You're totally missing the point. I didn't say that they shouldn't appear. My point was that there is a clear moral distinction between the two philosophies which I clearly laid out. Additionally I demonstrated by a simple application of the definitions of the freaking philosophies that one is inherently morally superior as a philosophy regardless of what happens in practice.
Now, you can't even come up with an internal philosophy which is consistent for which you're trying to blame me instead of actually either changing your attitudes to actually reflect your morals or drop the act that you hold such morals.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Funny... I never brought up issues of party... niether did the poster of the article.
Sure you did. The Republican party in the US is the extremist right wing party. The Democrats are the moderate right wing/ Left fascist party. I know you don't like taking an honest look at reality, but those are the facts.
As the actions and words of the extreme right, the extreme left shows its true colors in ways like you demonstrate.
So I point out the blatant and obvious hypocrisy of your position. Rather than actually having the courage to look at your positions and realising that they are, in fact, contradictory you lalalalalala it away and then launch into an idiotic attack on me.
Not that attacking me is idiotic, but you do it in a way that proves the points I was making.
the extreme left shows its true colors in ways like you demonstrate.
That in itself is laughable for a number of reasons. First, I'm mostly a Liberal, hence not a leftist. I do lean a little to the left, but really, as a person of morals I don't see any other way as being consistent with being a decent person. I believe the purpose of the state is to promote personal liberty. That is consistent with American values.
You on the other hand flat out admitted that you believe in big oppressive government to be used to prevent personal liberty. Don't get pissy at me because your position is inconsistent and basically really nasty at heart.
There is nothing in the least extremist about my position. Now you, on the other hand, are an admitted extremist. So much so that you are entirely unable to defend any of your positions which I destroyed with a small application of logic and knowledge.
So, when your hypocricy and your extremely poor understanding of politics was pointed out to you in an honest and undeniable manner, you took the standard course of your ilk by screeching "leftist" in an entirely inappropriate context.
Seriously, little troll. If your position is indefensible, then it is not my fault. It is yours. Let's see some of that great personal responsibility hogwash your type is so loud yelling about until it actually comes time to step up.
Seriously Dude.
Your entire argument was shredded and this is the best you can do?!?
yes, state and corporate power are merged as you say, but it's hardly a move rightward. they want all the big government amenities and protections.
You're just illustrating your lack of understanding of the political spectrum.
It *is* a move rightward because it *is* using the power of the state to give power to the wealthy and corporate interests at the expense of individual liberty and society. That, by *definition* is rightward.
i am a federalist, small government conservative. i would vote against gay marriage,
Now, this right here is absolutely illustrative of what I'm talking about. You have claimed to believe in two diametrically opposed viewpoints. That is a contradiction. You absolutely can not believe in both at least not and expect to be treated as if you were rational.
If you actually believed in small government, just about the last thing you would ever support is a law whose only possible purpose is to marginalize a large segment of the population because they were born different than you. Do you truly not see the fundamental incompatibility between those two viewpoints? How else are you going to enforce a law that is entirely oppressive and discriminatory in nature? It demands big oppressive right-wing government.
but if my state voted for it, then it's the law. i accept that. neither the right nor the left would accept voting. both want the courts to impose the law. it's sad.
Now that is a patently ridiculous statement that shows your political ideas come mainly from Rush or Fox news or the like rather than any knowledge of the actual basis of our system.
Hate based legislation like you are promoting is unconstitutional. The courts aren't imposing shit. They are doing their job which is to restrain the legislative branch from making laws imposed by the many as a direct attack against the few. It's a sad fact of human nature that there are people like you who think it's ok for you to use the force of government to oppress innocent people. The framers of our country were well aware of it and they took steps to prevent it. The people who gave you that ignorant little sound bite are also aware of it, and they don't like it becasue it is an inherently Liberal idea and it is supposed to prevent extremists of any ilk from pushing through their unconstitutional laws. It's a case of the system working and you don't like it bacause it is promoting equality which you have stated that you are firmly against.
real problem is is that we've cocooned ourselves into our little enclaves. think about the red/blue map. you could drive from coast to coast and never leave a red county. the red gets redder, the blue gets bluer. the blue "enclaves" and th red sprawl rarely come into contact. they see each other less frequently, interact less with them, and end of with a caricatured view of each other.
This is absolutely a huge problem. In fact, I'd say it's the fundamental cause of the issues I'm talking about. The red states vote Republican, indicating their support of capitalism to the extreme, yet they live under a particularly rotten type of socialism. Their lifestyles are entirely depend upon the charity they receive from the blue states in the form of tax dollars well in excess of what they put into the pile. Further, they demonize the lifestyles of those who pay their bills for them all the while contributing to the decline which they are helping by voting for the party which wholeheartedly promotes that decline.
Now as capitalism is slowly working its way into their secluded enclaves, they are beginning to see the flaws inherent in the system. They don't like it, but rather than looking into solutions that could address the issue they choose to be led in bleeting about the evil "Liberals" and so push for even more of what causes their problems in the first place.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I don't know a single self-described conservative who believed this is a useful goal.
Yet they ally themselves with the extremist right wingers who do have this goal. So it is totally irrelevant that they wouldn't describe themselves that way. Actions speak much louder than words.
They're against high taxation in general.
Yet, they vote for the party that not only believes in high taxation but also believes that the brunt of the burden should fall on the poor and middle class. You're really not painting yourself and those you're speaking for as particularly astute.
Most feel, as do I, that private charity is more efficient than most government programs.
That's really neither here nor there regardless of whether it's true or not.
Taxes at some level are inevitable when you have a government.
The left does the same. As you are doing now. First, you're pretending there is a left in this country. Second, you're ignoring the fact that the right wing with lots of thought and planning intentionally drove it to its current levels. Third, you're deluding yourself if tyou think what I am doing is demonizing anything. I am pointing out facts, and pointing out a fundamental disconnect in the Republican party between the stated goals of the regular people who are members of the party and those who run it. Your failure to look reality in the face is your failing.
Just assuming across the board that about half of the people in this country are totally irrational is a bit closed-minded and foolish. Their oppinions hold value, as do yours.
Again. I am assuming nothing.
Certainly people's opinions hold value, but that has nothing to do with what is under discussion. Ask most people who describe themselves as Republican what their opinions are and you would get some pretty sane, rational responses. Look at those opinions and compare them to the actual actions of the party, and there is a fundamental disconnect. Whether you want to call it irrationality, delusion, or hypocrisy really doesn't matter. It is reality.
Here's a simple example for you. You have the so called "values voters" who don't like the course that our culture and society are on. They, in the interest of promoting their agenda, have allied themselves with the Republican party. Now, the Republican party is the party of big business and rich corporate interests. They are the party of hyper capitalism.
Now, capitalism has an innate and inevitable liberalizing effect on society. With no restraints, we see this on TV, advertising etc. Spend, Spend, Spend. Consume, Consume, Consume. Hell, gay people have money, so we'll target them.
Yet the biggest promoter of this whole package is the Republican party. They try really hard to blame everything on the "left", yet the "left" are the only ones even trying to do anything about it the whole time being called communists by the very people whose values they actually are promoting.
So, the "values voters" see all of their efforts come to nothing and in fact, the "problems" they see keep getting worse for quite obvious reasons: They are voting *against* their own self interest.
So, while people's opinions do have value, that has nothing to do with it. If their opinions were in line with their actions, then they would be worth listening to. When their stated goals are in direct opposition to their actions, then they clearly are not rational.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
I, being niether a member of the left nor the right, find your attitude a bit distasteful, unintellectual, and bigoted.
I being a member of neither have studied both. That, in a nutshell, *is* the difference between left and right. That's a fact, Bucko, so your ignorance of the definitions of words doesn't matter to me. The fact that you make a feeble attempt to disguise the truth as "distasteful" even less so.
Since when is discussion of topics that rational people disagree on bad?
Never. Now explain to me rationally how using the power of the state to take away rights from the masses to enrich the rich is good? This isn't an issue here though. The right in this country has gone to great lengths to demonize the very idea of "Liberal" to destroy rational debate.
Given that you made a point to describe yourself as a Liberal while defending the people who are out to destroy the very idea is a major contradiction. You might want to look into that.
If you're consistently encountered only with opinions that match your own, how will you learn?
Again, irrelevant. I constantly challenge myself with new ideas. The fact that the rich want to get richer and will do it at the expense of everyone is an idea thousands of years old. I make it a point to try to *learn* from history. Sadly, you seem to have no interest in that at all.
There may be some (of all political pursuasions) that are very patriotic, and put the nation above all. I think I might have heard a quote from one of them once. Something about "ask not..."
There is a very large difference between being patriotic and "exalts the nation and party ".
However, I find very few people (of any political pursuasion) putting "the party" above all.
Then, quite frankly, you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years or so. The Democrats certainly aren't innocent in this, but it has been the Republican party's main technique for a long time. Jesus, Dude. I mean they even coined the term RINO for anybody who puts anything above the party and they have viciously attacked them.
In fact, the very fact that there are two parties duking it out, and several smaller parties grabbing up crumbs really blows that argument out of the water.
Hardly. The fact that there are 2 primarily right wing parties (one of whom also includes Left-Fascists) who only differ on a few big issues and no real third parties is a very large problem. You yourself even make this point a few sentences later "The vast majority of even conservatives said he was pretty mediocre, but the alternitives were worse. " Seriously, Dude. Even you recognise the problem, but you don't seem to be able to put it in perspective.
America has time and time again been accused of being too individualistic; that everyone puts "me" first. That doesn't sound very fascist.
Certainly it's true that we have that reputation, but it has zero to do with the subject. The culture is fairly individualistic, but the government right now is fascist. You have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise and have, in fact, furthered that point.
Having a leader does not make you fascist.
Having a leader who claims to have been sent by god does. Especially when pretty much nothing he does is consistent with that.
The unified culture doesn't have much to do with politics, except in a select few hot-topics (gay issues, abortion, etc) The very fact that they ARE hot topics again shows that there is not a single unified culture.
You're so close, but your blinders are thick, friend. The unified culture is a corporate culture of consumption. The major corporations write a lot of our laws now. They meet with our leaders to set our policy behind closed doors and do everything in their power to prevent us from even knowing who was there.
Again, just look at what you said it is at odds with what you are trying to demonstrate with it: stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
Stresses loyalty as in, You're either with me or you are an enemy. Submission to a single culture as in, Amending the constitution to outlaw other cultures.
I am not defending them in the slightest for their corruption. Im just sayin it isnt fascism
But you actually are saying it. You just can't even recognise it.
You clearly didn't read the links I put in my last post, but I would really encourage you to.
And none of that really fits with the current US situation.
See, now you're just going off the deep end.
exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
How is this not a near exact description of what's been going on lately?
stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
Ditto.
engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.
Replace "combined" with "subverted", and you have another match.
Seriously, dude do you not actually pay attention to anything going on? I'm not sure how you could list those requirements and ignore how accurate it is.
Please don't try any of that tired, dried up old "But the Republicans are the small governemnt party" since that hasn't even been a rational statement for about 30 years.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
He might start to think his wife is not good enough, since she's not what he sees in the videos.
Well, throw most advertising in with the porn and you have a complete point. It doesn't end up having much to do with porn in particular though.
Then, because the topic is difficult, instead of asking if she might be into 'that' (whatever it is) he goes out the door in search of it.
If the topic is difficult, then that marriage is doomed due to the failure of communication. Porn might be how that is realised, but it isn't the problem in any of the situations you created.
Seriously, if you can say something like: "In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism."
then you really don't understand the issue.
The things you mentioned are the means by which fascists established themselves here rather than as in Europe by direct election/revolution. It in no way makes it reverse fascism.
If you actually knew anything about it you would know that fascism was created for the express purpose of being "reverse communism" or at least being sold as such.
So your claim is that the US government is currently communist?!?
That's more than a little bit silly.
Re:MOD REVIEW DOWN! TROLL!
on
Pornified
·
· Score: 1
Holy FUCK! This is one of the funniest things I have ever read.
Then you really have a poor understanding of human nature and women in particular.
I've never been involved in bukkake, but I've known several women who actually do enjoy oral, anal, facials, and the like. With no money involved, I have had women initiate all 3 of those. I'm sorry that you don't understand that contrary to what gets shoved down everybody's throats, many women actively enjoy some extremely naughty activities.
Ah, but you're left-wing ideals are perfectly ok? I guess some peoples opinions are ok and other's aren't?
Essentially yes. We as a species have decided that some viewpoints are bad. This is not news.
This country's founding was the peak of the Liberal movement. Leftish ideals (ideals, mind you) are for greater liberty for everybody. This is an American ideal Rightish ideals are for less liberty for everybody except for the richest and most powerful. This ideal is purely anti-American.
There is nothing the least bit hypocritical about this. It is quite clear that one of these is a good ideal and the other is bad.
Just because you probably don't actually understand what the left and the right are does not mean that people who do understand them are bad for not being ignorant, much as your politicians and pundits try to make it seem so.
it's why people can protest how the government is fascist, as if their actions weren't the very contradictory evidence.
Sorry, but you're just being silly here. The US government is absolutely fascist at this point. Whether or not you can talk about it without being hauled off to a camp is irrelevant. Fascism is what you get when you merge the power of the state with the power of corporations and usually the church.
State and corporate power are essentially merged at this point, and a lot of people are pushing to get the church in there too.
I think you don't understand what fascism is or even the fact that it works fine regardless of the overlying structure. You can have a fascist dictatorship or a fascist democracy with no contradiction.
I don't know where you studied anything, the depth of your ignorance is so tremendous and frightening.
America is a christian nation founded upon christian principles.
This statement by itself is absolutely false. In fact, you can read the documents surrounding the founding of our nation and the people who wrote our constitution will tell you themselves that it is *in no way* based upon your religion or any other. Take a look at every other religious based society in the history of the world, and you will not see anything like our constitution. You will see brutality, oppression, torture, murder and the like. You will not see any freedom, since that is not how churches work.
This is a hard fact that leaves the neo-bolshevik nimrods that comprise the modern left in fits (which are regrettably not fatal).
Ahhh, I'm beginning to understand. You aren't just ignorant and misinformed, you are completely detached from reality.
. A rightist is one who feels that the proper use of the power of the state is to prevent equality and to keep the poor down.
A leftist believes that the power of the state should be used to promote equality.
A Liberal believes that people are equal, but doesn't feel like using the power of the state for much of anything.
So, now you've been taught the basic terminology which you didn't even know yet still insisted on using.
Now then, lets see if we can salvage anything approximating sanity in your post...
So in your mind, somebody who believes in freedom is a "neo-bolshevik nimrod".
Clearly, that's wrong and insane.
The left hates christianity precisely because it is the cornerstone of what they call bourgeois society, the destruction of which is an absolute prerequisite for the introduction of the socialist dystopia they have planned for our future.
More insane rantings, but it does demonstrate how completely out of touch with reality you are.
First off, if you're a right winger, then it is not possible for you to be a Christian. This is, again, a simple matter of knowing what these words mean.
Jesus was the worlds biggest leftist. You and those like you who froth with blind hatred at everything he stood for and try to demonize those who think he had some good ideas are truly sickeningly deluded scum.
What the left (as well as every single decent intelligent person with any knowledge of history) hate is religion as a part of government.
I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I'll take it any day of the week over a political and economic pseudo-philosophy that is as clear a proof of the existence of evil in this world as anything I've ever seen.
See, now you're trying to confuse support for freedom and equality with being a neo con. Typical of your sickening anti-human type.
Maybe you should move out of your mom's basement and try to learn a little bit about the world before you spout off blatant and obvious falsehoods little troll.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm going with Saddam's regime. The Iraq-centric conflict in the Gulf can arguably be said to have started in 1980, when Saddam launched a more-or-less surpise attack against its neighbor, Iran. In that conflict, at least 300,000 of Saddam's Iraqi citizens were killed, most of whom were conscripted foot soldiers.
You always seem to ignore large portions of reality to attempt to justify a war which a vast number of people knew before and everybody knows now was based on outright lies. Whether it's your inability to actually admit to the fact that you were wrong when you were attacking those who actually bothered to inform themselves about the issue or some other reason isn't really relevant, but it is something you owe to yourself and the rest of us to get figured out.
For example, it must have completely slipped your mind that Saddam was our puppet at that point, that we supplied him with the weapons he used in the war and that we supplied the Iranians their weapons as well. Right, but obviously we bear no responsibility for that.
Good lord, take personal responsibility for our actions?!?! You're right, I'm some crazed communist to want to do that.
So, a large chunk of those deaths are ours.
We supplied him with the gas he used on the Kurds and then betrayed them, so a lot of those are ours too.
Next stop: his attempt to take over Kuwait by force. In reversing that invasion and pushing Saddam's troops back out of Kuwait, another 20,000 or so Iraqis were killed, sacrificed again by Saddam to his expansionist ambitions.
Oh, gee, what do you know... we told him to go ahead and invade Kuwait. So had we not done that, then odds are he wouldn't have invaded.
Again, we own a lot of those deaths.
See, you seem to have a habit of jumping up to defend America against anyone slagging anything we do. That's great and all, but it's known as jingoism and it is a bad thing.
To be a patriot means loving your country, but that doesn't mean sycophantically leaping to its defense whenever anything uncomplimentary is said against it.
It means informing yourself about what it actually does and standing up *against* it when what it does is wrong.
What you continually do as in your rant about the guy from England who you said must be a northerner etc. is take some trivial detail i.e. the fact that he said the Abu Gharib torturers were southern and rant on about what an evil dipshit he is for that while ignoring the actual meat of the post.
Fact: America does brutal, disgusting, inhuman and criminal things.
You by taking the tack you do on every one of these issues show your support for all of them.
If you would ever take an honest approach rather than a gung ho America can do no wrong and you're a dirty fucker if you think it ever can, then you might actually be able to deflect some of the criticism into more useful courses. When you continually refuse to acknowledge *any* responsibility whatsoever, all you do is make yourself look dishonest or ignorant.
Sorry, Dude, I'm just really sick of that mindless America is the bestest coolest everything because we are circular reasoning clusterfuck attitude that has no possibility of ever doing anything positive and serves solely to allow the shitbags who commit atrocities in our names with our money to continue.
Get this through your head:
We are not always right by definition.
I don't think the US has quite hit the 100K mark.
Unfortunately, the problem with this analysis is that the US was complicit in this genocide.
We provided the WMDs, and we betrayed the Kurds to Saddam after convincing them that they would have our support.
So, of that 100K+, a large percentage count as ours as well.
Jersey is one of the Channel Islands, which are a group of islands in the English Channel, more or less.
;-)
Look everybody, don't believe a word he says.
In the first place the channel islands are off the coast of Santa Barbara, California.
Further, Jersey and Guernsey are breeds of cattle rather than islands as the OP claims.
Sheesh, he even goes as far as to claim that he was born on a cow
I have a half-terrabyte LVM partition for my MythTV box. I just sent another one to my mom for her birthday.
Granted, I'm a geek, but she isn't.
I think we'll be seeing more people "needing" a lot of capacity as MythTV and other homebrew PVRs grow in popularity.
When it comes to landing time, I want the best glorified bus driver there is in the cockpit.
Right, so back on topic, how much do you pay the guy who wrote the autopilot?
Fair enough, I was just pointing out that it isn't really a US thing legally speaking.
I believe in personal freedom. However, I am constantly amazed that our country (USA) has legalized gambling
I don't believe (although I could be wrong) that the USA has much in the way of gambling laws.
Las Vegas and Reno allow gambling but I don't think most of Nevada does.
Indian casinos are technically (in some ways) not in the USA.
Riverboat casinos are common even where gambling is otherwise illegal.
when there are so many other "sins" still illegal that are much less harmful IMHO. (Marijuana, prostitution.)
Federal marijuana laws are completely wrong, but prostitution is legal in some areas. A few counties in Nevada are the only ones I know of, but there might be others.
It's just one of the funny things about this nation. Personally I'm happy there are these huge differences because if I hate something enough I can still move to a different state. It's a hassle, but far less so than moving to a different country.
I have lost all urges to play stupid games like Blackjack or Euchre.
Heh. I first heard about euchre when I moved to the midwest.
I thought it was a drinking game.
Ah, but this tax is assessed and collected by greedy people with good math skills :-)
Anti-gay stance? What anti-gay stance?
That would be the anti-gay stance of a different poster in a different thread. Mea Culpa.
Sorry about that.
Many would have no problems living in a nation that implements such rules you have problems with.
Many had no problems living in Germany in the 30s and 40s, but I fail to see how that makes it a philosophy on equal footing with many others.
My point there stands if you completely ignore the holocaust as well.
I live in Oregon, and let me tell you, if a volcano blew 25 miles from Bend, the most we'd lose is some trees and scrub brush.
Well, that and a really nice skiing mountain.
eally? I said nothing of the sort. The only thing I can assume you are referring to is my statement that I'm pro-life --
I was referring to your anti-gay stance.
I believe that the government has one objective, and one objective alone: to protect its citizens from force and fraud.
Which is 100% inconsistent with this attitude.
Look, either you believe that the purpose of the government is to prevent force and fraud (like you said) or you do not believe that. You by your stance on gays do not believe this. Further, you believe that a valid purpose of government is to use force *against* its citizens.
That is an insurmountable contradiction.
This is a simple and self-consistent philosophy
Certainly, but it isn't your philosophy no matter how much you try and tell yourself that it is.
The fact is that you can believe one or the other, but it is not possible to believe in both due to the simple fact that they are contradictory positions.
My positions are irrelevent, and given only as an example for the argument against your assertion that opinions of right-wing thought should not be present in this forum.
You're totally missing the point.
I didn't say that they shouldn't appear.
My point was that there is a clear moral distinction between the two philosophies which I clearly laid out. Additionally I demonstrated by a simple application of the definitions of the freaking philosophies that one is inherently morally superior as a philosophy regardless of what happens in practice.
Now, you can't even come up with an internal philosophy which is consistent for which you're trying to blame me instead of actually either changing your attitudes to actually reflect your morals or drop the act that you hold such morals.
Funny... I never brought up issues of party... niether did the poster of the article.
Sure you did. The Republican party in the US is the extremist right wing party. The Democrats are the moderate right wing/ Left fascist party. I know you don't like taking an honest look at reality, but those are the facts.
As the actions and words of the extreme right, the extreme left shows its true colors in ways like you demonstrate.
So I point out the blatant and obvious hypocrisy of your position. Rather than actually having the courage to look at your positions and realising that they are, in fact, contradictory you lalalalalala it away and then launch into an idiotic attack on me.
Not that attacking me is idiotic, but you do it in a way that proves the points I was making.
the extreme left shows its true colors in ways like you demonstrate.
That in itself is laughable for a number of reasons.
First, I'm mostly a Liberal, hence not a leftist.
I do lean a little to the left, but really, as a person of morals I don't see any other way as being consistent with being a decent person.
I believe the purpose of the state is to promote personal liberty. That is consistent with American values.
You on the other hand flat out admitted that you believe in big oppressive government to be used to prevent personal liberty.
Don't get pissy at me because your position is inconsistent and basically really nasty at heart.
There is nothing in the least extremist about my position.
Now you, on the other hand, are an admitted extremist. So much so that you are entirely unable to defend any of your positions which I destroyed with a small application of logic and knowledge.
So, when your hypocricy and your extremely poor understanding of politics was pointed out to you in an honest and undeniable manner, you took the standard course of your ilk by screeching "leftist" in an entirely inappropriate context.
Seriously, little troll. If your position is indefensible, then it is not my fault. It is yours.
Let's see some of that great personal responsibility hogwash your type is so loud yelling about until it actually comes time to step up.
Seriously Dude.
Your entire argument was shredded and this is the best you can do?!?
yes, state and corporate power are merged as you say, but it's hardly a move rightward. they want all the big government amenities and protections.
You're just illustrating your lack of understanding of the political spectrum.
It *is* a move rightward because it *is* using the power of the state to give power to the wealthy and corporate interests at the expense of individual liberty and society.
That, by *definition* is rightward.
i am a federalist, small government conservative. i would vote against gay marriage,
Now, this right here is absolutely illustrative of what I'm talking about. You have claimed to believe in two diametrically opposed viewpoints.
That is a contradiction. You absolutely can not believe in both at least not and expect to be treated as if you were rational.
If you actually believed in small government, just about the last thing you would ever support is a law whose only possible purpose is to marginalize a large segment of the population because they were born different than you.
Do you truly not see the fundamental incompatibility between those two viewpoints? How else are you going to enforce a law that is entirely oppressive and discriminatory in nature?
It demands big oppressive right-wing government.
but if my state voted for it, then it's the law. i accept that. neither the right nor the left would accept voting. both want the courts to impose the law. it's sad.
Now that is a patently ridiculous statement that shows your political ideas come mainly from Rush or Fox news or the like rather than any knowledge of the actual basis of our system.
Hate based legislation like you are promoting is unconstitutional. The courts aren't imposing shit. They are doing their job which is to restrain the legislative branch from making laws imposed by the many as a direct attack against the few. It's a sad fact of human nature that there are people like you who think it's ok for you to use the force of government to oppress innocent people. The framers of our country were well aware of it and they took steps to prevent it.
The people who gave you that ignorant little sound bite are also aware of it, and they don't like it becasue it is an inherently Liberal idea and it is supposed to prevent extremists of any ilk from pushing through their unconstitutional laws. It's a case of the system working and you don't like it bacause it is promoting equality which you have stated that you are firmly against.
real problem is is that we've cocooned ourselves into our little enclaves. think about the red/blue map. you could drive from coast to coast and never leave a red county. the red gets redder, the blue gets bluer. the blue "enclaves" and th red sprawl rarely come into contact. they see each other less frequently, interact less with them, and end of with a caricatured view of each other.
This is absolutely a huge problem. In fact, I'd say it's the fundamental cause of the issues I'm talking about.
The red states vote Republican, indicating their support of capitalism to the extreme, yet they live under a particularly rotten type of socialism. Their lifestyles are entirely depend upon the charity they receive from the blue states in the form of tax dollars well in excess of what they put into the pile.
Further, they demonize the lifestyles of those who pay their bills for them all the while contributing to the decline which they are helping by voting for the party which wholeheartedly promotes that decline.
Now as capitalism is slowly working its way into their secluded enclaves, they are beginning to see the flaws inherent in the system. They don't like it, but rather than looking into solutions that could address the issue they choose to be led in bleeting about the evil "Liberals" and so push for even more of what causes their problems in the first place.
I don't know a single self-described conservative who believed this is a useful goal.
Yet they ally themselves with the extremist right wingers who do have this goal. So it is totally irrelevant that they wouldn't describe themselves that way. Actions speak much louder than words.
They're against high taxation in general.
Yet, they vote for the party that not only believes in high taxation but also believes that the brunt of the burden should fall on the poor and middle class. You're really not painting yourself and those you're speaking for as particularly astute.
Most feel, as do I, that private charity is more efficient than most government programs.
That's really neither here nor there regardless of whether it's true or not.
Taxes at some level are inevitable when you have a government.
The left does the same. As you are doing now.
First, you're pretending there is a left in this country.
Second, you're ignoring the fact that the right wing with lots of thought and planning intentionally drove it to its current levels.
Third, you're deluding yourself if tyou think what I am doing is demonizing anything. I am pointing out facts, and pointing out a fundamental disconnect in the Republican party between the stated goals of the regular people who are members of the party and those who run it. Your failure to look reality in the face is your failing.
Just assuming across the board that about half of the people in this country are totally irrational is a bit closed-minded and foolish. Their oppinions hold value, as do yours.
Again. I am assuming nothing.
Certainly people's opinions hold value, but that has nothing to do with what is under discussion.
Ask most people who describe themselves as Republican what their opinions are and you would get some pretty sane, rational responses. Look at those opinions and compare them to the actual actions of the party, and there is a fundamental disconnect. Whether you want to call it irrationality, delusion, or hypocrisy really doesn't matter. It is reality.
Here's a simple example for you.
You have the so called "values voters" who don't like the course that our culture and society are on. They, in the interest of promoting their agenda, have allied themselves with the Republican party.
Now, the Republican party is the party of big business and rich corporate interests. They are the party of hyper capitalism.
Now, capitalism has an innate and inevitable liberalizing effect on society. With no restraints, we see this on TV, advertising etc. Spend, Spend, Spend. Consume, Consume, Consume.
Hell, gay people have money, so we'll target them.
Yet the biggest promoter of this whole package is the Republican party. They try really hard to blame everything on the "left", yet the "left" are the only ones even trying to do anything about it the whole time being called communists by the very people whose values they actually are promoting.
So, the "values voters" see all of their efforts come to nothing and in fact, the "problems" they see keep getting worse for quite obvious reasons: They are voting *against* their own self interest.
So, while people's opinions do have value, that has nothing to do with it.
If their opinions were in line with their actions, then they would be worth listening to. When their stated goals are in direct opposition to their actions, then they clearly are not rational.
I, being niether a member of the left nor the right, find your attitude a bit distasteful, unintellectual, and bigoted.
I being a member of neither have studied both.
That, in a nutshell, *is* the difference between left and right.
That's a fact, Bucko, so your ignorance of the definitions of words doesn't matter to me.
The fact that you make a feeble attempt to disguise the truth as "distasteful" even less so.
Since when is discussion of topics that rational people disagree on bad?
Never.
Now explain to me rationally how using the power of the state to take away rights from the masses to enrich the rich is good? This isn't an issue here though. The right in this country has gone to great lengths to demonize the very idea of "Liberal" to destroy rational debate.
Given that you made a point to describe yourself as a Liberal while defending the people who are out to destroy the very idea is a major contradiction. You might want to look into that.
If you're consistently encountered only with opinions that match your own, how will you learn?
Again, irrelevant.
I constantly challenge myself with new ideas.
The fact that the rich want to get richer and will do it at the expense of everyone is an idea thousands of years old.
I make it a point to try to *learn* from history.
Sadly, you seem to have no interest in that at all.
There may be some (of all political pursuasions) that are very patriotic, and put the nation above all. I think I might have heard a quote from one of them once. Something about "ask not..."
There is a very large difference between being patriotic and "exalts the nation and party ".
However, I find very few people (of any political pursuasion) putting "the party" above all.
Then, quite frankly, you have not been paying attention for the last 20 years or so.
The Democrats certainly aren't innocent in this, but it has been the Republican party's main technique for a long time. Jesus, Dude. I mean they even coined the term RINO for anybody who puts anything above the party and they have viciously attacked them.
In fact, the very fact that there are two parties duking it out, and several smaller parties grabbing up crumbs really blows that argument out of the water.
Hardly. The fact that there are 2 primarily right wing parties (one of whom also includes Left-Fascists) who only differ on a few big issues and no real third parties is a very large problem.
You yourself even make this point a few sentences later "The vast majority of even conservatives said he was pretty mediocre, but the alternitives were worse. "
Seriously, Dude. Even you recognise the problem, but you don't seem to be able to put it in perspective.
America has time and time again been accused of being too individualistic; that everyone puts "me" first. That doesn't sound very fascist.
Certainly it's true that we have that reputation, but it has zero to do with the subject.
The culture is fairly individualistic, but the government right now is fascist. You have done nothing to demonstrate otherwise and have, in fact, furthered that point.
Having a leader does not make you fascist.
Having a leader who claims to have been sent by god does. Especially when pretty much nothing he does is consistent with that.
The unified culture doesn't have much to do with politics, except in a select few hot-topics (gay issues, abortion, etc) The very fact that they ARE hot topics again shows that there is not a single unified culture.
You're so close, but your blinders are thick, friend.
The unified culture is a corporate culture of consumption. The major corporations write a lot of our laws now. They meet with our leaders to set our policy behind closed doors and do everything in their power to prevent us from even knowing who was there.
Again, just look at what you said it is at odds with what you are trying to demonstrate with it:
stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
Stresses loyalty as in, You're either with me or you are an enemy.
Submission to a single culture as in, Amending the constitution to outlaw other cultures.
I am not defending them in the slightest for their corruption. Im just sayin it isnt fascism
But you actually are saying it. You just can't even recognise it.
You clearly didn't read the links I put in my last post, but I would really encourage you to.
And none of that really fits with the current US situation.
See, now you're just going off the deep end.
exalts the nation and party above the individual, with the state apparatus being supreme.
How is this not a near exact description of what's been going on lately?
stresses loyalty to a single leader, and submission to a single culture.
Ditto.
engages in economic totalitarianism through the creation of a Corporatist State, where the divergent economic and social interests of different races and classes are combined with the interests of the State.
Replace "combined" with "subverted", and you have another match.
Seriously, dude do you not actually pay attention to anything going on? I'm not sure how you could list those requirements and ignore how accurate it is.
Please don't try any of that tired, dried up old "But the Republicans are the small governemnt party" since that hasn't even been a rational statement for about 30 years.
He might start to think his wife is not good enough, since she's not what he sees in the videos.
Well, throw most advertising in with the porn and you have a complete point. It doesn't end up having much to do with porn in particular though.
Then, because the topic is difficult, instead of asking if she might be into 'that' (whatever it is) he goes out the door in search of it.
If the topic is difficult, then that marriage is doomed due to the failure of communication.
Porn might be how that is realised, but it isn't the problem in any of the situations you created.
I'm not alluding to anything.
read this
Then read this
Seriously, if you can say something like:
"In america you certainly have corrupt politicians, and business buying power in government, but that is sort of the reverse of fascism."
then you really don't understand the issue.
The things you mentioned are the means by which fascists established themselves here rather than as in Europe by direct election/revolution.
It in no way makes it reverse fascism.
If you actually knew anything about it you would know that fascism was created for the express purpose of being "reverse communism" or at least being sold as such.
So your claim is that the US government is currently communist?!?
That's more than a little bit silly.
Holy FUCK! This is one of the funniest things I have ever read.
:-)))
Then you really have a poor understanding of human nature and women in particular.
I've never been involved in bukkake, but I've known several women who actually do enjoy oral, anal, facials, and the like.
With no money involved, I have had women initiate all 3 of those.
I'm sorry that you don't understand that contrary to what gets shoved down everybody's throats, many women actively enjoy some extremely naughty activities.
I for one am all for it
Ah, but you're left-wing ideals are perfectly ok? I guess some peoples opinions are ok and other's aren't?
Essentially yes.
We as a species have decided that some viewpoints are bad. This is not news.
This country's founding was the peak of the Liberal movement.
Leftish ideals (ideals, mind you) are for greater liberty for everybody. This is an American ideal
Rightish ideals are for less liberty for everybody except for the richest and most powerful. This ideal is purely anti-American.
There is nothing the least bit hypocritical about this. It is quite clear that one of these is a good ideal and the other is bad.
Just because you probably don't actually understand what the left and the right are does not mean that people who do understand them are bad for not being ignorant, much as your politicians and pundits try to make it seem so.
it's why people can protest how the government is fascist, as if their actions weren't the very contradictory evidence.
Sorry, but you're just being silly here.
The US government is absolutely fascist at this point.
Whether or not you can talk about it without being hauled off to a camp is irrelevant.
Fascism is what you get when you merge the power of the state with the power of corporations and usually the church.
State and corporate power are essentially merged at this point, and a lot of people are pushing to get the church in there too.
I think you don't understand what fascism is or even the fact that it works fine regardless of the overlying structure.
You can have a fascist dictatorship or a fascist democracy with no contradiction.
I don't know where you studied history,
I don't know where you studied anything, the depth of your ignorance is so tremendous and frightening.
America is a christian nation founded upon christian principles.
This statement by itself is absolutely false.
In fact, you can read the documents surrounding the founding of our nation and the people who wrote our constitution will tell you themselves that it is *in no way* based upon your religion or any other.
Take a look at every other religious based society in the history of the world, and you will not see anything like our constitution.
You will see brutality, oppression, torture, murder and the like. You will not see any freedom, since that is not how churches work.
This is a hard fact that leaves the neo-bolshevik nimrods that comprise the modern left in fits (which are regrettably not fatal).
Ahhh, I'm beginning to understand.
You aren't just ignorant and misinformed, you are completely detached from reality.
.
A rightist is one who feels that the proper use of the power of the state is to prevent equality and to keep the poor down.
A leftist believes that the power of the state should be used to promote equality.
A Liberal believes that people are equal, but doesn't feel like using the power of the state for much of anything.
So, now you've been taught the basic terminology which you didn't even know yet still insisted on using.
Now then, lets see if we can salvage anything approximating sanity in your post...
So in your mind, somebody who believes in freedom is a "neo-bolshevik nimrod".
Clearly, that's wrong and insane.
The left hates christianity precisely because it is the cornerstone of what they call bourgeois society, the destruction of which is an absolute prerequisite for the introduction of the socialist dystopia they have planned for our future.
More insane rantings, but it does demonstrate how completely out of touch with reality you are.
First off, if you're a right winger, then it is not possible for you to be a Christian. This is, again, a simple matter of knowing what these words mean.
Jesus was the worlds biggest leftist. You and those like you who froth with blind hatred at everything he stood for and try to demonize those who think he had some good ideas are truly sickeningly deluded scum.
What the left (as well as every single decent intelligent person with any knowledge of history) hate is religion as a part of government.
I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I'll take it any day of the week over a political and economic pseudo-philosophy that is as clear a proof of the existence of evil in this world as anything I've ever seen.
See, now you're trying to confuse support for freedom and equality with being a neo con.
Typical of your sickening anti-human type.
Maybe you should move out of your mom's basement and try to learn a little bit about the world before you spout off blatant and obvious falsehoods little troll.
Get over yourself, it's just an in-joke writ large.
And this is different from every other religion how exactly?
Oh, that's right. It isn't.
That's the point.