|
On May 27 2009 00:33 Excalibur_Z wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2009 16:36 SingletonWilliam wrote:
Most credible republicans only laugh at Ann Coulter. But there aren't that many credible republicans anymore so >.< I like Ann Coulter because she exists solely to antagonize the left, and it's the same with Michael Savage. Sometimes, though, it's difficult to identify the line they've drawn between satire and genuine insanity. Even in those cases they're pretty funny because you're thinking "oh you guys :3" You really have to take what those two say with several grains of salt. Of course, there is a difference between those who appreciate the outlandish attitude of Ann Coulter and those who are in lock-step with some of the more extremist points of view she presents. I don't believe many liberals are capable of distinguishing the two. EDIT: CIP: Yesterday I was driving back up from Big Basin and was listening to an encore broadcast of Savage on the radio, and he was convinced that the Swine Flu was a terrorist attack perpetrated by groups who knew the Obama DHS wouldn't close the borders because they're too afraid of offending Mexico. Nobody could seriously be thinking that that is rational, and if they do, they're probably a nut.
Oooo I see, Ann Coulter isn't just an idiot, she's weaving a saavy social commentary by lowering the level of political discourse to rock bottom and then starting to dig. Are you sure you understand what satire is? Satire means you are attacking something that you disapprove by being sarcastic or overly ridiculous. What about Coulter fits that exactly? Over the top, yes. Are you saying that she is satirizing extreme right-wing Republicans? Somehow I don't think you would like her if that was the case. Because that's what Colbert does, and it's pretty clear to most people what he's doing.
So I don't understand why rational Republicans would ever listen to her. For entertainment value? If she's satirizing anybody, it's YOU. Because she exists "solely to antagonize the left"? Ok, wouldn't it be better to listen to someone who can argue your points in a rational and respectable way? So it's fun to get "liberals" (and I use this term loosely because I don't think most democracies would call Democrats liberals) riled up? That's just shameless mudslinging and, again, dragging the level of discourse down to pathetic levels.
|
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs
|
On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote:
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs
Conservatism will never die. 2012 is gonna be interesting.
|
On May 26 2009 17:03 Thats_The_Spirit wrote:Show nested quote +On May 24 2009 23:30 Physician wrote:
- anyone one that swallows euphemisms like "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" and still does not understand what torture is or is not, is plainly speaking:
retarded, i.e. as in low I.Q. etc.. (which can not be corrected).
- anyone that understands that it is torture but still advocates torture under "special" circumstances as justified simply reveal their ignorance on the issue (i.e. about the effectiveness and counter productive consequences of torture) and their backward values; they seem to be oblivious to the legal, ramifications, both at home and international; they seem to be oblivious to the detrimental consequences the use and legalization of torture.
- they will deny it adamantly but the sad part is that some of the torture "advocates" in this thread, a few years ago would probably have had the opposite opinion but now spew out what they are fed by their leaders and what the "TV" tells them to think: it is "not torture", it was just "enhanced interrogation techniques" & "water boarding" In other words they have weak minds, as in easily fooled, poor convictions etc.. I find it ironic to see many "religious" or "moral" people or self proclaimed "American constitutionalists" supporting torture; they only reveal their absolute ignorance about their own beliefs and how easy it is to manipulate them..
- on a personal level anyone that advocates torture and understand what it is, is a douche i.e. a person I rather keep away from because they will probably be sort that would be doing the torturing if they ever got the chance.
- simply speaking, if you support torture under any circumstance, your either a douche, ignorant or an imbecile. Take your pick. You put everything in categories with every category having its own outcome. You could make a nice flowchart of it for people to follow and see if they are a douche or not. Unfortunately I don’t think life is that simple. There is a whole spectrum of situations between two extremes to consider. On one side of the spectrum we have a cute innocent little girl eating a lollypop, who people in their right mind obviously wouldn’t torture. On the other extreme end of the spectrum we have this highly unlikely and terrible scenario: Some terrorists have kidnapped your family and loved ones and threaten to kill them in a horrible way this time tomorrow. You managed to capture one of these terrorists and there is 100% certainty that he’s involved. Would you have this man tortured to give up the location of your family? I personally would understand why someone answers “yes” to this last question and wouldn’t call them “a douche, ignorant or an imbecile”. I think it’s best for the society for torture to be illegal, but that doesn’t make me pro or against torture. Personally I believe the majority of people can think of a worst case scenario in their minds were they think it would be acceptable to torture. It all depends on the situation in the spectrum.
If somebody kidnapped somebody i love, i would torture them to get the truth, then after i get the truth i would slit their throats open of every single kidnapper i find.
Does that make revenge murder ok? NO, because we are individuals controlled by emotions, thats why we have jails, and an impartial and civilized system to deliver punishment.
The system or government cannot conduct itself as an emotional entity, its ridiculous and dangerous, it must always remain civilized.
|
On May 26 2009 09:38 Clasic wrote:
Well, my opinion is war is war. You do what you do.. no rules..
people like this makes it difficult to even argue a point...
So you are ok with the use of biological weapons? you think its fine to develop and use deadly viruses for war purposes?
|
On May 27 2009 01:04 Eniram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote:
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs Conservatism will never die. 2012 is gonna be interesting.
If conservatism isnt dead by the end of Obama's second term ill personally fly over to the US and kill the last few hundreds with one of these babies
|
On May 27 2009 01:46 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2009 01:04 Eniram wrote:On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote:
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs Conservatism will never die. 2012 is gonna be interesting. If conservatism isnt dead by the end of Obama's second term ill personally fly over to the US and kill the last few hundreds with one of these babies
fascist
|
On May 26 2009 09:38 Clasic wrote:
Well, my opinion is war is war. You do what you do.. no rules..
Im sure thats exacly how the terrorists felt.
Think for a seccond, what the fuck could Al-Qaeda really hope to achieve ? They barely have the manpower to blow an embassy once a month or whatnot, for a powerfull organization, they are pretty much lame without a mechanized army, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, etc...
So they cant really hurt your society on a large scale(911 was bound to happen, like the terrorist big bang, feel free to disagree).
The only tangible place where you would be affected is the direction that you guys would take the country after this happened.
And because of fucktards like you, the lower road was chosen, millions have died for what ? for the USA lowering themselves to the status of fucking terrorists ? of tortures ? of no higher than life principles ?
you cant believe in the end justifies the means, in torture, and in america at the same time, because even tho the amoral ones now call themselves conservatives, there was a time where the US was a country of principle and morals, always illuminating the road towards rights and freedom, not the other way around.
|
On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote:
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs
The opposite is true, in a superficial way. Prior to 1950, there was no such thing as a conservative America. By the time of Ronald Reagan's inauguration, more Americans identified themselves as Conservative than Liberal, a fact which remains true down to this day.
Perhaps it is not too early to pass the judgement that the age of liberalism may have been an transitory and ephemeral phenomenon in the history of the Western Modern Age. Her triumphs, the removal of her traditional grievances from secular western society, has relegated her to representing increasingly absurd and uninspiring causes, kept buoyant by her traditional reservoir of idealism. This reservoir however, seems to be nearly empty.
It's also disturbing how the liberal cause has become decoupled from private standards of behaviour. In that respect, a modern Liberal may be the diametric opposite of a Jane Austen liberal.
In the long-run, it doesn't matter; when it comes to personal behaviour, mores, beliefs, modes of thought, the differences between the American left and right are insignificant. Everywhere in Europe the American tourist is immediately recognizable by his unpostured, self-assured, incurious stride.
|
On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote:
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs
Just like christianity is eventually going to die?
As long as the US two-party system exists, republicans and democrats will be around. You may get them in different flavors, but they'll still be around.
|
Calgary26003 Posts
What happened to the military guy who was going to get waterboarded for $10 a second in this thread?
|
Kennigit
Canada19447 Posts
lol unless you've been waterboarded before you should just shut up. You have zero idea what you are talking about. "waterboarding yourself" does not count.
|
On May 27 2009 02:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:
The opposite is true, in a superficial way. Prior to 1950, there was no such thing as a conservative America. By the time of Ronald Reagan's inauguration, more Americans identified themselves as Conservative than Liberal, a fact which remains true down to this day.
I highly doubt that polls from before 1950, if they existed, would be all that different from the polls that have been conducted since1980. Prior to 1950 we had Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and then a Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress for over a decade. Yeah, FDR won four terms and then Truman won one in his own right, but much of their success came because they had the support of unions and the working class who are, their own economic self-interests aside, typically conservative.
|
On May 27 2009 02:28 Chill wrote:
What happened to the military guy who was going to get waterboarded for $10 a second in this thread?
Someone called his bluff, so he's laying low.
|
On May 27 2009 01:55 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 26 2009 09:38 Clasic wrote:
Well, my opinion is war is war. You do what you do.. no rules.. Im sure thats exacly how the terrorists felt. Think for a seccond, what the fuck could Al-Qaeda really hope to achieve ? They barely have the manpower to blow an embassy once a month or whatnot, for a powerfull organization, they are pretty much lame without a mechanized army, nuclear/chemical/biological weapons, etc... So they cant really hurt your society on a large scale(911 was bound to happen, like the terrorist big bang, feel free to disagree). The only tangible place where you would be affected is the direction that you guys would take the country after this happened. And because of fucktards like you, the lower road was chosen, millions have died for what ? for the USA lowering themselves to the status of fucking terrorists ? of tortures ? of no higher than life principles ? you cant believe in the end justifies the means, in torture, and in america at the same time, because even tho the amoral ones now call themselves conservatives, there was a time where the US was a country of principle and morals, always illuminating the road towards rights and freedom, not the other way around.
Millions have died? I think that is a bit of an overstatement -_- I agree with your post for the most part (except 911 was bound to happen), is that like a "you had it coming" type thing?
|
On May 27 2009 02:12 MoltkeWarding wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote:
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs The opposite is true
Meh it's swings and roundabouts. Majority of the voting public is moronic. Whichever popular cause is most emotive for them will determine the voting, no political ideology or whatever. Everyone votes for a better life for themselves and it's not like one party has a monopoly on that.
|
On May 27 2009 02:28 Chill wrote:
What happened to the military guy who was going to get waterboarded for $10 a second in this thread?
probably died on a practice run t.t
|
On May 27 2009 01:48 Eniram wrote:Show nested quote +On May 27 2009 01:46 D10 wrote:On May 27 2009 01:04 Eniram wrote:On May 27 2009 01:03 D10 wrote:
I just realized, by mathematical perfection, the conservative movement is eventually going to die.
in the future we will have libs vs neolibs Conservatism will never die. 2012 is gonna be interesting. If conservatism isnt dead by the end of Obama's second term ill personally fly over to the US and kill the last few hundreds with one of these babies fascist
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH
|
it's not going to make people talk if it was a walk in the park.
|
Prior to 1950 we had Harding, Coolidge, Hoover and then a Conservative Coalition that controlled Congress for over a decade.
Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover especially were not conservative in the classical sense, and more importantly in the American context, did not consider themselves to be conservatives. Eisenhower was the first American president to label himself a conservative, and succeeding him, Reagan, Bush&Bush. This hardly meant a thing; since an American conservative is, in the context of American political history, something of an oxymoron.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.txroadrunners.com/images/pics/Funny6/redneck_swiss_army_gun.jpg)
