-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 04:55:25 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Carnival Of Sound
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  London Riots
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: London Riots  (Read 25173 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: August 14, 2011, 03:37:04 PM »

One more thing..

Why won't all of the people who want Socialized Medicine and other Gov't programs just move to those countries that provide them, instead of trying to ruin it for those in America who vehemently oppose that?

After all, what happens when America loses the freedom's it was founded upon? Where else can we go? Last I checked we have millions of people trying to get into the land of opportunity each year whether legally or not because of the opportunity that exists America, economic downturn or not.
Logged
Mahalo
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1156

..Stand back, Speak normally


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: August 14, 2011, 03:46:22 PM »

Another one more thing...

When a political party passes a Gov't program that provides something or another, it is essentially a way to buy votes. Hence as the realization manifests that said particular program can't be maintained, that same political party can campaign saying, "Look, they are trying to cut your program...therefore vote for me."

All the while the blame, IMO, should be put on the party that started the program in the first place. Such programs cannot be maintained in the long term and when the citizens are informed that those "benefits" they felt entilted  (Key Word) to are on the chopping block, it is likely there will be riots...

I am of the opinion that if people weren't hooked on thoe gov't programs in the 1st place much of that Bull Crap could've been avoided.

Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: August 14, 2011, 03:54:55 PM »


1. I only stated what I wanted. I want unbiased neutrality in the news that is delivered. I know that doesn't happen in reality, therefore I sift.

It doesn't happen in reality because it is impossible for it to happen in reality. Unbiased news is a myth concocted by organizations intent on maintaining the status quo.

Quote
In my opinion if you are biased and you deliver news and use your bias to influence public opinion, you shouldn't be in the news business. I am talking about news, not opinion.

Again, back to square one - how does one in the media avoid being biased?

Quote
2. What facts? You haven't presented one fact.

Well, actually, what I said was if you disagree with my assertion then provide facts to back up your disagreement.

Regardless, that the left is disenfranchised at the political level is a fact. Can you name a politician who represents mostly left wing positions that has had any chance of holding office? Furthermore, you are aware that there were once significant labor parties in the United States that are now almost entirely off the map. There was once a very vibrant socialist party that no longer exists. These are all facts - care to disagree?

Quote
You say you are on left and the left is completely disenfranchised. Stop playing the victim and get out of the left so you can get to the middle and see the big picture.

Again, you don't understand the political spectrum. The "middle" is roughly the position held by social democrats, who are to the left of the Democratic party. Why would switching my political beliefs help me see the big picture? How would supporting a labor-centered government in a capitalist framework help?

I'm not playing the victim. I'm simply saying what is exactly true - the left is completely marginalized from political legitimacy in the US. If you believe the answer to marginalization is simply giving up and adopting the status quo, then you couldn't be a bigger sucker. I'm afraid I care too much for democratic values and freedom to simply join the group that has worked to eliminate my voice from mainstream discourse.

Quote
Why do you want to be on the left if you feel you are being held down?

Because I have principles.

Quote
Why put a label on yourself? It's such a general description isn't it?

Yes, it is. Of course, in this discussion, I never actually announced my position on left. You were forced to ask me, and when I answered honestly, you have held to it. If anyone is ardently attempting to put a label on me in this discussion, then, it's you, not me, and much hunch is that you have to do that since you simply cannot actually respond to my actual points. Of course the left is a general description. If you want to go deeper, I'm a libertarian-socialist and believe in anarcho-syndicalism. And if you believe that THAT is still putting a label on myself, then, I hate to tell you, but you exist somewhere on the political spectrum as well. You may realize it or you may not, but the fact is, you're there. And it seems to me based on what you've said so far, that you can be quite easily placed - though you may still surprise me. Either way, you are ardently in favor of supporting the status quo, which in all honesty, speaks to your desire for an unbiased media. In fact, the very idea that you believe that such a thing is possible speaks to your level of indoctrination toward the status quo. What you mean when you say you want an unbiased media is that you want a very heavily biased media that is slanted entirely towards the status quo - something that adheres to the accepted beliefs and truisms of your culture to such a strong degree that it appears to be completely objective.

So, yes, I can say where I stand politically precisely because I am honest with myself.

Quote
Isn't disenfranchised a term a capitalist would use anyway?

I didn't realize that economists were entitled to words in the dictionary.

Quote
From my perspective left and right are words only.

Well, they're not. The left represents a wide range of multiple political positions, as does the right and I think it would benefit you enormously to acquaint yourself with the political spectrum.

Quote
Hence... by calling yourself left, or right, you have taken yourself out of the whole.

I don't know what you're talking about. I hold political views that happen to put me on part of one side of a political spectrum. The view that I have are part of a rich historical tradition. The fact that you think that it shouldn't matter if this entire historical tradition were abandoned for the sake of being like other people who hold other views that have their own tradition is absurd to the point of hilarity.

Quote
4. rule of man vs. rule of law

The law is something that is imposed by force and is therefore illegitimate as far as I'm concerned.

Quote
5. the government has become a business, agreed... and they need customers. one problem... they also make the laws. we are all screwed, it isn't just you.

I didn't say the government has become a business. I said it is controlled by business interests.
[/quote]
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: August 14, 2011, 04:02:22 PM »

In the USA the original intent and main purpose of our Gov't is to protect our freedom's, not to provide us with "benefits".

While the rest of the world was rioting in frustrations over cuts in Gov't "benefit's", the people of the the USA protested peacefully while asking for less Gov't.

That is patent nonsense. Sure there was a lot of lip service paid about freedom, but this came at the entire expense of the freedom of the people whose land was being dispossessed in the name of this new nation. Meanwhile you had central framers of the US system like John Jay stating that the people who own the country ought to govern it, and everyone else should just stay out of it.

Quote
When the Gov't provides everything, one's freedom of choice is automatically diminshed or lost.

Unlike in a system of monopolies.

Quote
If you feel that the Gov't of your country can provide health benefits, education, and senior care better than private enterprise then by all means vote for those that will give you that.

 LOL LOL LOL

Can you name anyone who has suggested providing universal health care who has had the power to make that happen?

Quote
However, if you feel those same benefits can be recieved at a lower cost and better quality with more options by the Gov't staying out of the market and letting entrepeneurs and consumers take care of themselves, then by all means vote for those who you feel will ensure that.

The US health care system is the most expensive in the industrialized world and consequently the most inefficient.


[/quote]
Logged
hypehat
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6311



View Profile
« Reply #79 on: August 14, 2011, 04:16:13 PM »

noname, you do realise that 'IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE, MOVE' is not a rational political arguement right?
Logged

All roads lead to Kokomo. Exhaustive research in time travel has conclusively proven that there is no alternate universe WITHOUT Kokomo. It would've happened regardless.
What is this "life" thing you speak of ?

Quote from: Al Jardine
Syncopate it? In front of all these people?!
SMiLE Brian
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 8432



View Profile
« Reply #80 on: August 14, 2011, 04:19:39 PM »

noname, you do realise that 'IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT HERE, MOVE' is not a rational political arguement right?
Welcome to the United States. Grin
Logged

And production aside, I’d so much rather hear a 14 year old David Marks shred some guitar on Chug-a-lug than hear a 51 year old Mike Love sing about bangin some chick in a swimming pool.-rab2591
OBLiO
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 171

Do The Hokey Pokey with all your might


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: August 14, 2011, 07:07:52 PM »


1. I only stated what I wanted. I want unbiased neutrality in the news that is delivered. I know that doesn't happen in reality, therefore I sift.

It doesn't happen in reality because it is impossible for it to happen in reality. Unbiased news is a myth concocted by organizations intent on maintaining the status quo.

Quote
In my opinion if you are biased and you deliver news and use your bias to influence public opinion, you shouldn't be in the news business. I am talking about news, not opinion.

Again, back to square one - how does one in the media avoid being biased?

Quote
2. What facts? You haven't presented one fact.

Well, actually, what I said was if you disagree with my assertion then provide facts to back up your disagreement.

Regardless, that the left is disenfranchised at the political level is a fact. Can you name a politician who represents mostly left wing positions that has had any chance of holding office? Furthermore, you are aware that there were once significant labor parties in the United States that are now almost entirely off the map. There was once a very vibrant socialist party that no longer exists. These are all facts - care to disagree?

Quote
You say you are on left and the left is completely disenfranchised. Stop playing the victim and get out of the left so you can get to the middle and see the big picture.

Again, you don't understand the political spectrum. The "middle" is roughly the position held by social democrats, who are to the left of the Democratic party. Why would switching my political beliefs help me see the big picture? How would supporting a labor-centered government in a capitalist framework help?

I'm not playing the victim. I'm simply saying what is exactly true - the left is completely marginalized from political legitimacy in the US. If you believe the answer to marginalization is simply giving up and adopting the status quo, then you couldn't be a bigger sucker. I'm afraid I care too much for democratic values and freedom to simply join the group that has worked to eliminate my voice from mainstream discourse.

Quote
Why do you want to be on the left if you feel you are being held down?

Because I have principles.

Quote
Why put a label on yourself? It's such a general description isn't it?

Yes, it is. Of course, in this discussion, I never actually announced my position on left. You were forced to ask me, and when I answered honestly, you have held to it. If anyone is ardently attempting to put a label on me in this discussion, then, it's you, not me, and much hunch is that you have to do that since you simply cannot actually respond to my actual points. Of course the left is a general description. If you want to go deeper, I'm a libertarian-socialist and believe in anarcho-syndicalism. And if you believe that THAT is still putting a label on myself, then, I hate to tell you, but you exist somewhere on the political spectrum as well. You may realize it or you may not, but the fact is, you're there. And it seems to me based on what you've said so far, that you can be quite easily placed - though you may still surprise me. Either way, you are ardently in favor of supporting the status quo, which in all honesty, speaks to your desire for an unbiased media. In fact, the very idea that you believe that such a thing is possible speaks to your level of indoctrination toward the status quo. What you mean when you say you want an unbiased media is that you want a very heavily biased media that is slanted entirely towards the status quo - something that adheres to the accepted beliefs and truisms of your culture to such a strong degree that it appears to be completely objective.

So, yes, I can say where I stand politically precisely because I am honest with myself.

Quote
Isn't disenfranchised a term a capitalist would use anyway?

I didn't realize that economists were entitled to words in the dictionary.

Quote
From my perspective left and right are words only.

Well, they're not. The left represents a wide range of multiple political positions, as does the right and I think it would benefit you enormously to acquaint yourself with the political spectrum.

Quote
Hence... by calling yourself left, or right, you have taken yourself out of the whole.

I don't know what you're talking about. I hold political views that happen to put me on part of one side of a political spectrum. The view that I have are part of a rich historical tradition. The fact that you think that it shouldn't matter if this entire historical tradition were abandoned for the sake of being like other people who hold other views that have their own tradition is absurd to the point of hilarity.

Quote
4. rule of man vs. rule of law

The law is something that is imposed by force and is therefore illegitimate as far as I'm concerned.

Quote
5. the government has become a business, agreed... and they need customers. one problem... they also make the laws. we are all screwed, it isn't just you.

I didn't say the government has become a business. I said it is controlled by business interests.
[/quote]

1. Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. Not a myth. Not a concoction by status quo. What is status quo anyway except the state something is in which changes? It's a generalization. You can't presume to know what is in the hearts and minds of every individual.

2. I have said before I am not political. I am not on the political spectrum. Politics is greasy. So middle means "peak" so I can look down both sides of the mountain, or cross-section. A step back position. The Labor parties and socialist parties are unwanted by the people. I don't disagree they existed. I think people woke up and realized they could make it on their own. No one is eliminating your voice... your voice is here and I hear it and I am not trying to shut you down, am I? You can talk all you want or spread your message, but if people disagree with you or don't like what you say, you can't get all bent out of shape about it. I care about human values and freedom, but freedom from what exactly? You can never escape yourself, so that's where the effort should go.

You didn't force me to ask you about your political position. I asked to establish why you cared. The only reason to care is if you are in it. It's important to you and I get that. Can you be honest with yourself un-politically? Off the ride? I really don't get why you feel the need to be legitimized politically. Is it because you think you will have all-encompassing power to do whatever you want? You talk about culture and history. I say hold on to as much of that culture as you can. But if you want revenge for what happened in the past, the people who committed the dastardly deeds are long gone. And if you think the general population is unaware of what happened to the Native Americans, you need to re-think. Nothing can be done about it now because we are all trying to stay alive ourselves. At least you have a rich history to look back on. I am 3rd generation from other countries and can only go back so far for my roots. records lost and what-not, but so what. Is it frustrating? Sure, but all I have is now and what is before me. Pretty much everyone in this country comes from some form of displacement.

I think you need to take a step back and take a longer look. Get pissed off as hell if you want, but don't repeat the same mistakes. I was told by a friend once that man doesn't live long enough to learn from his mistakes. If you want to be pissed at someone, you have the Spanish to blame for their destructive ways long before Andrew Jackson. But again, that is in the past.

If you need a spectrum, how about the light spectrum? Light or dark? Positive or negative? Creative or destructive?

3. boy, these nuts sure are good. (straight man line, run with it)

4. The law is to protect people from people who crap on other people's porches.

5. The government should remain as moderate as possible and keep their hand out of the cookie jar.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 07:17:00 PM by OBLiO » Logged

"Remember - only you can prevent forest fires" - Smokey the Bear
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #82 on: August 14, 2011, 09:06:05 PM »



1. Who, What, When, Where, How, and Why. Not a myth.

You are living in a dream world if you believe that this produces unbiased news. Who decides the "Who's" and the "What's" that makes the news? There is a limited amount of space in both television and print - so there's always something that gets in and something that gets left out. Some "Who's" and "What's" are considered worthy for a news story and some aren't - how do you make that decision objectively? Furthermore, are all those stories given equal weight or do some deserve more space than others? How do you decide that? Even if magically, all the stories were given equal weight, which stories go on the front page and which ones end up on page 9? What story is given the "lead spot" and which one is given just before sports? How do you decide those questions objectively?

As far as the "Why" is concerned - there's a big problem for you. The "Why" demands analysis - an analysis means interpretation. And there's no way to get past subjective bias when you are interpreting something.

Quote
Not a concoction by status quo.

I suggest you read what I wrote. I never said that unbiased news was "a concoction of the status quo" - I said it was a concoction by organizations (like, say, General Electric) intent on maintaining the status quo.

Quote
What is status quo anyway except the state something is in which changes?

 Huh Status quo means keeping things the way that they are.

Quote
It's a generalization.

No. It's a word with a precise definition.

Quote
You can't presume to know what is in the hearts and minds of every individual.

And what makes you think I do?

Quote
I have said before I am not political.

 LOL

Sorry - but saying you are "not political" is precisely the same thing as saying you are political and your stance is in favor of the status quo. If you wanted to change the system, you would have to take a firm political stance and since you don't, then I can only conclude that you are happy that things basically stay the way they are. You might like to see one party get in over another (perhaps, on occasion) but this is the extent of your opinion. I'm afraid to be the one to tell you this, but that's just as political a stance as the one I take - it's just more offensive since you can't be honest with yourself and admit how political you actually are.

Quote
I am not on the political spectrum.

 LOL

You think there isn't room for people on the spectrum who pretty much like things the way they are in the particular society in which they live?

Quote
Politics is greasy.

The political spectrum isn't about day to day activity on Capital Hill. It's about where you stand on economics and where you stand on power. And your posts thus far, incidentally, have made it perfectly clear that you have very firm ideas on both matters. Since you are clearly in favor of both some form of capitalism (perhaps laissez-faire free market enterprise) and in favor of some kind of government, and in favor of the law (you have pretty much said all of these things) then this really narrows down exactly where you stand on the spectrum.

I think you may flatter yourself by truly believing that you stand outside of politics but you fail to realize that no matter what you do, you can't escape it. The very things you have said have shown just how narrow your political stance really is.

Quote
So middle means "peak"

Thanks for making up your own definition of what middle means. In reality, the middle of the political spectrum is pretty much made up of social democrats - something that you're not.

Quote
The Labor parties and socialist parties are unwanted by the people. I don't disagree they existed. I think people woke up and realized they could make it on their own.

Bullsh!t. The Socialist Party of America had decent showings throughout United States history but struggled because of things like their leaders being thrown in prison. Then by the 1950s, the party died out because the government began accusing citizens of disloyalty, treason, and subversion if they happened to associate with anyone who may have had some kind of vague link to communism. Careers were destroyed, and people were imprisoned. Is it any wonder that people stopped voting for the Socialist Party? Of course not - they were being intimidated and it's no coincidence that the party died at the height of the intense Salem-esque hysteria of the 1950s. Then between 1956 and 1971, the CIA was used as the national political police in very much the same way that Stalin used his own police squad, to illegally spy, infiltrate, discredit and disrupt "subversive" organizations - the vast majority of which happened to be socialist and communist groups - under a program called Cointelpro. The program worked and, in many ways, succeeded, in undermining both the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Workers Party.

So, no, people did not "wake up and realize they could make it on their own." Rather, socialist and communist groups were actively and persistently dismantled, discredited, delegitimized, persecuted, and shut away for decades. The groups and the people in it were made perfectly aware that their very security and their livelihood was in danger by holding these political views. The inevitable consequence was that a once vibrant community was basically reduced to a shell of what it was. This was exactly the intention of the US governmental organizations that were constructed precisely for this purpose - to disenfranchise the left from the political mainstream.

Quote
No one is eliminating your voice... your voice is here and I hear it and I am not trying to shut you down, am I?

This is not mainstream discourse, is it? Thousands of posts on a message board is in no way a threat to the status quo. Where you don't hear a voice like mine is in the mainstream press or in mainstream history. If you did, you would know a fraction of the information I gave you above, rather than simply make the utterly groundless and hysterically embarrassing assertion that the reason why there is no longer a viable socialist alternative at the political level is simply because the people stopped wanting it. You're a fine product of a system that has absolutely eliminated dissenting voices.

Quote
You didn't force me to ask you about your political position. I asked to establish why you cared.

You asked to manufacture a reason why I cared. If you really wanted to know why I cared, you would have asked the question: "Why do you care?" as opposed to asking, "Are you on the left?" so that when I said, "Yes", you could tell me that that's the reason why I cared. It was intellectually dishonest then and your pretense now that you were doing it to "establish why I cared" is only further evidence of your lack of credibility.

Quote
The only reason to care is if you are in it.

I honestly think that it's disturbing that you are trying to tell me why I care about something, especially after I already made it crystal clear to you why I care.

Quote
Can you be honest with yourself un-politically?

Can you even pretend to explain what that means without blowing a ton of smoke?

Quote
I really don't get why you feel the need to be legitimized politically.

Since the beginning I have been talking about the left, not about me. If you could actually read for comprehension, you would have seen that.

Quote
Is it because you think you will have all-encompassing power to do whatever you want?

Yes. That's exactly it. That's the goal of every anarcho-syndicalist.  Roll Eyes

Quote
You talk about culture and history. I say hold on to as much of that culture as you can. But if you want revenge for what happened in the past, the people who committed the dastardly deeds are long gone. And if you think the general population is unaware of what happened to the Native Americans, you need to re-think.

It took about ten posts for you to even remember that they existed in 1776. In this case, I am less concerned about the general population.

Quote
Nothing can be done about it now because we are all trying to stay alive ourselves.

Yeah, I can imagine how your day to day struggle to stay alive would really get in the way of the government making reparations of past injustices.  Roll Eyes

Regardless, I wasn't even asking for anything to be done about it. I made a brief reference to Natives in the late 1700s and you suddenly got defensive about how you had nothing to do with it. Here's a little something you may have missed in the fine print: I NEVER ACCUSED YOU OF HAVING ANYTHING TO DO WITH IT. In fact, my reference to the Natives had diddly squat to do with the present circumstances or even their circumstances pre-contact. My only reason for bringing them up was to illustrate how they, along with other groups, were fine examples of how the freedom brought to the "people" in the United States, did not include all the people. That's all I said and it was precisely true - even by the late 19th Century, the US government denied the legitimacy of the Natives as people in the constitution.

Quote
The law is to protect people from people who crap on other people's porches.

Uh huh. Now explain to me why the law changes when the power structure changes. Why, for example, were new laws created once the United States became a country? If the sole purpose of the law is to protect people from other people, you'd figure that it would have stayed the same, no?

Quote
5. The government should remain as moderate as possible and keep their hand out of the cookie jar.

In other words, you are staking out a very obvious position on the political spectrum.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2011, 09:25:45 PM by rockandroll » Logged
Jason
Guest
« Reply #83 on: August 15, 2011, 10:20:53 AM »

Has it been established yet that OBLiO is the Phil Cohen of this thread?  LOL
Logged
OBLiO
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 171

Do The Hokey Pokey with all your might


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: August 15, 2011, 02:44:18 PM »

Has it been established yet that OBLiO is the Phil Cohen of this thread?  LOL
Just another target to demonize. Leave Phil out of it. It's not the first time Real beach Boy has crapped on someone's porch spewing hate and paranoid delusions.

The law is there to protect people from people who crap on other people's porches.

"You agree, through your use of this forum, that you will not post any material which is false, defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, adult material, or otherwise in violation of any International or United States Federal law. You also agree not to post any copyrighted material unless you own the copyright or you have written consent from the owner of the copyrighted material. Spam, flooding, advertisements, chain letters, pyramid schemes, and solicitations are also forbidden on this forum."

If it's ok with hypehat, I'd like to ask the other moderators here to leave this thread up without removing any posts in order to show how Real Beach Boy and rockandroll, by their own example, proved my point regarding what a true socialist nation looks like and why it will always fail.

Sorry your thread was crapped on there hypehat, I tried to help you clean it up.

 

Logged

"Remember - only you can prevent forest fires" - Smokey the Bear
Jason
Guest
« Reply #85 on: August 15, 2011, 03:09:33 PM »

For the record, I am also known as The Real Beach Boy on here (I change my name on here every so often although most often I go back to The Real Beach Boy). I'd like to know what exactly in this thread is indicative of me "crapping on someone's porch spewing hate and paranoid delusions."

As far as the Phil reference, that was as far as it was going and it should have been obvious (hence the smiley) that I was joking.

No one is going to delete this thread as it's quite obvious that only a half dozen or so people really care about it, and, it's not really to a point of anyone really throwing stones; we're just in a state of mutual disagreement.
Logged
Heysaboda
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1054


Son, don't wait till the break of day....


View Profile
« Reply #86 on: August 15, 2011, 04:13:13 PM »

I`ve always thought Fox`s agenda was pretty loud and clear. Parrot the Republican party line, dismiss moderate centrists as radical communists, and line Rupert Murdoch`s pockets.
This is exactly, perfectly and abundantly clear to anyone who's seen more than 15 minutes of "Fox News".

It's all about disinformation.  Pure and simple.  Why would anyone debate this?

"Keep them doped with religion, sex and TV."
Logged

Son, don't wait till the break of day 'cause you know how time fades away......
Heysaboda
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1054


Son, don't wait till the break of day....


View Profile
« Reply #87 on: August 15, 2011, 04:33:41 PM »

Why won't all of the people who want Socialized Medicine and other Gov't programs just move to those countries that provide them, instead of trying to ruin it for those in America who vehemently oppose that?
Let's enumerate all those "freedoms that America was founded upon" for black people and women.

zero = 0

Freedom to be a slave.

Case closed.

« Last Edit: August 15, 2011, 04:36:19 PM by heysaboda » Logged

Son, don't wait till the break of day 'cause you know how time fades away......
♩♬🐸 Billy C ♯♫♩🐇
Pissing off drunks since 1978
Global Moderator
*****
Offline Offline

Posts: 11844


🍦🍦 Pet Demon for Sale - $5 or best offer ☮☮


View Profile WWW
« Reply #88 on: August 15, 2011, 07:22:39 PM »

Quote
Why won't all of the people who want Socialized Medicine and other Gov't programs just move to those countries that provide them, instead of trying to ruin it for those in America who vehemently oppose that?

If only it was that easy. If it was up to me, I'd be in the Netherlands right now. Unfortunately, I don't have that option right now.
Logged

Need your song mixed/mastered? Contact me at fear2stop@yahoo.com. Serious inquiries only, please!
Jason
Guest
« Reply #89 on: August 16, 2011, 04:57:28 PM »

Mr. noname, with all due respect, the "if you don't like it, leave" argument represents the last resort of an individual whose ideologue has been discredited by others in this discussion. One can love the fatherland of the United States but disagree most strongly with the government of the United States, as I certainly do on both counts. I hear Americans who say "if you don't like it, leave" and I envision sheep being led off to slaughter. And when sh*t hits the fan, they all say "have faith in the government, the government will help us all"; unbeknownst to them, they're never going to be protected from anything. It is misguided patriotism to a point beyond being pathetic.

Besides, this discussion was already over when Godwin's law was proven yet again.
« Last Edit: August 16, 2011, 04:59:39 PM by Thought Police » Logged
OBLiO
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 171

Do The Hokey Pokey with all your might


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: August 16, 2011, 10:15:31 PM »

Besides, this discussion was already over when Godwin's law was proven yet again.

So noted. Although applicable, I am not entirely convinced that's what derailed the thread.
I need to do a little research... not sure if what I am looking for exists, yet. I'll let you know.

I cite the comparison to Phil Cohen as unfair, in that, I have never declared the non-release of the Smile Sessions. I know it will be released. Joke noted.

The reference to spewing hate and paranoid delusions refers to comments regarding a news station.
Remember, when I started a thread about the Beach Boys charity work for tornado victims?

As a private citizen of the Smiley Smile community, I recommend the citation of the paradox corollary of the Wilcox-McCandish law of online discourse to the governing body in order to bring the thread back to it's original subject matter.

Did you catch the story on Kanye West turning Godwin's Law on himself last week?
Logged

"Remember - only you can prevent forest fires" - Smokey the Bear
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: August 22, 2011, 05:56:24 PM »

The idea of "anyone who doesn't like what is here now should go elsewhere" is ridiculous, in that it assumes that the way things are is either (or both of) a) the way things used to be, or b) the way things ought to be. Neither of which is ever true unless you live in an unchanging photograph or a utopia. So, for example, the suggestion that Americans who believe a single-payer healthcare system should leave the country rather than try to change the America in which they live, this assumes that Americans who believe otherwise are the truer, more correct Americans who have distilled the nature of Americanness. The rest of us are leeches, imposters, or whatever. We should leave so you can have your America. All well and good, right? Except what if I said the same thing? You should leave so I can have [/i]my[/i] America. See? It's, uh, what's the word ... fucking retarded. There are a lot of us. We disagree on most things, most of the time. We have to work out solutions that are as least distasteful as possible, and that's it.   
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4]   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.52 seconds with 21 queries.