Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

CS Lewis on American Politics

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
    Er... so? A secret assassination squad seems pretty much ideal for taking out Bin Laden. That's probably about the one time in US history that a secret assassination was 100% totally justifiable.
    Seal Team 6 was formed as a response to the failed rescue attempt during the Iran Hostage Crisis, but the point is that it is pure hypocrisy to complain about a 'secret assassination squad' when the other guy uses them and praise them when your guy uses them. You do understand that key point, right? Besides, as DE pointed out (and you flat out ignored), they have been known to edit interviews to try to make the other side look like monsters. Do you approve of dishonest editing of your political opponents, to make them look like the caricature of what you want them to appear as being? I don't approve of this behavior no matter how much I agree with the person on issues. Why would you support this behavior with anybody doing it? Liberal groups have been caught, several times, editing interviews to make their opponents look bad/stupid/ignorant/insert whatever you want them to look like, to the point that I don't trust them to represent the other side fairly.
    Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 02-12-2015, 08:12 PM.
    "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
    GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Starlight View Post
      It's certainly pretty easy to find plenty of false things that conservatives consider true.
      It's a lot easier to find false things liberals consider true. You just have to know where to look. For example, liberals think homosexuality is just a normal expression of human sexuality. They then infiltrate academia, and since psychology is a lot harder to qualify than physics or chemistry, they recreate reality to fit their insanity (the opposite of what Karl Rove called the reality-based community, actually). And while conservatives are usually wrong on minutia, liberals are wrong on world wrecking policies, which they actually have the power to inflict on most of the civilized world.

      I have the opposite complaint about politifact: They seem to go out of their way to be generous to conservatives.
      Yes, you can see that quite clearly.

      There's plenty of other fact-checking organizations. They all observe that US conservatives get their facts wrong regularly, far far more than US liberals. There was a reason that Karl Rove described liberals as "reality-based" and Stephen Colbert joked that "reality has a well-known liberal bias". Because empirically speaking, in the US the 'liberals' tend to get their facts right and the 'conservatives' tend to get their facts wrong. This is what makes the rest of the world have such an awed and horrified fascination with US politics, because the conservatives there are just so insane.
      The more likely explanation is that liberals just lie with a shameless consistency that would strike the average conservative dead if they actually knew.

      So, which part of there are different segments in the show did you not understand? Your complaint is like saying that a news program is false because it had some ads in it and those ads were false.
      I've watched the show, the interviews are usually the least comedy centered of all.

      You're also rather naively believing at face value one-sided unsubstantiated claims certain people are making as to what other people allegedly told them to expect. People who go on TV shows of every kind seem to regularly find it was not what they were expecting. It's probably a poor choice in general for a person to go on any show that is hostile to their position, because they're probably going to be unhappy with the outcome.
      Yeah, they found it was not what they were expecting. That's the problem. Holocaust victims also had a problem with Auschwitz because "it was not what they were expecting". It's entirely reasonable to expect someone not lie to you, or not edit your interview to make you look bad. At least when you deal with honorable people (IE: not Jonathan Leibowitz).
      "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

      There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by lilpixieofterror View Post
        Do you ever get tried of ranting and raving and dishonestly portraying people who dare to disagree with you as uncaring monsters, who don't care about others?
        Ooooh, that's actually a good way of phrasing it.

        Well, you do get your news source for a hypocritical, lying, comedian
        As I mentioned earlier, I have 8 main sources for my news, only one of which is the Daily Show. But you'd find plenty of fault with the others because you seem to like finding fault with sources. Anything short of a conservative blogger is apparently "too liberal" for you. Four other US sources I enjoy watching are "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver", and the youtube channels The Young Turks, Sam Seder, and the David Pakman Show. I actually look forward to reading your rant about how liberal/stupid/wrong they are.

        Yep because anybody who disagrees with the great LightBright, is an uneducated moron that doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
        It's probably true that I'm generally too-ready to dismiss people who disagree with me as stupid. That said, most posters here seem about 1000x quicker to do exactly that than I would ever be.

        I do have a college degree, so I thought I'd get that out there before you start ranting about how anybody who disagree with you must be an uneducated religious bigot.
        Sure. You do realize I was generalizing about a significant segment of the US population, right, and not talking specifically you personally? Although sometimes people with a little bit of education are actually the worst because they think of themselves as educated and qualified when sometimes they don't seem to have much of a clue at all.

        What do you end up doing when you run into educated religious people?
        Usually we get on very well. When I did my undergrad degrees I was part of a Christian group at my university, and many of my best friends today were friends I made then. About half of us have become atheists over the years since, but I still get on just fine with the ones that are still Christians. And on other websites where there are highly educated religious people, discussion between me and them tends to go very well (orders of magnitude better than it does here).

        BTW what do you do with Christians that don't care much about the hypocritical attitude of the 'Religious Right' either?
        We jointly roll our eyes at the Religious Right.

        I'm not saying "all Christians belong to the Religious Right", I'm saying that the Religious Right exists and they've had a big effect on US politics, and there are historical reasons why they exist.

        I'm sorry, but can you please explain to me how Obama has helped the poor anymore than you rant about the 'religious right' as doing?
        Introducing the Affordable Care Act and expanding Medicaid. Increasing the minimum wage.

        Obama has certainly fallen far short of what many progressives hoped for, and is regularly condemned by many progressives for failing to do enough to help the poor.

        Democrats love business too.
        That's true, and the US has a serious corruption problem, with both parties receiving significant money on an ongoing basis from big business. Many progressives are deeply unhappy about the amount of money that Hillary has already received from Wall St.

        However, overall, by any measure, the Republicans are faaaaaaar more corrupt and more in the pockets of the billionaires than the Democrats are. Some Democrats are corrupt, but nearly ALL the Republicans are totally-off-the-charts corrupt. The Democrats have regularly tried to put laws and constitutional amendments in place to prevent & reduce corruption, but the Republicans keep blocking and rejecting them. As recently as last September, every Democrat in the Senate voted to place limits on political donations and every Republican in the Senate voted against it. Gee, I wonder who likes the corruption more?

        Please, anybody who thinks Democrats are good and honest people are just as stupid as people who think Republicans are good and honest people.
        The Republicans are off-the-charts insane and corrupt, and are either completely unhinged from reality or completely in the pocket of the mega-donors or both. Many of the Democrats are corrupt, with some partially or wholly in the pockets of the mega-donors. But, by and large, the Democrats actually hold views that are based in reality, and often actually work towards policies that would benefit America. An extensive analysis found that Republicans only ever pay attention to the views of the top 1%, while Democrats regularly pay attention to the views of the middle class as well as the top 1%. I think the Democrats aren't great, but compared to the Republicans they look like saints.

        Besides, you seem to ignore the fact that single and young people eventually become married and old people and move to a more conservative stance of politics.
        Current data suggests that the millennial generation is getting slightly more liberal as it ages, as my earlier link on the voting demographics of young people touched on.

        Simply put, married and older people don't care about the same issues as single and young people.
        I think that as any given generation grows up they tend to retain the social values that were dominant in their childhood/adolescence. Depending on how society has moved in the meantime, this might make them more conservative or more liberal compared to the rest of their society.

        There is that demonizing again because we all know that anybody who dares to disagree with the great LightBright, just don't care about the poor or sick.
        People with different values to me do tend to disagree with me.
        "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
        "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
        "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
          However, overall, by any measure, the Republicans are faaaaaaar more corrupt and more in the pockets of the billionaires than the Democrats are.
          Go through the Forbes top 50 and tell me how many Republicans you find.

          Some Democrats are corrupt, but nearly ALL the Republicans are totally-off-the-charts corrupt. The Democrats have regularly tried to put laws and constitutional amendments in place to prevent & reduce corruption, but the Republicans keep blocking and rejecting them. As recently as last September, every Democrat in the Senate voted to place limits on political donations and every Republican in the Senate voted against it. Gee, I wonder who likes the corruption more?
          Limits on political donations are unconstitutional so of course Liberals are all for banning them. Nevermind that no amount of donations are gonna get you elected if people don't put you in power. Democrats (or rather, liberals) infest and corrupt the bulk of major private institutions, which they then use to propagandize, all before you even get to donations for politicians. Showing promiscuity as normal on TV is far more effective than any political donation, for example. The real reasons why liberals oppose political donations (at least among your elite, your rank and file are dumber than a sack of bricks) is to erode the first amendment. If that goes through then Greater Caitiffs like Sam can use it as precedent for restricting free speech.
          "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

          There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

          Comment


          • #20
            So Republicans are corrupt...ok, I agree. I'm not a Republican, nor am I a fan of them. But it's totally freaking bizarre and kind of hilarious that a lot of people will say that and then, in the same breath, talk about how wonderful and altruistic and upright and thoughtful and compassionate the Democrats are. I mean...for real?
            I DENOUNCE DONALD J. TRUMP AND ALL HIS IMMORAL ACTS.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Zymologist View Post
              But it's totally freaking bizarre and kind of hilarious that a lot of people will say that and then, in the same breath, talk about how wonderful and altruistic and upright and thoughtful and compassionate the Democrats are. I mean...for real?
              I think I mostly said the Democrats had the advantage of being not insane, and were less bad, and that they sometimes act altruistically.

              The only two people I admire in US politics are Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders, who are both Democrats or Democrat-aligned. So there are some good Democrats. I don't think there are any good Republicans.

              I simply wanted to make it clear that I don't see there as being any form of equivalency between the Republicans and the Democrats in the US. The Democrats are terrible politicians for the most part and pretty corrupt for the most part. I really don't see the vast majority of the Democrats as being very great at all. But they are orders of magnitude better than the Republicans who are just absolutely nutty and utterly corrupt.

              Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
              Limits on political donations are unconstitutional
              The idea is to pass a constitutional amendment to make them constitutional.
              Last edited by Starlight; 02-13-2015, 12:46 AM.
              "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
              "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
              "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                The idea is to pass a constitutional amendment to make them constitutional.
                Yeah, the problem isn't just the amendment, it's that people in America like their free speech. There are already legal limits on how much you can donate to any particular politician anyway, so this is really just a made-up issue Democrats use to whip up their deranged leftist base, who think they're fighting corporations when they're actually owned by them.
                "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                  Yeah, the problem isn't just the amendment, it's that people in America like their free speech.
                  This insane Republican spin that limiting bribery and corruption is equivalent to limiting free speech would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious issue.

                  this is really just a made-up issue Democrats use to whip up their deranged leftist base, who think they're fighting corporations when they're actually owned by them.
                  Your conspiracy theories that the Democrats don't really stand for something that they unanimously voted for are amusing.

                  Politicians often say one thing and do another, but their actual voting record ultimately speaks volumes.
                  "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                  "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                  "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                    This insane Republican spin that limiting bribery and corruption is equivalent to limiting free speech would be hilarious if it wasn't such a serious issue.
                    Limiting how much money you can spend to advertise in favor of a politician you like IS a free speech issue. As I said, the amount of money any individual can give to a particular politician is already limited. It's not a serious issue. It's a made-up issue meant to whip up morons like you who don't even understand what the current laws are actually about.

                    But speaking of corruption, are you in favor of canceling welfare then? After all Democrats pay welfare to the poor and most of them vote Democrat in return. That's pretty much straight up bribery, and unlike campaign contributions it's done with public money.

                    Your conspiracy theories that the Democrats don't really stand for something that they unanimously voted for are amusing.
                    I didn't say they don't stand for it, I said it's a non-issue. They can stand for it because it won't do anything.

                    Politicians often say one thing and do another, but their actual voting record ultimately speaks volumes.
                    Not necessarily. For example both parties often shuffle votes to allow members in contested districts to pretend they oppose something by voting against it even if they don't actually oppose it.
                    "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                    There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by Darth Executor View Post
                      Limiting how much money you can spend to advertise in favor of a politician you like IS a free speech issue.
                      Er, so are you in favor of giving everyone enough money to allow them to max-out their possible political donations? Otherwise you're limiting their speech, and you've got a system in which the poor do not have remotely as much 'free speech' as the rich.

                      In practice bribery is bribery, and money is not speech. Enormous wealth can be used to buy a megaphone so big that it drowns out everyone else, thereby limiting the speech of others. It can equally be used to buy the favors of politicians.

                      But speaking of corruption, are you in favor of canceling welfare then?
                      Political corruption is about corrupting politicians. Corrupting the populace is not a thing: Politicians enacting laws that make the populace happy is the whole point of democracy.

                      For example both parties often shuffle votes to allow members in contested districts to pretend they oppose something by voting against it even if they don't actually oppose it.
                      It would seem rather hard to shuffle votes when they voted unanimously. Unless your level of conspiracy theory extends to thinking they swapped votes with the Republicans by agreement in order for the Republicans to deliberately let the Democrats score points against them?
                      "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                      "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                      "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                        Er, so are you in favor of giving everyone enough money to allow them to max-out their possible political donations? Otherwise you're limiting their speech,
                        No, their speech is limited by their bad life choices and bad luck. Mute people can't maximize their speech, that doesn't mean I'm limiting it if I don't talk for them.

                        and you've got a system in which the poor do not have remotely as much 'free speech' as the rich.
                        So?

                        In practice bribery is bribery, and money is not speech.
                        Democracy is all about bribery, as I just pointed out.

                        Enormous wealth can be used to buy a megaphone so big that it drowns out everyone else, thereby limiting the speech of others. It can equally be used to buy the favors of politicians.
                        But it can't be used to buy votes (unless you're a democrat with your hands on the purse string), which are what decides if politicians get in or out. Your argument is an inherent admission that the poor are stupid. Other than that, I don't really see the point. All speech, whether bought with money or not "limits the speech of others" in the sense that you can't really listen to more than one person at a time, but that's a whole 'nother animal from preventing someone from speaking at all.

                        Political corruption is about corrupting politicians. Corrupting the populace is not a thing: Politicians enacting laws that make the populace happy is the whole point of democracy.
                        Politicians who give money for votes ARE corrupt. And you're fine with politicians buying votes? Then what's your problem with corporate corruption, after all they are part of the populace and made happy by whatever favors they get. Incidentally, both poor voters and the ultrarich love Democrats. I'm guessing it's not coincidental.

                        It would seem rather hard to shuffle votes when they voted unanimously. Unless your level of conspiracy theory extends to thinking they swapped votes with the Republicans by agreement in order for the Republicans to deliberately let the Democrats score points against them?
                        I'm talking about situations where you have more than enough votes to pass a law. Then you can let some of your members vote against it and still pass it.
                        "As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths." Isaiah 3:12

                        There is no such thing as innocence, only degrees of guilt.

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Starlight View Post
                          Ooooh, that's actually a good way of phrasing it.
                          And it is merely a caricature. That tells me how seriously I should take you that you think an obvious caricature is somehow truth.

                          As I mentioned earlier, I have 8 main sources for my news, only one of which is the Daily Show.
                          And two of which seem to be web sites known for a rather strong liberal biasness. Tell me, do you even read what the other side says because I try to read both right and left news sources. It is rather telling though that you listen to a proven hypocrite and liar and take a word he says seriously though.

                          But you'd find plenty of fault with the others because you seem to like finding fault with sources. Anything short of a conservative blogger is apparently "too liberal" for you. Four other US sources I enjoy watching are "Last Week Tonight with John Oliver", and the youtube channels The Young Turks, Sam Seder, and the David Pakman Show. I actually look forward to reading your rant about how liberal/stupid/wrong they are.
                          More of your nonsense because I hate to burst your fantasy bubble, but I only really read 2 conservative sources. I'll sometimes read Fox and sometimes read The Federalist. Most of the time though, I read Yahoo (which I find has a position left of center) and I'll even browse your two sources and that is how I know they are rather liberal in outlook. As for your youtube channels. Sorry, but I'm spending hours of my precious time looking at your youtube video's, but I still do need to ask... do you actually read a single conservative source? I read liberal ones, do you even bother to read what people who disagree with you actually say or do you prefer the caricature because it is easier for you to refute?

                          It's probably true that I'm generally too-ready to dismiss people who disagree with me as stupid. That said, most posters here seem about 1000x quicker to do exactly that than I would ever be.
                          Irony at its finest. I'm not the one trying to pretend all democrats are evil monsters, who hate children and the poor. You though are trying to make Republicans appear that way though. That says a lot about your mentality and how seriously anybody should take you.

                          Sure. You do realize I was generalizing about a significant segment of the US population, right, and not talking specifically you personally? Although sometimes people with a little bit of education are actually the worst because they think of themselves as educated and qualified when sometimes they don't seem to have much of a clue at all.
                          So you are describing yourself? Remember, I'm not the one trying to make Democrats appear as evil monsters. You though are trying to make Republicans all appear as evil monsters. The best way to tell a political hack is to see how they portray those they disagree with. Since you're so interested in making your opposition into mere caricatures, that would make you a political hack and actually projecting your flaws upon others. Do tell, do you read non liberal sources? I read liberal sources, so do you do the same with those whom you disagree with or do you prefer to listen to a con man, that lies to those he interviews, edits their interviews to make them appear stupid, and double talks (depending on if it makes his side look good or not)?

                          Usually we get on very well. When I did my undergrad degrees I was part of a Christian group at my university, and many of my best friends today were friends I made then. About half of us have become atheists over the years since, but I still get on just fine with the ones that are still Christians. And on other websites where there are highly educated religious people, discussion between me and them tends to go very well (orders of magnitude better than it does here).
                          Do you portray them and those they might end up agreeing with as evil sadist, who hate the poor and don't care about anybody, but themselves? Yes or no?

                          We jointly roll our eyes at the Religious Right.
                          But I don't portray them as evil sadist, you do though. Which says a lot about your mentality and how seriously you should be taken.

                          I'm not saying "all Christians belong to the Religious Right", I'm saying that the Religious Right exists and they've had a big effect on US politics, and there are historical reasons why they exist.
                          That's nice, but they are not evil sadist either (as you seem to want them being portrayed as being).

                          Introducing the Affordable Care Act and expanding Medicaid. Increasing the minimum wage.
                          Yeah, it is so affordable that insurance cost have been raised and the taxes to pay for those who 'can't afford it' are stuck to others. Yeah, that is wonderful... just make other people pay for your cost. As for increasing the min wage, want me to help you out here with one reason why Democrats are in favor of it? First off, according to the US government (see that I quoted an actual stat and not a hack news article, you should try that sometime) most people do not actually make minimum wage. The problem is not so much the labor rate as it is the hours, so raising the rate will not actually help those making min wage as it will help them have their hours cut even more and ensure even more of them are sitting on unemployment. You do understand that, right? Second, you do also understand that the union labor rate is often based upon the minimum wage rate, so if the rate goes up... they all end up getting raises. Guess what side is often most associated with labor unions? Oh, that's right... the democrats. Isn't it interesting that what they are trying to push, just happens to help out a group they have close ties to? Yeah... that is quite interesting that what they are fighting for just happens to help out a group that gives them tons of money and votes, huh?

                          Obama has certainly fallen far short of what many progressives hoped for, and is regularly condemned by many progressives for failing to do enough to help the poor.
                          That or democrats (using your own metric) don't care as much about the poor as you think they do. Just a thought...

                          That's true, and the US has a serious corruption problem, with both parties receiving significant money on an ongoing basis from big business. Many progressives are deeply unhappy about the amount of money that Hillary has already received from Wall St.
                          So why do you keep wanting to support your democrat buddies if they are as corrupt as you say they are?

                          However, overall, by any measure, the Republicans are faaaaaaar more corrupt and more in the pockets of the billionaires than the Democrats are. Some Democrats are corrupt, but nearly ALL the Republicans are totally-off-the-charts corrupt. The Democrats have regularly tried to put laws and constitutional amendments in place to prevent & reduce corruption, but the Republicans keep blocking and rejecting them. As recently as last September, every Democrat in the Senate voted to place limits on political donations and every Republican in the Senate voted against it. Gee, I wonder who likes the corruption more?
                          Why didn't the democrats push though such a bill back in 2009, when they controlled both houses and the presidency and the Republicans couldn't of done a thing about it? Oh, that's right... it is because they don't really care and just preferred to use that opportunity to make their opposition look bad. You seem to keep forgetting that little detail. Why do you keep forgetting that the democrats could have pushed though any bill they wanted, but didn't choose to try to push though such bills, until they knew they no longer could push though such a bill? Hummm, it is almost as if the democrats could care less about 'ending the corruption' and just prefer to use such carrots to fool gullible and stupid people (aka you and people like you) into actually pretending they care about such issues. Think about it... why would they bite the hand that feeds them? You just admitted above that they receive lots of money from these rich people too. Why would they cut off their own nose to spite their face? Use your head a think for a change here. Democrats receive lots and lots of money from these rich people themselves. In many cases, they are pretty rich themselves (The Obama's have a net worth far higher than the average American does). Why on earth would the want to cut themselves off from such a source of cash?

                          The Republicans are off-the-charts insane and corrupt, and are either completely unhinged from reality or completely in the pocket of the mega-donors or both. Many of the Democrats are corrupt, with some partially or wholly in the pockets of the mega-donors. But, by and large, the Democrats actually hold views that are based in reality, and often actually work towards policies that would benefit America. An extensive analysis found that Republicans only ever pay attention to the views of the top 1%, while Democrats regularly pay attention to the views of the middle class as well as the top 1%. I think the Democrats aren't great, but compared to the Republicans they look like saints.
                          And yet... when they were in control of both houses and the presidency... what did they actually do with their huge advantage? Do you care to tell us all why they wasted their huge majority on passing bills nobody wanted and only waited to 'end the corruption' when it just happened that they no longer held a majority and could use such an opportunity to make their opposition look bad? Oh yeah, you keep forgetting that little detail. Can you please explain why you keep failing to remember that tiny detail? I think I know the answer... you're getting your news sources from political hacks. Please, BBC is another pretty liberal source of information too (I'm always weary of sociological studies, since they are so based on opinion vs scientific fact). What you actually have is groups of people on the far left, who what do you know... disagree with people on the right. Who would of thought? Now can you present actual data, for your bald assertions or are you going to keep giving me link after link to other liberals, who happen to end up agreeing with one another, while being too stupid to figure out that the rich have the democrats in their pocket too, but are just better at pretending they are not.

                          Current data suggests that the millennial generation is getting slightly more liberal as it ages, as my earlier link on the voting demographics of young people touched on.
                          I suppose you didn't read where I said 'married' at, huh? Did you notice that my generation is getting married later on in life than previous generations? My parents got married far younger than my husband and I got married at. They also already had 3 kids, at the point my husband and I were just tying the knot. Did you hope that by ignoring my second qualifier of 'and married' that my argument would disappear? It isn't that hard for even your tiny mind to figure out. Single and young people care about different issues than married and older people do. This is a simple fact and if you paid attention to where I said 'married' at... you'd know that. Do you seriously think that I don't read articles too and it is impossible to come to other conclusions, by reading articles?

                          I think that as any given generation grows up they tend to retain the social values that were dominant in their childhood/adolescence. Depending on how society has moved in the meantime, this might make them more conservative or more liberal compared to the rest of their society.
                          That's total nonsense and I should know... my family is mainly liberal democrats and strong liberal democrats at that. Do you want to try this again or do you just like pretending that it is impossible to come to new conclusions based upon what you grew up with?

                          People with different values to me do tend to disagree with me.
                          And does this include making caricatures of your opposition?
                          Last edited by lilpixieofterror; 02-13-2015, 09:20 PM.
                          "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                          GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Haha, funny quote Manwe, haha thanks for sharing it. We'll proceed not ruin it with the very thing Lewis was pointing out, guffaw.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Manwë Súlimo View Post
                              Haha, funny quote Manwe, haha thanks for sharing it. We'll proceed not ruin it with the very thing Lewis was pointing out, guffaw.
                              Both parties are corrupt, but I don't pretend that those I agree with are not corrupt too. To add to the quotes, you could of tried Chesterton too when he said:

                              “The whole modern world has divided itself into Conservatives and Progressives. The business of Progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of Conservatives is to prevent mistakes from being corrected. Even when the revolutionist might himself repent of his revolution, the traditionalist is already defending it as part of his tradition. Thus we have two great types -- the advanced person who rushes us into ruin, and the retrospective person who admires the ruins. He admires them especially by moonlight, not to say moonshine. Each new blunder of the progressive or prig becomes instantly a legend of immemorial antiquity for the snob. This is called the balance, or mutual check, in our Constitution.”

                              Just replace progressive with 'democrat' and conservative with 'republican' and you got modern US politics.
                              "The man from the yacht thought he was the first to find England; I thought I was the first to find Europe. I did try to found a heresy of my own; and when I had put the last touches to it, I discovered that it was orthodoxy."
                              GK Chesterton; Orthodoxy

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Manwë Súlimo View Post
                                Haha, funny quote Manwe, haha thanks for sharing it. We'll proceed not ruin it with the very thing Lewis was pointing out, guffaw.
                                Well it's a cute quote with amusing applications to the current context. The US Republican Primaries were apparently particularly vicious even 70 years ago.

                                Although in some ways the quote's neither particularly deep nor meaningful: People everywhere are apt to get into arguments over politics, and these can often come across as very bizarre to outsiders. Most people are generally not that thrilled about at least one of the parties on their own country's political spectrum.
                                Last edited by Starlight; 02-13-2015, 10:17 PM.
                                "I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
                                "Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
                                "[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                130 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                332 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                112 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                197 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                361 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X