| 62 posts found | |
|---|---|
Originally posted by Fishermage
Nice deflecting. I figured you would have no real response.
Sorry my point flew over your head. The point was that those people sounded less informed than similar interviews done with Obama voters. As a libertarian, I see both sides' ignorance.
EDIT: here is the same video from the other side: www.youtube.com/watch
Right, you label yourself as an independent so you can criticize everyone else and stand high and mighty without affiliation. Theres morons on both sides, but theres a big difference between failing to answer "why are you here, why do you like this person" and asking social studies questions regarding the government. The problem isn't ignorance itself... its the fact that the right chooses to be politically active on it. Conservatives can cry about Obama and make huge deals about the angle of his bows and other worthless shit, but in the end they fail to offer a better alternative to him. IE, Palin. ------------------------- |
|
|
11/24/09 6:01:06 AM#42
Originally posted by Fishermage A temporary stop. A pop-in, if you will. But hello, you pedantic old prick. :) Just bringing back one of the greatest hits. Hope life is treating you well. So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist. |
|
|
11/24/09 6:03:46 AM#43
Originally posted by Zindaihas I am wondering if you had the same self-righteous indignation when we tried Ramzi Yousef in an American court for the first WTC bombing. I doubt it.
I honestly didn't follow the trial of Yousef all that closely back then, so I have no answer to what my reaction was. But I do remember being upset that Clinton was treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not as acts of war. The Khobar Tower bombing perhaps didn't call for an all out attack against Al Qaida, but Clinton certainly could have justified a stronger response to the embassy bombings in Africa in '98, which are considered American soil. I'm wondering why you consider wanting war criminals to be tried in a military court to be self-rigtheous indignation. I guess a majority of Americans are expressing sefl-righteous indignation considering most want them tried there.
" But I do remember being upset that Clinton was treating terrorism as a law enforcement issue and not as acts of war. " Well, that's a difference in philosophy. And I happen to agree with the Clinton position on that. So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist. |
|
|
11/24/09 6:06:14 AM#44
Originally posted by Teala
Stupidity walks on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. It most definitely does. There is a severe lack of critical thinking whenever someone pigeonholes someone off a YOUTUBE VIDEO as a "typical Palin supporter," "typical Obama voter," "typical conservative," "typical liberal," "typical Olbermann viewer/Beck viewer/Limbaugh listener," etc. There's no such thing as a "typical" any of these things. 95% of America is too stupid to breed. So I started to walk into the water. I won't lie to you boys...I was terrified. But I pressed on, and as I made my way past the breakers, a strange calm came over me. I don't know if it was divine intervention or the kinship of all living things, but I tell you, Jerry, at that moment ... I was a marine biologist. |
|
|
11/24/09 6:42:46 AM#45
Originally posted by kobie173
Stupidity walks on both sides of the aisle, unfortunately. It most definitely does. There is a severe lack of critical thinking whenever someone pigeonholes someone off a YOUTUBE VIDEO as a "typical Palin supporter," "typical Obama voter," "typical conservative," "typical liberal," "typical Olbermann viewer/Beck viewer/Limbaugh listener," etc. There's no such thing as a "typical" any of these things. 95% of America is too stupid to breed.
That is the problem! These people know how to procreate! That's about all they know how to do and it is scary beyond words. It seems the movie Idiocracy may have been a message from the future and we should heed its warning. Like I said before - we're so screwed.  |
|
|
11/24/09 8:32:27 AM#46
Originally posted by Teala It most definitely does. There is a severe lack of critical thinking whenever someone pigeonholes someone off a YOUTUBE VIDEO as a "typical Palin supporter," "typical Obama voter," "typical conservative," "typical liberal," "typical Olbermann viewer/Beck viewer/Limbaugh listener," etc. There's no such thing as a "typical" any of these things. 95% of America is too stupid to breed.
That is the problem! These people know how to procreate! That's about all they know how to do and it is scary beyond words. It seems the movie Idiocracy may have been a message from the future and we should heed its warning. Like I said before - we're so screwed.
This makes no sense. You really think everyone working on farms in 1776 were geniuses? Society is 10x more educated than then when most people were not even literate. That's intellectual snobbery. It doesnt' matter if you are borderline retarded. You can have a legitimate opinion on how much you want to be taxed, whether you think we should go to war, whether medical marijuana should be legal or not, etc. These things impact that person's life as much as they impact yours . Why should you make the decisions simply because you are smart and they are dumb? There is no Constitutional requirement for an IQ test before you can vote, and certainly the Founding Fathers never intended there be one. You have a Bill of Rights, and a Representative Republic to protect you from the Tyranny of the Majority. What more do you want? Some sort of Oligarchy?
|
|
|
11/24/09 8:57:43 AM#47
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
The Constitution and amendments to it only bars ways in which people can be denied the right to vote. You cannot be denied the right to vote because of your race, because of your gender, because your age if you're at least 18. It's up to the states to decide who's actually given the right to vote so long as the above prejudices aren't used in deciding qualification. Most if not all states bar felons from voting for example. Texas bars the "mentally incompetent" as deemed by the courts from voting. So, at least one state does do that. Pointless observation on my part, though. |
|
|
11/24/09 9:28:09 AM#48
Originally posted by Ihmotepp
This makes no sense. You really think everyone working on farms in 1776 were geniuses? Society is 10x more educated than then when most people were not even literate. That's intellectual snobbery. It doesnt' matter if you are borderline retarded. You can have a legitimate opinion on how much you want to be taxed, whether you think we should go to war, whether medical marijuana should be legal or not, etc. These things impact that person's life as much as they impact yours . Why should you make the decisions simply because you are smart and they are dumb? There is no Constitutional requirement for an IQ test before you can vote, and certainly the Founding Fathers never intended there be one. You have a Bill of Rights, and a Representative Republic to protect you from the Tyranny of the Majority. What more do you want? Some sort of Oligarchy?
hehe, you do know those monsters that we call the founders actually thought only land owners and those at the middle class or higher earned the privilege of voting. That certain things like excessive debt was reason enough to not allow someone the privilege to vote.
woa whoo the late 1960's |
|
|
11/24/09 9:29:48 AM#49
Originally posted by sepher
The Constitution and amendments to it only bars ways in which people can be denied the right to vote. You cannot be denied the right to vote because of your race, because of your gender, because your age if you're at least 18. It's up to the states to decide who's actually given the right to vote so long as the above prejudices aren't used in deciding qualification. Most if not all states bar felons from voting for example. Texas bars the "mentally incompetent" as deemed by the courts from voting. So, at least one state does do that. Pointless observation on my part, though.
Although not barred by the Constitution, it is barred by the Voting Rights Act of 1965. the only time Intelligence Tests have been used to qualify voters, the motivation has been discrimination.
|
|
|
11/24/09 11:17:39 AM#50
What a depressing video. I actually watched it. Russia is across the street from Alaska. Across the street. I can't wait until the Republican primaries. |
|
|
11/24/09 11:27:19 AM#51
Originally posted by Netzoko
Sorry my point flew over your head. The point was that those people sounded less informed than similar interviews done with Obama voters. As a libertarian, I see both sides' ignorance.
EDIT: here is the same video from the other side: www.youtube.com/watch
Right, you label yourself as an independent so you can criticize everyone else and stand high and mighty without affiliation. Theres morons on both sides, but theres a big difference between failing to answer "why are you here, why do you like this person" and asking social studies questions regarding the government. The problem isn't ignorance itself... its the fact that the right chooses to be politically active on it. Conservatives can cry about Obama and make huge deals about the angle of his bows and other worthless shit, but in the end they fail to offer a better alternative to him. IE, Palin.
I have never labeled myself an independent. Libertarian is a very specific set of principles. I believe in more freedom in economics, and more freedom in the social arena. Therefore I agree with the rhetoric from the left on social issues, although they are hypocrites here; and the right on economic issues, although they are hypocrites there. I have seen morons who said the dumber things about Obama as you showed about Palin from cherry-picked responses from a left wing advocacy group. The left chooses to be politically active in ignorance just as much as the right -- I choose to be ignorant in neither. You are free to laugh at the other side and ignore your own side -- I choose to be more honest. Conservatives are mostly concerned about Obama's spending and the socialism he is advocating; secondly they see him as weak in international relations (libertarians disagree here). They are also critical of the little screw up he makes -- like the bow. Note that there is one thread on the bow and there have been hundred of threads on his health care plans. I want a better alternative to Obama than Palin as well; but taht has nothing to do with all the dumb people who support Palin and Obama. Obviously since Obama won, there are more Obama-morons running around than Palin-morons. |
|
|
11/24/09 11:29:06 AM#52
Originally posted by kobie173 A temporary stop. A pop-in, if you will. But hello, you pedantic old prick. :) Just bringing back one of the greatest hits. Hope life is treating you well. Same old same old, which is a good thing :) Best wishes and Happy Thanksgiving!
|
|
|
11/24/09 1:04:11 PM#53
Fact is, by far most people, also in my country, are this dumb and/or ignorant. That said, they have the right to have an opinion and voice it with their votes, no matter the foundations of those opinions. If we were to go around punishing people for being stupid, a large portion of MMORPG.com visitors would be in jail for the rest of their lives. |
|
|
11/24/09 2:25:47 PM#54
Originally posted by Zindaihas
Stop it. Stop your crying and worrying. Out of the 500+ of their ilk that have been captured, 496 of them have been convicted here in the American court system. Thank you very damn much. The military has only gotten around to 4 or 5. How high are you guys that you think terorrists are actually going to get away with their crime, or actually have a trial like we do where someone can get off on a technicality? ___________________ http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/ |
|
|
11/24/09 3:07:09 PM#55
Originally posted by Gazenthia
Stop it. Stop your crying and worrying. Out of the 500+ of their ilk that have been captured, 496 of them have been convicted here in the American court system. Thank you very damn much. The military has only gotten around to 4 or 5. How high are you guys that you think terorrists are actually going to get away with their crime, or actually have a trial like we do where someone can get off on a technicality?
It's because Obama wasn't born in America, and he's really a Muslim. Also, he's black.
|
|
|
11/26/09 3:37:27 AM#56
Originally posted by Praetoriani
I am in support of a basic comprehension test, and a test where you have to know several matters of FACT about either the person or item you are voting for or against. If you fail one or both of those things, you should not vote. This is how you keep people who talk about politics as a hobby, and those who are too idiotic but legally above mental retardation, from actually voting. ___________________ http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2006/12/13/ |
|
|
11/26/09 5:45:35 AM#57
Originally posted by kobie173 I do. Ronald Reagan. http://www.gallup.com/poll/11887/ronald-reagan-from-peoples-perspective-gallup-poll-review.aspx "By the end of 1981, Reagan's job approval rating had drifted down to 49%. Things got worse for Reagan in 1982. The public's view of the economy remained sour, and the president's ratings during 1982 stayed concomitantly low, in the 40% range, ending the year at 41%." Ignorance is bliss, eh?
Blacks have a 15.7% unemployment rate right now. They're giving Obama a 91% approval rating. Maybe you can tell me what's wrong with this picture. |
|
|
Zindaihas
 Novice Member
Joined: 5/07/06
'If you put govt in charge of the Sahara Desert, in 5 yrs there'd be a shortage of sand'~M. Friedman |
11/26/09 11:53:53 AM#58
Originally posted by Gazenthia Stop it. Stop your crying and worrying. Out of the 500+ of their ilk that have been captured, 496 of them have been convicted here in the American court system. Thank you very damn much. The military has only gotten around to 4 or 5. How high are you guys that you think terorrists are actually going to get away with their crime, or actually have a trial like we do where someone can get off on a technicality?
Welcome back to the pre-9/11 mentality. It's not a question of whether or not the jihadists are going to go free, I know they are not. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to be found guilty in a criminal trial. The rules of the judical system create the possiblity of this paradox. What kind of fodder would that provide for our enemies knowing that we are imprisoning people who had their day in court and beat the rap? Does that sound like America to you? Critics of the CIA's interrogation methods say that America does not torture, but what kind of message would that send? When you say their "ilk", what criteria are you referring to? Lindsey Graham questioned Eric Holder on this matter and pointed out that this administrations actions are unprecedented. Which ironically, is a word that Obama loves to use. The biggest danger about this move is that it is going to be public and the defendents are going to use our own judicial system against us. They are going to use their defense to put America on trial. Talk about fueling hatred for the US overseas. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tK6YIAX1jg |
|
11/26/09 12:15:51 PM#59
Originally posted by Zindaihas
Welcome back to the pre-9/11 mentality. It's not a question of whether or not the jihadists are going to go free, I know they are not. That doesn't mean that they are necessarily going to be found guilty in a criminal trial. The rules of the judical system create the possiblity of this paradox. What kind of fodder would that provide for our enemies knowing that we are imprisoning people who had their day in court and beat the rap? Does that sound like America to you? Critics of the CIA's interrogation methods say that America does not torture, but what kind of message would that send? When you say their "ilk", what criteria are you referring to? Lindsey Graham questioned Eric Holder on this matter and pointed out that this administrations actions are unprecedented. Which ironically, is a word that Obama loves to use. The biggest danger about this move is that it is going to be public and the defendents are going to use our own judicial system against us. They are going to use their defense to put America on trial. Talk about fueling hatred for the US overseas.
They could beat the rap even under a military tribunal. A military tribunal would have to grant them the same rights as our court system. The main difference would be the lack of a jury. However, who carse if they put America on trail with their defense? That should be a vindication of our system. let them rant. let them rave. This is good for us in the long run. Propaganda only works in closed information systems. I think their gripes and their hatreds need to be SHOWN to people. Let them have their say. I WANT people to know what they think and how they feel.
|
|
|
11/26/09 6:28:38 PM#60
Originally posted by Gazenthia
I am in support of a basic comprehension test, and a test where you have to know several matters of FACT about either the person or item you are voting for or against. If you fail one or both of those things, you should not vote. This is how you keep people who talk about politics as a hobby, and those who are too idiotic but legally above mental retardation, from actually voting.
I believe ythat as an American you should be able to pick a name out of a hat, and vote for that person if you feel like it, without knowing anything at all about who they are or what they stand for. That is freedom. It's sometimes messy, but it's better than the alternative. Also, low voter turn out, and voters will little or no knowledge of the issues is a sign of prosperity. Nobody cares when they are fat and happy. When you live in a country where things are much more grim, you get a high voter turn out, and an electorate that is well versed in the issue. They care, because it matters.
|
|
