# Republican Furs?



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

Anyone else out there Republican or Conservative furs? Please don't come here to hate on other political groups, I just wanna know who's out there.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2010)

Does someone who is moderate but agrees with more republican views count?


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

I don't see why not 
I mean, you don't have to be all the way, I'm certainly not. I lean more right, though.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 31, 2010)

A religious thread, and Conservative thread, all in one day? This is too much :v

(comedy)


----------



## Captain Spyro (Jan 31, 2010)

The only conservative that comes to mind to me is Telnac, but I'm sure there's more here.

Not me though, doesn't mean I don't respect some of y'all.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 31, 2010)

con_fur_vative


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

Shenzebo said:


> con_fur_vative


 That....is amazing.


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2010)

I can see this thread turning into a debate really fast... fuck politics...


----------



## Glitch (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm pretty split.  :/


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

So far no one has said anything angry.


----------



## Sauvignon (Jan 31, 2010)

\o
you could call me confurvative


----------



## Captain Howdy (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> So far no one has said anything angry.



There's nothing to be angry about. 

Most the trolls here are more reactionary from what I've seen. Someone will post a preaching thread, and then that'll go on for ten pages of rigorous debate. 

Or someone will post a Obama-is-a-fag thread or something, and then that'll boil down after 10ish pages.

But a (seemingly) harmless question :v May not go for long.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> There's nothing to be angry about.
> 
> Most the trolls here are more reactionary from what I've seen. Someone will post a preaching thread, and then that'll go on for ten pages of rigorous debate.
> 
> ...


 
Yup, It's just a question.


----------



## Jax (Jan 31, 2010)

I am! Log Cabin Republican to boot. Pretty much a fiscal conservative. Do not like some of the agenda...but oddly I find open ears when i talk about things seemingly not part of that party. I can get pretty outspoken about things... In the end there are lots of confurvative furs who feel like they do not have a home. I am fanatically supportive of same sex marriage and carry a gun..go figure


----------



## Telnac (Jan 31, 2010)

As was said, I'm a Republican.  I consider myself a fiscal conservative, social moderate.  I sympathize with social conservatism, but I'm a pragmatist.  I don't care for abortion, for example, but I don't support making it illegal, because it'd just drive the practice underground.  Instead, I support giving out free or low cost birth control anonymously to anyone regardless of age.

There are dozens more examples like that where I break with the Republican party on social issues.  But I agree 100% with fiscal conservatism and I'm very much a hawk as well.

I attend a furmeet every week in the Phoenix area, and I'm surprised how many gun-toting conservative furries are there!  Most aren't Republicans, tho.  Like me, they're a bit dismayed the the party's largely become the political wing of the Southern Baptist Church of late.


----------



## Gavrill (Jan 31, 2010)

I have no idea what my political stance is, honestly. I don't know much about politics.


----------



## wolfrunner7 (Jan 31, 2010)

Shenzebo said:


> con_fur_vative




Wow, just F*in wow.. genius.


----------



## RetroCorn (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm not a member of any political party, even though I hear nothing but conservative stuff every day from my dad. It gets on my nerves. Not because I don't like conservative points of view, but because it's ALL he talks about. Ever.

I put my vote for whoever I agree with when it comes to political issues and who I think would be the best person to get the job done. Republican, democrat or whatever, it's all about who they are as a person and what they stand for.

Throwing my two cents in here without any intention of making anyone mad: I don't believe the current administration is what is best for this country. That's just my opinion though.


----------



## Bloopy (Jan 31, 2010)

http://www.politicalcompass.org/test

REPRAZENT


----------



## Fuzzle (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes, I'm a conservative.


----------



## JoeStrike (Jan 31, 2010)

Bloopy said:


> http://www.politicalcompass.org/test



That is a brilliant way of positioning oneself, assuming the questionnaire and their methodology of grading it are grounded in some serious research; can't wait to try it myself.

I would think that since fur is a very 'alternative' way of looking at the world and oneself, that by its nature it would attract more open-minded, free-thinking people (liberals) than those with a rigid point of view (conservatives). 

I have no problem with people who have come by their points of view honestly and express them with goodwill, as opposed to sloganeering, scapegoating etc, which both ends of the political spectrum are capable of resorting to. (ButRepublicansdoitmorebecausetheyhavenothingofsubstancetoofferthecountry; sorry, but I just had to get that out of my system.)


----------



## Mentova (Jan 31, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> I'm not a member of any political party, even though I hear nothing but conservative stuff every day from my dad. It gets on my nerves. Not because I don't like conservative points of view, but because it's ALL he talks about. Ever.
> 
> I put my vote for whoever I agree with when it comes to political issues and who I think would be the best person to get the job done. Republican, democrat or whatever, it's all about who they are as a person and what they stand for.
> 
> Throwing my two cents in here without any intention of making anyone mad: I don't believe the current administration is what is best for this country. That's just my opinion though.


That's pretty much how I'll be voting. I don't care what group he belongs to. As long as he'll run the country well and not make us look like assholes.


----------



## JoeStrike (Jan 31, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> Throwing my two cents in here without any intention of making anyone mad: I don't believe the current administration is what is best for this country. That's just my opinion though.



As someone who overall is more in favor of what Obama is doing than against, it's nice to hear someone express reservations about him without calling him a Communist/Nazi/Socialist/Fascist/Babykiller etc.


----------



## blackedsoul (Jan 31, 2010)

Independant, mainly republican, but I can agree with some democrat ideals.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 31, 2010)

Lastdirewolf said:


> A religious thread, and Conservative thread, all in one day? This is too much :v
> 
> (comedy)



FAF is out to press all my buttons today.

I really don't see how anyone that's paying attention can give any degree of support to the Republican Party as it is today.

I mean, I could be said to have _some_ conservative views, and that would be why I'm a Democrat. :V


----------



## Tycho (Jan 31, 2010)

heeeeeere cigarskunk

nice tasty confurvative thread

you know you want a piece

heeeeeeeeeere cigarskunk

why doesn't he ever post here

it makes me sad


----------



## Ratte (Jan 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> heeeeeere cigarskunk
> 
> nice tasty confurvative thread
> 
> ...



tycho you are so silly

lets go be liberal somewhere else


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

Registered Libertarian, but I'm not a minarchist.  I believe in gradual reform, the ideal goal being a stateless society.


----------



## Metal_Skunk (Jan 31, 2010)

Yes I'm Conservative or...Confurvative.


----------



## Bando (Jan 31, 2010)

Fiscal conservative, social moderate. Alas, I cannot vote so my opinions do not matter in the big picture...


----------



## Lobar (Jan 31, 2010)

Ratte said:


> tycho you are so silly
> 
> lets go be liberal somewhere else



I want to go be liberal on Cigarskunk's page.  Can you take away his blocklist? :3


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

Bando37 said:


> Fiscal conservative, social moderate. Alas, I cannot vote so my opinions do not matter in the big picture...


 Yeah, I can't vote either...being able to voice political opinions matter in school though..which I don't agree with....>_>


----------



## Ratte (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I want to go be liberal on Cigarskunk's page.  Can you take away his blocklist? :3



I'm not an admin :[


----------



## Axelfox (Jan 31, 2010)

Moderate here. =^-^=


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobar said:


> FAF is out to press all my buttons today.
> 
> *I really don't see how anyone that's paying attention can give any degree of support to the Republican Party as it is today.*
> 
> I mean, I could be said to have _some_ conservative views, and that would be why I'm a Democrat. :V


 
Because Republicans aren't notorious for being soft on crime while advocating gun control on the people. 

Go past gay and religious issues with the Republican party and you'll see why people are Republican. 

We're pro nuclear power.
We're pro industry. 
We're pro drilling at home.
We advocate smaller government.
We advocate cutting taxes.

The people who stonewall this are Democrats, ex-hippie Democrats, I might add.

Edit: And we don't try to make people live uncomfortably because we got to save the stupid fucking polar bear.


----------



## ScrubWolf (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm a moderate as well. I'm conservative on some issues and liberal on others.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 31, 2010)

Ratte said:


> I'm not an admin :[



I am disappoint. 

Also lol at how fast someone counter-rated the thread five stars. :V


----------



## Lobo Roo (Jan 31, 2010)

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. So, as far as money goes, sort of - though Republicans are all talk of saving money until they're in office, and then blow through it likes it's Monopoly money.

Socially, I think most republicans are the fucking scum of the earth. I do say most - I know there are Republicans who are for gay rights, helping the poor and downtrodden, and who don't shove their religion down people's throats. (Don't even try to tell me that Christianity - the bible thumping crazy fuck kind - isn't connected to the Republican party.) 

...I guess my answer is No, I'm not a Republican, and have no idea why anyone with a shred of human compassion and dignity would call themselves one. Feel free to enlighten me.

As for this list, I call bullshit.

We're pro nuclear power. : Why is this a good thing?
We're pro industry. : Industry is good only to an extent. Republicans theory of "trickle down" economics doesn't work, and promoting the big industries and the expense of human rights and enviromental concerns is idiotic.
We're pro drilling at home. : We should be focusing on alternative energy sources. Oil, no matter where the fuck it's drilled from, is going to run out - as well as being harmful to the environment and us.
We advocate smaller government. :Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You may say this - but when the Republican party was in power, there was just as much if not more government excess. It's basically "We're for small government when we aren't in charge, but when we are in charge, we should be able to do anything we want." 
We advocate cutting taxes: How about restructuring the tax system to make it more fair - like an even percentage tax instead of taxing the poor the most - and accepting that taxes pay for schools, roads, policemen, and numerous other necessary services? No one likes to pay taxes, but everyone likes having roads to drive on and schools to attend, and plenty of idiots forget that those things are connected.

You also say to separate the Republican party from religions and social issues - but there is no denying that those things are crucial parts of today's Republican party. Even if the things you listed were worthwhile and factual, it's ridiculous to ask people to look past a huge part of the Republican party's beliefs and dogma.


----------



## Ratte (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobar said:


> I am disappoint.
> 
> Also lol at how fast someone counter-rated the thread five stars. :V



I added my vote :3


----------



## f94 (Jan 31, 2010)

<-conservative

If you want some serious conservative reading, search for Cigarskunk on FF and read his journals.


----------



## Carenath (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm not an American, so Republican V Democrat doesn't really apply so well over here as our politcal spectrum tends to be much broader (we have 3 main political parties, two smaller ones and a few independents), with different parties catering to largely similar but slightly different viewpoints.

My view on 'Republicans' (the general image, though not a label I would blindly apply to any party member), is a group with a reputation and image, for being pro-corporate/big-business and anti-consumer, pro-capitalist/free-market, anti-regulation/government-control/government-oversight. A group that appears to be strongly lead/associated with, zealous and overly religious for which religious groups (often associated with the 'bible belt' and southern states) seem to use to push their moral agenda at the expense of the other 40-50% of 300m people who do not share those selective views.
This view would put me in an anti-republican stance.

I wont, however, state that the Democrats are the polar opposites of this, I tend to feel that, like our incumbant leaders, they are all talk, little action.. a fact made more obvious when one considers the generally strong conservative base in the US. I do believe America is a strongly conservative nation, one where the rights of groups, and civil liberties can be squashed when it suits the interests of those in power.. while heaven help anyone who would even consider touching the 1st or 2nd Ammendments.

I personally tend to be moderate and apathetic on most issues, there are not many issues that I feel strongly enough about, to align strongly with one group or party. Those issues that do polarise me, are ones I feel very strongly about, which I suppose would qualify me as a socialist. But even then, there are many conservative views that I would agree on as strongly.


----------



## Lobar (Jan 31, 2010)

Ratte said:


> I added my vote :3



*Extra* disappoint. 



f94 said:


> If you want some serious conservative reading, search for Cigarskunk on FF and read his journals.



I completely agree, but for different reasons.  Cigarskunk's rambling should be mandatory reading for everyone until it sinks in that the Republican party is all really a bizarre neo-Christian business-worshipping cult.

edit: I change my mind, I do disagree on one point, that he should be searched for on ED instead.


----------



## Ratte (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobar said:


> *Extra* disappoint.



But I ranked it down :c


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

Why do you guys want to kill other people
i dont like it when people have to die

:c


----------



## Lobar (Jan 31, 2010)

Ratte said:


> But I ranked it down :c



Oh, nm then.  But that means _two_ people rushed to bring it back up to three stars. :v


----------



## Lobo Roo (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm just gonna throw this in here... http://www.lp.org/ That's the Libertarian Party's website. At this point, Democrats and Republicans are both utter crap, really - though I would say Republicans moreso, for their religious nutjobbery. 

Notice that the libertarians also advocate tax cuts - but actually offer viable ways to make this work, like cutting out the bloated, failing welfare system and setting up a more efficient school system.


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Oh, nm then.  But that means _two_ people rushed to bring it back up to three stars. :v



I was one of them.  Hey Ratte, I like how you think the right/left dichotomy is legitimate but the male/female dichotomy isn't.


----------



## Ratte (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Oh, nm then.  But that means _two_ people rushed to bring it back up to three stars. :v



But it says two stars.  o:



KilroyZTC said:


> I was one of them.  Hey Ratte, I like how you think the right/left dichotomy is legitimate but the male/female dichotomy isn't.



what

oh god it's you


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

Ratte said:


> oh god it's you



How are you gentleman*, all your base are belong to us.

*Not a dig, just a meme.  Although now I ruined it.  But that's fun too.  Hey, I wonder if I can make this aside really, really long so that this entire post comes across as awkward and stupid.  Yeah, pretty sure I can.

Edit: To Lobo, I actually can't help but have respect for any third party member, because they've basically removed themselves from the political game in the name of their beliefs.  It shows that they're consistent, whether it's consistently smart or consistently crazy, and that's something worth respecting IMO

Quiz result


----------



## Term_the_Schmuck (Jan 31, 2010)

Tycho said:


> heeeeeere cigarskunk
> 
> nice tasty confurvative thread
> 
> ...



That dude's still alive?

Damn, now you're making me have to look up his ED page.  >:[


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Jan 31, 2010)

I try to stay down the middle, both sides are equal in both kickassery and bullshit.  Though I have to admit, being raised in a mostly republican house, I tend to lean slightly to the right on certain topics.

I also took the quiz.


----------



## RetroCorn (Jan 31, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> As someone who overall is more in favor of what Obama is doing than against, it's nice to hear someone express reservations about him without calling him a Communist/Nazi/Socialist/Fascist/Babykiller etc.



That's good to hear. =)

Honestly he isn't a bad guy, he seems nice enough as a person. But as a political figure I disagree with what he stands for. However I disagree with almost everyone in the political spotlight at the moment, on both sides.


----------



## Shadow (Jan 31, 2010)

You know, I remember a topic like this while back. Really though, I don't care about your party and if you're curious, I'm a Centrist.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 31, 2010)

You know, I know you have a problem with me on here, but reply to me if you have a problem with what I typed, and divide it in sections to make it easy for me to reply. 



Lobo Roo said:


> We're pro nuclear power. : Why is this a good thing?


 
Why is it a bad thing? I know you're going to make some stupid, ignorant remark about how dangerous nuclear power is, or how it harms the environment when it does not. 



> We're pro industry. : Industry is good only to an extent. Republicans theory of "trickle down" economics doesn't work, and promoting the big industries and the expense of human rights and enviromental concerns is idiotic.


 
Doesn't work for a democrat's economic view, and "the expense of human rights and enviromental concerns..." are irrelevant and therefore has nothing to do with the economic theory. You're being typical socialist who is trying to imply that that big business evil and bad.



> We're pro drilling at home. : We should be focusing on alternative energy sources.


 
That cost too much, are not an efficient power source, and does more harm than good to the environment, if you believe in GW. Solar panels and wind power are flawed. They take up too much room, produce more C02 than that of a all nuclrear power plants combined, because, guess what, they produce 0 green house gases, and they don't take up that much room, and they can run 24/7.



> Oil, no matter where the fuck it's drilled from, is going to run out - as well as being harmful to the environment and us.


 
Not for a while, and we're dealing with it. The sky is not falling. I'm for battery powered cars, but I got hippes telling me that those hurt in evironmrent. Exxon is even getting in on it. 



> We advocate smaller government. :Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit. You may say this - but when the Republican party was in power, there was just as much if not more government excess. It's basically "We're for small government when we aren't in charge, but when we are in charge, we should be able to do anything we want."


 
Guess what? That's not being a Republican. That's being a Democrat.



> We advocate cutting taxes: How about restructuring the tax system to make it more fair - like an even percentage tax instead of taxing the poor the most - and accepting that taxes pay for schools, roads, policemen, and numerous other necessary services?
> 
> No one likes to pay taxes, but everyone likes having roads to drive on and schools to attend, and plenty of idiots forget that those things are connected.


 
And _dykes_ forget that that is not the only place those taxes go to. It goes to over paided teachers, government officials, and bullshit "save the environment plans" that staonewall the major industries. Here is Oregon, it's timber. The timber industry produces jobs.

The hospital and road part is what's called an "emotional appeal." It's used con people into to voting for higher taxes so some public employee can get a raise. Furthermore, you just proved my point. Democrats like higher taxes.



> You also say to separate the Republican party from religions and social issues - but there is no denying that those things are crucial parts of today's Republican party. Even if the things you listed were worthwhile and factual, it's ridiculous to ask people to look past a huge part of the Republican party's beliefs and dogma.


 
I said, paraphrasing of course, "when you look past the gay and religious issues." Didn't read that part, did ya?


----------



## Lobo Roo (Jan 31, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You know, I know you have a problem with me on here, but reply to me if you have a problem with what I typed, and divide it in sections to make it easy for me to reply.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I have a problem with idiots. Don't flatter yourself into thinking it's all about you. Here's some hopefully idiot-proof sections.

* 
Why is it a bad thing? I know you're going to make some stupid, ignorant remark about how dangerous nuclear power is, or how it harms the environment when it does not. * 

Nuclear power _is_ dangerous. Saying that the truth is a stupid, ignorant remark because you don't want it to be true is illogical...but, then, you are a Republican, so I'm not surprised.


*Doesn't work for a democrat's economic view, and "the expense of human rights and enviromental concerns..." are irrelevant and therefore has nothing to do with the economic theory. You're being typical socialist who is trying to imply that that big business evil and bad.*

If you had actually read my post, you'd know I said I wasn't a Democrat. You, however, are being a typical Republican by throwing out "socialist" to anything you disagree with that involves human rights. Big business is not inherently bad, but without regulations on the system, bad things do happen. Business goes for what produces the most profit - even if the practices are harmful to the environment, harmful to their workers, and in the end are destructive when they won't supply workers with a living wage. Business regulation includes child labor laws and safety regulations - people seem to forget that business, when left to operate unchecked, doesn't give two shits about what it may harm.

* 
That cost too much, are not an efficient power source, and does more harm than good to the environment, if you believe in GW. Solar panels and wind power are flawed. They take up too much room, produce more C02 than that of a all nuclrear power plants combined, because, guess what, they produce 0 green house gases, and they don't take up that much room, and they can run 24/7.*

...yes, exactly. Which is why we should focus on finding alternative energy sources. Don't bullshit and say that it's being dealt with - Republicans haven't done a damn thing in regards to researching and implementing alternative energy sources. Saying that we have oil right now is blindly ignoring the fact that we're using that oil up at a pace that's increasing each day.


*Guess what? That's not being a Republican. That's being a Democrat.* I. Am. Not. A. Democrat. And yes, that is being a Republican. Republicans may say they are the party for small government, but history shows, when Republicans have been in power they have ignored that and proceeded to do whatever the hell they want...and then, when they're ousted from power because of it, claim that the Democrats are doing what they themselves do. Hypocrisy at it's finest. 

_Under Bush and a Republican Congress there was an explosion of growth on all fronts: hefty spending increased in virtually all respects, huge deficits and a doubling of the national debt, corporate bailouts, further centralization of education, protectionism, expansion of Medicare, increased regulation, undeclared wars, civil-liberties violations and other unchecked executive power, and more. Bush did not veto a single spending bill in eight years. His cutting of tax rates in 2001 and 2003 has to be judged in the context of growing spending. Milton Friedman pointed out that the level of spending, not taxation, is the truer gauge of the government burden. The money has to come from somewhere. Removing it from the economy through borrowing is as economically damaging as taxation â€” more so when you figure that the government will perpetrate inflation to manage the debt, depreciating the currency and eroding Americansâ€™ purchasing power. _

That's from a libertarian writer, by the way, not a Democrat.

*And dykes forget that that is not the only place those taxes go to. It goes to over paided teachers, government officials, and bullshit "save the environment plans" that staonewall the major industries. Here is Oregon, it's timber. The timber industry produces jobs.

The hospital and road part is what's called an "emotional appeal." It's used con people into to voting for higher taxes so some public employee can get a raise. Furthermore, you just proved my point. Democrats like higher taxes. *

Oh, you're special. Do you really think calling me a dyke is an effective way to debate? Because really, dyke stopped being an insult years ago. I have no problem admitting I'm in a commited lesbian relationship. How's your relationship with your right hand?

I didn't say the tax system was perfect. In fact, I said it needed serious restructuring and overhaul. The problem with Republicans - and Democrats - is that they say they want to lower taxes, but offer no plan for how to make up the money loss. They want to tax less and spend more, and that's just bound to be a disaster later down the line. In face, if you were paying attention you'd see that I said I was a Libertarian - not a fucking Democrat, and you apparently believe - and the Libertarian Party supports lower taxes, but it also proposed eliminating the failed welfare system and restructuring the education system as a way to save money that taxes are wasted on.

*I said, paraphrasing of course, "when you look past the gay and religious issues." Didn't read that part, did ya?*

Yes, I did. In fact, when I said "You also say to separate the Republican party from religions and social issues - but there is no denying that those things are crucial parts of today's Republican party. Even if the things you listed were worthwhile and factual, it's ridiculous to ask people to look past a huge part of the Republican party's beliefs and dogma. " that was a direct response to you saying "when you look past the gay and religous issues." 


Edit: There, I bolded it to make it even easier for idiots to understand.


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

Something about schools.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

I'm feeling like this was a bad idea. I prolly shoulda just made a poll....


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> I'm feeling like this was a bad idea. I prolly shoulda just made a poll....



You're only feeling that now?
But its okay, this is a little more civil than our last thread, I suppose.

But you know, Libertarians and Republicans are trying to figure one another out, and that's great so they can label themselves away and y'all can have less miscegenatin'


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

Earlier on there didn't seem to be much animosity......>_>


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> Earlier on there didn't seem to be much animosity......>_>



It's a wind up action, really.
All you need is one or two people that have a history with each other or the topic, and blam, thread is walls of text and insulated insults that nobody is going to read.

I've been biting my tongue.
Oh well, as the French say: "fuck your shit, Mr. Thread, I'm getting drunk."

also im not a republican
to keep on-topic


----------



## MaskedJackal (Jan 31, 2010)

I am a conservative furry. =o

I'll leave it at that.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

I guess I'll just leave a reminder, mellow out everyone, no one's supposed to be here to be attacking people or parties, the first post said don't hate.


----------



## Jax (Jan 31, 2010)

Hey, it is ok. Often one can judge the validity of their argument by the speed in which the opposition abandons reason in theirs. No single party will ever represent all views. 

Some people disagree with me...but that is just because they are wrong

*The Political Compass
*

*Economic Left/Right: 2.50
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -2.87*


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

Jax said:


> Hey, it is ok. Often one can judge the validity of their argument by the speed in which the opposition abandons reason in theirs. No single party will ever represent all views.
> 
> Some people disagree with me...but that is just because they are wrong
> 
> ...


 That is a good point, but civility is key to any good debate/argument.


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> That is a good point, but civility is key to any good debate/argument.



No, it isn't.
That's a myth spread by people that earn ire.
The key to a good debate is a richness of ideas, a complex understanding of the interrelation of those ideas, and a willingness to both admit a lack of knowledge and accept facts contrary to your beliefs.

However, if its wrapped in insults, people seem to think they "won" a debate (which is pointless self-serving masturbation, because "winning a debate" in a non-governmental position has granted you nothing) by default of someone prodding you. I've seen people with genuinely excellent points been ignored because they called someone a 'voracious cunt' or something. If you're so above insults and a lack of civility in language, just ignore it away and get to the meat of the argument.


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> No, it isn't.
> That's a myth spread by people that earn ire.
> The key to a good debate is a richness of ideas, a complex understanding of the interrelation of those ideas, and a willingness to both admit a lack of knowledge and accept facts contrary to your beliefs.



Somebody give this guy a medal.  God damn

@ Jax.  You're too liberal.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> No, it isn't.
> That's a myth spread by people that earn ire.
> The key to a good debate is a richness of ideas, a complex understanding of the interrelation of those ideas, and a willingness to both admit a lack of knowledge and accept facts contrary to your beliefs.


 Yeah but if you're being a raging jackass while putting those ideas and points and stuff across, who is going to take you as credible? They're going to look at the demeanor and say, well this person is just a bully, and ignore the ideas.


----------



## Jax (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> That is a good point, but civility is key to any good debate/argument.


 

*bows* Quite true! I think that is the thing, often we think we disagree because we focus on the disagreements rather than the what views we share. One does not have to sacrifice principals to understand different points of views.


----------



## wolfrunner7 (Jan 31, 2010)

Perhaps quite pessimistic but my views of politicians follows along the lines of a quote from "The Hunt for Red October" 

"Listen, I'm a politician.  Which means I'm a cheat and a liar; and when I'm not kissing babies, I'm steeling their lollipops.  But, what it also means is that I keep my options open..."

-- Jeffery Pelt (Robert Jordan), Hunt for Red October.


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> Yeah but if you're being a raging jackass while putting those ideas and points and stuff across, who is going to take you as credible?



I would take that person as credible based on the facts they present to back their opinions, and their ability to form cogent points.
Credibility is hardly important in a debate anyways, since you'll be hammering out the points of your ideological views, not if you want this person is to be your lawyer, or cited source (and you must always fact check, anyways; and always re-check), or friend, or whatever.



blackjack94 said:


> They're going to look at the demeanor and say, well this person is just a bully, and ignore the ideas.



Then, I'm sorry, that person needs to grow up. Not everything will come to you packaged in neutrality or sugar-coated. If you want to gain a foothold in ideas and concepts radically different from your own, you have to accept that there are boundaries in cultures, relationships, and ideologies that fray on people's sense of civility.

You can't blame someone for getting pissed off, you can choose to ignore aggressively suggestive speech to evaluate the merit of their points.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> You can't blame someone for getting pissed off, you can choose to ignore aggressively suggestive speech to evaluate the merit of their points.


 
When people get pissed off and so emotionally engaged in an argument they lose sights of what the whole point was and become immature. How many people in real life would ignore the demeanor of the arguing person and look at the points being projected?


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobo Roo said:


> 1. Yes, nuclear power is dangerous. I'm not sure how that's an ignorant remark, when nuclear power is clearly dangerous.


 
You're being vague. How is it nuclear power is dangerous to me and you? 



> 2. I didn't say big business is inherently bad - but giving big business free reign and not putting any sort of safeguards in place usually results in sweatshops, so...


 
In thrid world countries, not in America. You were implying America.



> 3. That's why we should be researching more forms of energy! I didn't specify battery, solar, or any of that in my answer, and yet you assume that's what I'm talking about. I simply said we should focus more on alternative energy - as in, finding, researching, and applying a viable source - and less on where we drill. We do drill in America, by the way, since you obviously don't know that.


 
But we can drill more in other places, and you know that is what I was talking. And this alternative energy goes back to my nuclear power statement.



> 4. Yes, it is. I never said I was a Democrat, either. Both Democrats and Republicans are full of bullshit. You honestly can't believe the crap you're saying, that Republicans honestly believe in small government, even when they're in power.


 
This is an opinion that attacking the Republican party. 

_



Under Bush and a Republican Congress there was an explosion of growth on all fronts: hefty spending increased in virtually all respects, huge deficits and a doubling of the national debt, corporate bailouts, further centralization of education, protectionism, expansion of Medicare, increased regulation, undeclared wars, civil-liberties violations and other unchecked executive power, and more. Bush did not veto a single spending bill in eight years. His cutting of tax rates in 2001 and 2003 has to be judged in the context of growing spending. Milton Friedman pointed out that the level of spending, not taxation, is the truer gauge of the government burden. The money has to come from somewhere. Removing it from the economy through borrowing is as economically damaging as taxation â€” more so when you figure that the government will perpetrate inflation to manage the debt, depreciating the currency and eroding Americansâ€™ purchasing power. 

Click to expand...

_ 
And that's why I didn't like him. He didn't really stay true to the party values. And I see you like guilt by association.



> 5. Again, I never said that the tax system was perfect. In fact, I said it needed restructuring and a serious overhaul. If you'd paid attention to the fact that I'm a libertarian - if you even know what that is, which I doubt, since you're resorting to calling me a dyke like it's an insult I don't have much faith in your intelligence - you'd know that I would support less taxes if there was a reasonable plan to back that up. You can't lower taxes and increase spending, which is what Republicans and Democrats both want to do. It's ridiculous.


 
You've been calling me an idiot, I can call you a dyke. Every time I get into with you, you seem to come off as if you think you're entitled to a double standard.

Some republicans want to increase spending.

And Libertarian, huh? More like Libertarian In Name Only. You've been pro-tax and anti-tax cut with me, what do you think I'm going to think? You talk like one so I'm going to think you're one, and saying "I said i was _kind of_ pro" in that one little sentence shows me you don't really hold a strong opinion on that. 



> 6. "You also say to separate the Republican party from religions and social issues - but there is no denying that those things are crucial parts of today's Republican party. Even if the things you listed were worthwhile and factual, it's ridiculous to ask people to look past a huge part of the Republican party's beliefs and dogma. "
> 
> That's what I said _in response_ to your "look past the gay and religious issues" comment, so yes, I read that. You can't deny that religion and it's effects on social issues - "gay" issues, as you would say - is a large part of the Republican party's doctrine, so asking us to look past those is asking us to ignore a large part of the Republican party. Why am I repeating myself when you obviously can't comprehend what I'm saying?


 
I said 





> Go past gay and religious issues with the Republican party and you'll see why people are Republican.


 
You fucked up and are now trying to save your ass. You misread it. Just admit it.

EDIT: I see you keep going back to add more stuff. You know what, take your time. Maybe if you wre less irate your head would be more clear when typing.


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> When people get pissed off and so emotionally engaged in an argument they lose sights of what the whole point was and become immature. How many people in real life would ignore the demeanor of the arguing person and look at the points being projected?



I've heard a number of people get pissed off and only have it increase their sincerity and awareness of facts and the way they present their argument. Not everyone who gets so emotionally or morally invested turns to solely insults, but they use it as a means to show how invested they are (and that's all you can really say, beyond that you're evaluating the validity of the argument by its points and facts).

Not many.
But they're the best critical thinkers.

If you're ignoring someone for their stand-offish demeanor in a debate, you're not much better than someone who is just insulting you and making no points. You're willfully ignoring an opportunity to increase your awareness and knowledge of the world around you.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> If you're ignoring someone for their stand-offish demeanor in a debate, you're not much better than someone who is just insulting you and making no points. You're willfully ignoring an opportunity to increase your awareness and knowledge of the world around you.


Scenario: Two People have the exact same views, points, and evidence to back up these points. Would you rather expand your knowledge by listening to an angry person that is hurling insults or a person presenting their argument calmly and in a cival manner?


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

Ieatcrackers: Your responses are bad.  A few suggestions?



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You're being vague. How is it nuclear power is dangerous to me and you?



Ought to be a link to data about the risk of nuclear meltdowns, the cost and safety of housing spent materials, a list of alternatives (lead coated pellets of radioactive material, for example), a list of regulations in place, etc.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> In thrid world countries, not in America. You were implying America.



 Ought to account for what a sweatshop is and how it comes about, the fact that it presents a better alternative than subsistence farming to many poor and starving people, how companies will leave their home country when regulations prevent them from operating profitably, etc.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> But we can drill more in other places, and you know that is what I was talking. And this alternative energy goes back to my nuclear power statement.



Doesn't actually address the reasoning behind alternative energy advocacy.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> This is an opinion that attacking the Republican party.


 
Complete non-response.  You're in an argument.  How do you think an argument works?



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> And that's why I didn't like him. He didn't really stay true to the party values. And I see you like guilt by association.


 
Good.



Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> You've been calling me an idiot, I can call you a dyke. Every time I get into with you, you seem to come off as if you think you're entitled to a double standard.



Bad.  Rhetorically weak, you've explicitly stated that not only do you let your emotions get the better of you, you also let them bring you down to the (lower) level of your opponent.



> You fucked up and are now trying to save your ass. You miss read it. Just admit it.


You're not pressing the point.  You've advanced your argument, now it's gone on to a different level.  Or it ought to have, but neither of you are bringing anything substantive into it.  You're just contradicting each other repeatedly.


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> Scenario: Two People have the exact same views, points, and evidence to back up these points. Would you rather expand your knowledge by listening to an angry person that is hurling insults or a person presenting their argument calmly and in a cival manner?



I love bad rhetoric.  It's exciting.  Shows conviction.


----------



## KirbyCowFox (Jan 31, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> As someone who overall is more in favor of what Obama is doing than against, it's nice to hear someone express reservations about him without calling him a Communist/Nazi/Socialist/Fascist/Babykiller etc.



*fistpumps*

As someone who's not a fan of Obama, it's degrading and mortifying to hear ANYONE call him a Communist/Nazi/Socialist/Fascist/Babykiller/etc.  People like that are the main reason why someone like me would be viewed as some gun toting redneck for not agreeing with his plans.


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> Scenario: Two People have the exact same views, points, and evidence to back up these points. Would you rather expand your knowledge by listening to an angry person that is hurling insults or a person presenting their argument calmly and in a cival manner?



How I would rather is irrelevant.
Sure, its more pleasant to get a blowjob while debating anarcho-syndicalism.
It's more pleasant to live my life if I could function normally and constantly be stoned.

So, sure, I'd rather someone would be nice about it.

But civil people with terrible points don't trump aggressive people with excellent points.
And as I said, I evaluate based on the content of your speech, not your rhetoric.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

KirbyCowFox said:


> *fistpumps*
> 
> As someone who's not a fan of Obama, it's degrading and mortifying to hear ANYONE call him a Communist/Nazi/Socialist/Fascist/Babykiller/etc. People like that are the main reason why someone like me would be viewed as some gun toting redneck for not agreeing with his plans.


 This is an exact example of what I'm talking about. People who resort to silly name calling are less credible than someone who is being professional! What if this hyptothetical person who is calling Obama these names has viable, credible points to back up his argument? Not necessarily an argument behind calling him a Communist or anything, but his anti-Obama stance?


----------



## RetroCorn (Jan 31, 2010)

Lobo Roo said:


> *
> Why is it a bad thing? I know you're going to make some stupid, ignorant remark about how dangerous nuclear power is, or how it harms the environment when it does not. *
> 
> Nuclear power _is_ dangerous. Saying that the truth is a stupid, ignorant remark because you don't want it to be true is illogical...but, then, you are a Republican, so I'm not surprised.



First off, calm down. Resorting to petty insults solves nothing and really doesn't help to prove a point at all.

Secondly: having nuclear power is a _very_ dangerous thing, yes, but the alternative is equally as dangerous too. We live in a world that doesn't play nice and just because we make an agreement with another country to disarm both our supplies of nukes does _not_ mean they'll follow through even if we do. Nuclear power actually prevents war through mutually assured destruction, basically meaning that if we were engaged by another country in a large scale war that neither side would use nukes. Unless we wanted to go the way of Fallout 3 that is. So by having nukes we actually _discourage_ their use without actually using them. A large scale Mexican standoff if you will.

It's also a preventative measure if we were ever to go to war with a faction that possessed a very large army, which while I doubt would happen, it is a risk. Without nuclear weapons we wouldn't stand a chance against a force similar in size to the one Alexandra the Great had. 

So while nuclear weapons are very dangerous, they are vital to a safe world. Go figure.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> But civil people with terrible points don't trump aggressive people with excellent points.
> .


 I never said you had to be civil and have bad points, I was implying that you had good points are were being civil.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> I love bad rhetoric. It's exciting. Shows conviction.


 You can show conviction simply by putting across your good points in an intelligent way. Plus this whole thing isn't even an argument, most of the people that are being rude here don't have good points and either just shouting ignorance at other people or accusing other people of it.


----------



## Jelly (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> I never said you had to be civil and have bad points, I was implying that you had good points are were being civil.



Yeah, but you're misunderstanding (partially, probably, because you're taking this one line out of the context of the rest of the thread).
I'm saying that the points are always more important than the rhetoric they're wrapped in.
If people are going to be aggressive or civil is irrelevant, just the content of their speech.


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

blackjack94 said:


> You can show conviction simply by putting across your good points in an intelligent way.



It's not as much fun though.  Also, when your rhetoric is really good, people will accept what you say even if it's stupid.  Bad rhetoric encourages criticism, good rhetoric discourages it, even when the subject is very important and the opinions in question disagree.



blackjack94 said:


> Plus this whole thing isn't even an argument, most of the people that are being rude here don't have good points and either just shouting ignorance at other people or accusing other people of it.



True.  But there's so much potential for actual debate here.  If people were being civil, there wouldn't even be that.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> Yeah, but you're misunderstanding (partially, probably, because you're taking this one line out of the context of the rest of the thread).
> I'm saying that the points are always more important than the rhetoric they're wrapped in.
> If people are going to be aggressive or civil is irrelevant, just the content of their speech.


 I agree that the points are more important, but I don't believe a lot of people in real life look past rhetoric, and that's really just how people are. It's a lot harder to put it across on a forum than in real life.


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> It's not as much fun though. Also, when your rhetoric is really good, people will accept what you say even if it's stupid. Bad rhetoric encourages criticism, good rhetoric discourages it, even when the subject is very important and the opinions in question disagree.


 
That's a very good point, and that's why politicians are so good at getting elected.


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

Forward slash!  Edit the forward slash in!


----------



## blackjack94 (Jan 31, 2010)

Gosh darn it, I just did...and it took it out...
There we go.


----------



## JoeStrike (Jan 31, 2010)

Message to IEatCrackers:

As much as I hate to get involved in these kind of debates (years ago a whole bunch of people quit _Rowrbrazzle_ over political arguments (in which I was very involved) raging there) I can't help but add an observation or two of my own: 

Big business/Capitalism (aka "free enterprise") needs to be seriously regulated because its primary reason for existence is to earn a profit, and it all too often ignores or denies the negative consequences of its actions. 'Deregulation' was a disaster for this country - have you seen our economy lately? (And yes, I know Clinton did just as much to deregulate business as the Republicans.) 

Remember how Bush II wanted to privatize Social Security? Thank God he didn't get away with it, because most of that money would've wound up with the same geniuses who've basically steered the country into its current financial disaster.

But this is my real point: your original "Why I'm Republican/Why Democrats stink" list is pure right-wing boilerplate - nothing I haven't heard a million times over in almost the same words. It reads like you copy-&-pasted it from some conservative website; why not think for yourself?


----------



## Brace (Jan 31, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> 'Deregulation' was a disaster for this country - have you seen our economy lately?



Link

Inb4lolmisesinstitute


----------



## Lobo Roo (Jan 31, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> First off, calm down. Resorting to petty insults solves nothing and really doesn't help to prove a point at all.
> 
> Secondly: having nuclear power is a _very_ dangerous thing, yes, but the alternative is equally as dangerous too. We live in a world that doesn't play nice and just because we make an agreement with another country to disarm both our supplies of nukes does _not_ mean they'll follow through even if we do. Nuclear power actually prevents war through mutually assured destruction, basically meaning that if we were engaged by another country in a large scale war that neither side would use nukes. Unless we wanted to go the way of Fallout 3 that is. So by having nukes we actually _discourage_ their use without actually using them. A large scale Mexican standoff if you will.
> 
> ...



I love that him calling me ignorant, stupid, and a dyke is perfectly ok...but if I call him illogical and a Republican, I'm resorting to petty insults. That makes sense. Yeah. It's good that you recognize the calling someone a Republican is an insult, I suppose. 

...you do realize that the part you bolded was me quoting Ieatcrackers, right? Please, learn to read.

Also, your ignorance is showing. Nuclear power doesn't always refer to weapons. (Though "I've got weapons because he does!" "Well, I have them because he has them, too!" sounds a lot like childish arguments, and also "So by having nukes we actually _discourage_ their use without actually using them." makes no sense whatsoever.)

Nuclear power as we - or at least, I am, I won't vouch for him - are speaking of isn't in regards to bombs, but about power plants being used to supply energy in place of using fossil fuels. Which all sounds nice and dandy until you realize the many, many drawbacks to using nuclear power. The main drawback is the radioative emmissions that harm the people exposed to it, as well as the plant life surrounding a plant if there's ever a leak. The radioactivity can harm the reproductive systems especially, meaning not only will it harm the person exposed but any children they may have, causing genetic disorders as well as widespread cancer. Then of course, there's nuclear waste which is again, very harmful. What is the plan for disposing of this toxic substance? Burying it. Yeah. Where it can then seep into the ground water, contaminating plant life and water supplies for miles around.

I bet they don't teach you kids about Chernobyl anymore, but you should look that up, too, if you actually want to see what I'm talking about. That plant overloaded and had a meltdown over 20 years ago, killing over thirty people and the land is *still uninhabitable where Chernobyl was and for about a 35 mile radius around it. * It's also highly suspected that the plant's meltdown was the cause of a rapid spike in cancer in that area of Europe, that continues to this day.


Really, don't get involved in a discussion you obviously know nothing about.


----------



## footfoe (Jan 31, 2010)

RIght her mofo, i'm a republican (mostly) i watch beck every day


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

Lobo Roo said:


> I bet they don't teach you kids about Chernobyl anymore, but you should look that up, too, if you actually want to see what I'm talking about. That plant overloaded and had a meltdown over 20 years ago, killing over thirty people and the land is *still uninhabitable where Chernobyl was and for about a 35 mile radius around it. * It's also highly suspected that the plant's meltdown was the cause of a rapid spike in cancer in that area of Europe, that continues to this day.



This is actually a place where it's perfectly fair to say:  Communism did it.


----------



## Kyle Necronomicon (Feb 1, 2010)

I am personally an anti-conservative, LET THE GOVERNMENT CONTROL ALL!!! That way we can live some of those sci-fi novels.


----------



## Taren Fox (Feb 1, 2010)

Kyle Necronomicon said:


> I am personally an anti-conservative, LET THE GOVERNMENT CONTROL ALL!!! That way we can live some of those sci-fi novels.


Hell ya dude


----------



## Blayze (Feb 1, 2010)

Hmm, I don't think I like republicans or democrats. I'm undecided myself. Most democrats are too liberal, and most republicans are too reserved. Yeah, not all of them are like that, and actaully at the moment I think I like democrats a bit better. The state of the union address a few days ago made me feel a lot better about the way the nation as a whole is going. Nuclear power though, I'm not sure about that. Yeah, it's amazingly efficient, but as said above, it is very dangerous. Can nuclear power plants be built underground? That may or may not help, but it's worth looking into, I'd think. It would be great not to have a repeat of Chernobyl in the U.S.


----------



## Bando (Feb 1, 2010)

KirbyCowFox said:


> *fistpumps*
> 
> As someone who's not a fan of Obama, it's degrading and mortifying to hear ANYONE call him a Communist/Nazi/Socialist/Fascist/Babykiller/etc.  People like that are the main reason why someone like me would be viewed as some gun toting redneck for not agreeing with his plans.



Totally agree. Can't we just disagree with poilcy and not resort to petty insults? They just make ptotally reasonableeople look stupid for agreeing with dipshits like them.

Edit: Nuclear power is actually an amazing option to consider for energy resources. Look at the French, 80% of their power is nuclear and they haven't had a single accident. Also, they get free fuel by importhing other countries' "waste" and reusing it. That sounds like a good system to me!


----------



## Telnac (Feb 1, 2010)

Wow, it didn't take long for a debate to spring up!

Re: nuclear power, the biggest problem is deciding what to do with all the nuclear waste.  Right now, we have the worst possible solution because no one wants to OK shipping all the waste to Yucca Mountain: storing the waste on-site at the power plants themselves!

But it's simply illogical to be against coal-fired power plants and also against nuclear power.  Wind & solar are great, don't get me wrong!  But that alone won't meet our energy needs in the decades to come, and new hydroelectric plants mean new dams, which have environmental consequences all their own.  So you need to choose: coal or nuclear?  If I were an environmentalist, the choice would be pretty clear.


----------



## Bando (Feb 1, 2010)

In France the average size of nuclear waste per person per year is a penny. All you have to do to store it is make some big underground thing in the middle of a desert in say, Nevada or Utah, and problem solved.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 1, 2010)

Bando37 said:


> In France the average size of nuclear waste per person per year is a penny. All you have to do to store it is make some big underground thing in the middle of a desert in say, Nevada or Utah, and problem solved.


You mean like Yucca Mountain?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain


----------



## Bando (Feb 1, 2010)

Telnac said:


> You mean like Yucca Mountain?
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yucca_Mountain



Yucca Mountain would be great, but the governed of Nevada loves to bitch about it, so that's why I threw in Utah.


----------



## RedneckFur (Feb 1, 2010)

I consider myself a Liberterian.  I have mostly liberal social views, while having very conservative fisical views.  I'm also incredibly pro gun, and anti-big goverment.  I'm also pro nuclear power, and pro alternative energy, as long as its profitable.

When somone bases their entire polical views on the issue of abortion or marriage, they're making a fool of themselves.  There are so many more important issues out there.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 1, 2010)

RedneckFur said:


> When somone bases their entire polical views on the issue of abortion or marriage, they're making a fool of themselves.  There are so many more important issues out there.



Like the ones you care the most about, I would hazard a guess?


----------



## footfoe (Feb 1, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> Like the ones you care the most about, I would hazard a guess?


Nice!  yeah, don't insult one issue voters.

and god bless america


----------



## Jelly (Feb 1, 2010)

footfoe said:


> Nice!  yeah, don't insult one issue voters.
> 
> and god bless america



god bless america


----------



## RedneckFur (Feb 1, 2010)

jellyhurwit said:


> Like the ones you care the most about, I would hazard a guess?


 
Nope... there are a great many issues that really matter.  And most of them arent social.  

Gay marriage and abortion are big ticket issues that appeal to emotion, but in the broad scheme of things, really dont affect much.  Far more important are issues of foreign policy, fiance, and economics.


----------



## footfoe (Feb 1, 2010)

RedneckFur said:


> Nope... there are a great many issues that really matter.  And most of them arent social.
> 
> Gay marriage and abortion are big ticket issues that appeal to emotion, but in the broad scheme of things, really dont affect much.  Far more important are issues of foreign policy, fiance, and economics.


Wrong social policies are THE most important! foreign policy affects no one and no one can truly know what's best of the economy.
i don't want to see gay people get married (not me them)
and abortion is murder! 
I don't care about these issues. you don't care about these issues, but these are the only positional issues out there. 
All the rest are valance issues that most people agree on.


----------



## hitokage (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Lobo Roo said:
> 
> 
> > I bet they don't teach you kids about Chernobyl anymore, but you should look that up, too, if you actually want to see what I'm talking about. That plant overloaded and had a meltdown over 20 years ago, killing over thirty people and the land is *still uninhabitable where Chernobyl was and for about a 35 mile radius around it. * It's also highly suspected that the plant's meltdown was the cause of a rapid spike in cancer in that area of Europe, that continues to this day.
> ...


Which is correct - our design worked when we had an accident here, even though mistakes were made. See the Wikipedia article on the Three Mile Island accident for details if you don't know.


----------



## Bando (Feb 1, 2010)

Only radiation released at 3 Mile Island was a puff of smoke that was the same as a chest x-Ray -.-


----------



## Lobar (Feb 1, 2010)

Chernobyl wasn't even a meltdown, it was a steam explosion, IIRC.  A nuclear power plant has never gone off like an atomic bomb.  And we can clearly build to better safety standards today than the Soviets did 40 years ago.

I'm a Nevada resident and would love to see the Yucca Mountain project go forward.  It's really just Harry Reid's NIMBYism that's held it back, and I'd like to see him get tossed out.  The Dems do more for his sorry ass than he does for them.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 1, 2010)

Lobo Roo said:


> I love that him calling me ignorant, stupid, and a dyke is perfectly ok...but if I call him illogical and a Republican, I'm resorting to petty insults. That makes sense. Yeah. It's good that you recognize the calling someone a Republican is an insult, I suppose.
> 
> ...you do realize that the part you bolded was me quoting Ieatcrackers, right? Please, learn to read.
> 
> ...



I never saw his post, but I could argue it wasn't directed at you personally. Which it wasn't. Would you listen? Probably not, considering you blew my post out of proportion. Anyway, I'm also going to pretend like you never said a single insulting thing to me since you obviously have anger problems. Possibly resentment? Hmmm... Anyway, it would have helped if you clarified your argument a bit more as to what _type_ of nuclear power you were referring to instead of calling me an idiot right off the bat. Republicans can be just as idiotic as anyone else and I wasn't calling you out specifically. Anyway, how about we just forget that ever happened, shall we?

Chernobyl was a tragedy. I have nothing else to say on that subject except that accidents do happen. Which is what it is regardless of how big of a disaster it was. An accident.

Energy is going to be an issue for a long time. Right now we just have to work with what we've got considering solar and wind power are far too inefficient and costly at the moment. Nuclear energy can be a somewhat safe way to produce energy until we can find a better source. as long as precautions are taken and the waste is disposed of properly I see no problems with nuclear energy.


----------



## Sono_hito (Feb 1, 2010)

RedneckFur said:


> I consider myself a Liberterian. I have mostly liberal social views, while having very conservative fisical views. I'm also incredibly pro gun, and anti-big goverment. I'm also pro nuclear power, and pro alternative energy, as long as its profitable.
> 
> When somone bases their entire polical views on the issue of abortion or marriage, they're making a fool of themselves. There are so many more important issues out there.


 This


----------



## Sono_hito (Feb 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Chernobyl wasn't even a meltdown, it was a steam explosion, IIRC. A nuclear power plant has never gone off like an atomic bomb. And we can clearly build to better safety standards today than the Soviets did 40 years ago.
> 
> I'm a Nevada resident and would love to see the Yucca Mountain project go forward. It's really just Harry Reid's NIMBYism that's held it back, and I'd like to see him get tossed out. The Dems do more for his sorry ass than he does for them.


 Chernobyl was a horrificly designed nuclear reactor with an innate design flaw. You can read about it here: http://www.babeled.com/2009/10/22/nuclear-fission-for-dummies-moderation/

The short of it is, nuclear power today is extremely safe and efficient. The waste left behind is very mangeable. Yucca mountain is a great project and people against it i find are just against the word "nuclear". If the thing was full and you where just outside, you would be getting more radiation form the sunlight than the waste.


----------



## RetroCorn (Feb 1, 2010)

Sono_hito said:


> Chernobyl was a horrificly designed nuclear reactor with an innate design flaw. You can read about it here: http://www.babeled.com/2009/10/22/nuclear-fission-for-dummies-moderation/
> 
> The short of it is, nuclear power today is extremely safe and efficient. The waste left behind is very mangeable. Yucca mountain is a great project and people against it i find are just against the word "nuclear". If the thing was full and you where just outside, you would be getting more radiation form the sunlight than the waste.



I don't like Yucca mountain, does that mean I'm against the word nuclear? =(

To be honest I'd rather them blast it into space. It's easier, possibly cheaper and it gets rid of it for good. Meh, whatever works. ^_^


----------



## Telnac (Feb 1, 2010)

Gets rid of it for good, yes.  

Easier?  No.  It's far more likely to explode on the pad from a booster malfunction & spread the radiation over half of east Florida than it is to have a train derailment, where the waste cars would most likely stay intact even if that happened.  (I saw a program about the robust design of those things, yikes.)

And cheaper?  HELL NO.  At $10,000 per pound just to get it & all the safety equipment protecting it into orbit, not to mention the added cost of giving it an extra boost to send it into the Sun or out of the Solar System entirely... yikes, that'd be expensive in the extreme!

Back on topic, yes there are better issues to debate than social ones.  But social issues ARE important, simply because banning everything you find socially repugnant is a very wrong path to take.  Sure, we can ban abortion and birth control because the Southern Baptist church and the Catholic Church respectively don't like them.  Does that mean we also ban woman exposing their wonderful bodies in public (and by "exposing", I mean anything other than eyes or ankles) just because the conservative Muslims would like to impose part of their moral code in American life?  Whose social code will we impose next?

The last time the USA bowed to the will of the Southern Baptist Church (among others) and imposed a draconian law based on someone's moral code was prohibition.  I think we all know how well that worked out.

So yes, if you like freedom, social issues ARE important.  That's exactly why I break from the Republican party with regard to many of those issues, even ones I sympathize with.


----------



## Sono_hito (Feb 1, 2010)

RetroCorn said:


> I don't like Yucca mountain, does that mean I'm against the word nuclear? =(
> 
> To be honest I'd rather them blast it into space. It's easier, possibly cheaper and it gets rid of it for good. Meh, whatever works. ^_^


 Sorry, i miss-typed that. To clarify, by "it" i meant nuclear power generation in general.


----------



## JoeStrike (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Link
> 
> Inb4lolmisesinstitute



The very first sentence in the article your link goes to:

_The purpose of government is for those who run it to plunder those who do not. _

And corporations that plunder whatever they can get their hands on (Investment banks peddling worthless securities, coal companies strip-mining and polluting entire communities, etc.) are better?

No, the purpose of government is to administer civil society on behalf of its citizens. (And it's the responsibility of those citizens to make sure their government - and the corporations that operate within their society - respect the laws their representatives have established on society's behalf.)

That article reminds of a joke from behind the Iron Curtain I read years and years ago: "Under Capitalism, man exploits man; under Socialism, it's the other way around."


----------



## Telnac (Feb 1, 2010)

Sono_hito said:


> Sorry, i miss-typed that. To clarify, by "it" i meant nuclear power generation in general.


Ah!  Well, when we have asteroid mining operations & can get the uranium ore from space,  then I could see fission reactors in space being a possibility... at least for the USA.  The anti-nuke lobby has a cow when we launch a small amount of plutonium to power deep space probes... and those aren't even full sized reactors!    Launching fuel rods for a commercial reactor?  I don't see it happening.

That said, Russia or France or some other nations who don't have such a large anti-nuke lobby could probably do it.


----------



## Captain Howdy (Feb 1, 2010)

footfoe said:


> Wrong social policies are THE most important! foreign policy affects no one and no one can truly know what's best of the economy.
> i don't want to see gay people get married (not me them)
> and abortion is murder!
> I don't care about these issues. you don't care about these issues, but these are the only positional issues out there.
> All the rest are valance issues that most people agree on.



Worst troll ever.


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> And corporations that plunder whatever they can get their hands on (Investment banks peddling worthless securities, coal companies strip-mining and polluting entire communities, etc.) are better?



Yes, because the sense of "plundering" is different in this use.  A government takes what it wants and gives what it wants, irrespective of the desires of its citizens, and tries to use the second action as a justification for the first.  A company engages in voluntary transactions, which respect the demands of its customers.

A corporation isn't really a market institution, it's essentially a monopoly brought about by the interventions of the state.  If you did away with barriers to entry, massive subsidies and things of that nature, many corporations would wither away and die.  They wouldn't be able to support themselves on a truly free market.  The result would be a larger number of companies occupying the same market niche, lowering prices and offering a wider range of alternatives to the consumer.

Anti-pollution laws are fine and necessary for where we are right now, and the same might be true of other regulations as well.  Preventing fraud is a legitimate endeavour.  Government goes beyond that at the moment, though, and the result is a thoroughly distorted economy which hurts people more than it needs to.



JoeStrike said:


> No, the purpose of government is to administer civil society on behalf of its citizens.



I don't know what that means.  It doesn't seem like it ought to conflict with a limited government mindset, depending on what value you grant "civil society".  Personally, I consider large scale redistribution of wealth to be distinctly uncivil.



JoeStrike said:


> That article reminds of a joke from behind the Iron Curtain I read years and years ago: "Under Capitalism, man exploits man; under Socialism, it's the other way around."



"Politicians are the same all over, they promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."


----------



## Carenath (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> ...A company engages in voluntary transactions, which respect the demands of its *shareholders*.
> 
> ...If you did away with barriers to entry, massive subsidies and things of that nature, *small business* would wither away and die.  They wouldn't be able to support themselves on a truly free market.  The result would be *one or two* companies occupying the same market niche, *raising *prices and offering a *smaller* range of alternatives to the consumer.



Fixed it for ya


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

Carenath said:


> Fixed it for ya



Yes, because the corporate structure is synonymous with all business structure, exactly like I claimed in the post you're quoting.  Oh wait.

You don't actually understand the forces which actually lead to cartelization, which is to be expected.  Throughout history, every monopoly has been created and sustained by government intervention, whether it's the railroads, the interstate trucking industry, the airlines, or the phone company.  The government will periodically step in to break up the monopolies they created in order to make themselves look competent, but really, it's just an act of winding back the clock.


----------



## JoeStrike (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Link
> 
> Inb4lolmisesinstitute





KilroyZTC said:


> Yes, because the sense of "plundering" is different in this use.  A government takes what it wants and gives what it wants, irrespective of the desires of its citizens, and tries to use the second action as a justification for the first.  A company engages in voluntary transactions, which respect the demands of its customers.
> 
> A corporation isn't really a market institution, it's essentially a monopoly brought about by the interventions of the state.  If you did away with barriers to entry, massive subsidies and things of that nature, many corporations would wither away and die.  They wouldn't be able to support themselves on a truly free market.



I agree - let's get rid of ALL the tax breaks and goodies corporations extort out of communities when they're thinking about establishing an office or factory in their towns. 

And while we're at it, let's get rid of the fiction that a corporation is the legal equivalent of a human being - that's one reason the Supreme Court elminated corporate spending limits on political campaigns.



> The result would be a larger number of companies occupying the same market niche, lowering prices and offering a wider range of alternatives to the consumer.



That's the old 'invisible hand of the free market' story - about as likely to come into existence as a purely communist state where every citizen is truly equal, or an anarchistic/libertarian state where people rule themselves with no or a bare minimum of government. 

The dynamic of capitalism is exactly the OPPOSITE: _grow or die_. If you head up a department in a large corporation and you don't meet the profit goals set for you, you're outta there. How do you think we wound up with Staples, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble and all these other 'big box' 'category killer' stores? Because their imperative is to grow grow grow! 

As for competition:
Home Depot/Lowe's
Barnes & Noble/Borders
Staples/Office Depot
Petco/PetSmart, etc.

This is where the term 'economies of scale' comes into play. The way things are set up now, you have one store that dominates its category and a second runner-up that gets a chunk of the market big enough to survive. _There are no 3rd or 4th place stores because there's no way they can compete_; they wind up going under & being absorbed by the big boys. To get an equal playing field where more companies could compete in the same market...

_you'd have to have government regulations limiting how big any one company can get!_ Somehow I don't think that's what you're in favor of...



> I don't know what that [civil society] means.  It doesn't seem like it ought to conflict with a limited government mindset, depending on what value you grant "civil society".  Personally, I consider large scale redistribution of wealth to be distinctly uncivil.



You know what? If some investment banker gives himself a $150 million dollar bonus at the end of the year while there's people dying because they can't get health insurance...

I got no problem with 'redistributing' some of his wealth into a system of national health insurance. (But I'm sure that's another topic reasonable people can disagree on.)



> "Politicians are the same all over, they promise to build bridges even when there are no rivers."



Agreed - that's why it's up to us to get off our asses, educate ourselves & keep them honest!


----------



## Carenath (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Yes, because the corporate structure is synonymous with all business structure, exactly like I claimed in the post you're quoting.  Oh wait.
> 
> You don't actually understand the forces which actually lead to cartelization, which is to be expected.  Throughout history, every monopoly has been created and sustained by government intervention, whether it's the railroads, the interstate trucking industry, the airlines, or the phone company.  The government will periodically step in to break up the monopolies they created in order to make themselves look competent, but really, it's just an act of winding back the clock.


Yes, and I suppose Microsoft, The Music and Movie industries, are operating in the interest of their customers?


----------



## Lobar (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Yes, because the corporate structure is synonymous with all business structure, exactly like I claimed in the post you're quoting.  Oh wait.
> 
> You don't actually understand the forces which actually lead to cartelization, which is to be expected.  Throughout history, every monopoly has been created and sustained by government intervention, whether it's the railroads, the interstate trucking industry, the airlines, or the phone company.  The government will periodically step in to break up the monopolies they created in order to make themselves look competent, but really, it's just an act of winding back the clock.



Standard Oil?


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> That's the old 'invisible hand of the free market' story - about as likely to come into existence as a purely communist state where every citizen is truly equal, or an anarchistic/libertarian state where people rule themselves with no or a bare minimum of government.



There is, quite frankly, no empirically sound way to reject the wealth creation mechanisms of the market this off-handedly.  Even die hard Marxists don't deny that the market produces wealth, they simply deny that the invisible hand is a universal law.  It isn't, but that's besides the point.  Capitalism will cease to promote growth once we have arrived at a post-scarcity environment, and no sooner.  The fastest way to such a goal is through capitalism.



JoeStrike said:


> The dynamic of capitalism is exactly the OPPOSITE: _grow or die_. If you head up a department in a large corporation and you don't meet the profit goals set for you, you're outta there. How do you think we wound up with Staples, Best Buy, Barnes & Noble and all these other 'big box' 'category killer' stores? Because their imperative is to grow grow grow!



Legitimate growth can only occur if a company satisfies real market demands.  At present, corporations compete for government _largesse _to about the same extent as they compete for real market share.  The funny (read: terrible) thing is, the industries which are _most_ regulated are those which are most inclined to buy legislators.  This is because regulation itself is a valuable weapon against competitors.  If you can set the terms of commerce on the level of law, you can erect barriers to entry that quite literally drive competitors out of business.

The reason corporations exist in their current size and shape is because they're parasitic.  They don't just grow in accordance with real market demand, they grow in accordance with the artificial demand granted to them by legal monopoly status and government subsidies.



JoeStrike said:


> This is where the term 'economies of scale' comes into play. The way things are set up now, you have one store that dominates its category and a second runner-up that gets a chunk of the market big enough to survive. _There are no 3rd or 4th place stores because there's no way they can compete_; they wind up going under & being absorbed by the big boys. To get an equal playing field where more companies could compete in the same market...
> 
> _you'd have to have government regulations limiting how big any one company can get!_ Somehow I don't think that's what you're in favor of...



You're right, it isn't what I'm in favor of.  You correctly describe certain empirical realities about cartelization, but you're still misunderstanding the forces which bring it to fruition.



JoeStrike said:


> You know what? If some investment banker gives himself a $150 million dollar bonus at the end of the year while there's people dying because they can't get health insurance...
> 
> I got no problem with 'redistributing' some of his wealth into a system of national health insurance. (But I'm sure that's another topic reasonable people can disagree on.)



In the grand scheme of things, national health insurance isn't the most evil thing a government can do.  However, it does move the market away from equilibrium.  I'll give you national health insurance if you agree to drop a significant number of regulations (ha, I say it like I actually have a say in any of this stuff.)  Eventually, some time in the distant future, national health insurance shouldn't exist, and some time past that, frankly, the government shouldn't either.

Not that you have to agree with that.  Personally I don't see a stateless society emerging from piecemeal reform.  I expect government will simply phase out of existence over the next couple of centuries, owing to something like a technological singularity.


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Standard Oil?



Benign monopoly.  It achieved its status (AFAIK at least) by satisfying real market demand.  There are two different types of monopoly.  The difference is, no barriers to entry prevented competitors from entering the market in this case.  Competitors simply didn't enter the market, because demand was already satisfied.  This is an extremely rare phenomenon, and also harmless.

This is because demand is actually satisfied, and because the cost of supply is not above what the market can sustain.  In contrast, it is when government subsidizes a company, because this is essentially "ZOMG free money" (from the perspective of business).


----------



## Lobar (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Benign monopoly.  It achieved its status (AFAIK at least) by satisfying real market demand.  There are two different types of monopoly.  The difference is, no barriers to entry prevented competitors from entering the market in this case.  Competitors simply didn't enter the market, because demand was already satisfied.  This is an extremely rare phenomenon, and also harmless.



Initially there were plenty of competitiors, but Rockefeller made a habit of eliminating them by any means necessary, including simply undercutting them to the point where they were both operating deep in the red because Rockefeller's personal fortune could hold out longer.  It was known as the Cleveland Massacre, you should read up on it.


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

Lobar said:


> Initially there were plenty of competitiors, but Rockefeller made a habit of eliminating them by any means necessary, including simply undercutting them to the point where they were both operating deep in the red because Rockefeller's personal fortune could hold out longer.  It was known as the Cleveland Massacre, you should read up on it.



http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html

I read Zinn's "A People's History of The United States" one time, because an opponent recommended it.  It was the most contrived historical account I've ever read.  There _might_ be places where it's accurate.  The Ludlow Massacre seems to meet the description, no matter which angle the account comes from.  It's entirely accidental, though; accounts of this nature are clearly constructed from the grander narrative of Marxist socioeconomic dogma.  They have no empirical nature whatsoever.


----------



## Leon (Feb 1, 2010)

Die hard conservative.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Bad. Rhetorically weak, you've explicitly stated that not only do you let your emotions get the better of you, you also let them bring you down to the (lower) level of your opponent.


 
No, very good reply, because I know what buttons to push. That was my goal with that reply.


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> No, very good reply, because I know what buttons to push. That was my goal with that reply.



You're supposed to push buttons _while_ advancing your point, so that your opponent starts to take the argument itself personally, rather than just your antics.  That way they address it poorly and you can cycle back to attacking their now poorly constructed argument, rather than just them.  Also, you're supposed to be subtle about it, otherwise you don't maintain the appearance of the moral high ground to any onlookers.


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> You're supposed to push buttons _while_ advancing your point, so that your opponent starts to take the argument itself personally, rather than just your antics. That way they address it poorly and you can cycle back to attacking their now poorly constructed argument, rather than just them. Also, you're supposed to be subtle about it, otherwise you don't maintain the appearance of the moral high ground *to any onlookers*.


 
I knew it. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to read a pseudo-intellectual remark. So, I'm going to tell you what I told another guy: I don't think or care about the onlookers, nor do I care about putting on a show from them. In other words, the internet is not serious business.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-169.html
> 
> I read Zinn's "A People's History of The United States" one time, because an opponent recommended it.  It was the most contrived historical account I've ever read.  There _might_ be places where it's accurate.  The Ludlow Massacre seems to meet the description, no matter which angle the account comes from.  It's entirely accidental, though; accounts of this nature are clearly constructed from the grander narrative of Marxist socioeconomic dogma.  They have no empirical nature whatsoever.



Zinn is contrived, yet you fire back at me with the CATO Institute?  Irony, thy name is Kilroy.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 1, 2010)

I'm going to ignore all above posts because I've already been mad once today and have gotten a headache from it...

Yes, I am a Conservative, soon to be registered Republican.
I'm quite proud to be one as well.


----------



## Brace (Feb 1, 2010)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> I knew it. I didn't say anything because I didn't want to read a pseudo-intellectual remark. So, I'm going to tell you what I told another guy: I don't think or care about the onlookers, nor do I care about putting on a show from them. In other words, the internet is not serious business.



Yes it is.



Lobar said:


> Zinn is contrived, yet you fire back at me with the CATO Institute?  Irony, thy name is Kilroy.



Eh.  I prefer to think of myself as THE SPIRIT OF THE INTERNET ITSELF.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> Eh.  I prefer to think of myself as THE SPIRIT OF THE INTERNET ITSELF.



I lol'd.

Can someone chip in a one-star for this thread?  I'm not allowed to do it again. :|


----------



## JoeStrike (Feb 1, 2010)

KilroyZTC said:


> ...I expect government will simply phase out of existence over the next couple of centuries, owing to something like a technological singularity.



What the hell is a "technological singularity"?


----------



## Telnac (Feb 2, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> What the hell is a "technological singularity"?


It's where our own technological achievements lead to more technological achievements at an ever-increasing rate.  The rate of technological advancements in the last 10 years, for instance, is greater than the 20 years before that, and those were greater than the 40 years before them, and so on.  When you take that curve into the future, you find that by 2050 things will be changing so rapidly that society will seem to transform in new & wonderful ways almost day by day.

AI is supposed to play a major role in that.  When we have a machine as smart & capable as a human, Moore's Law will make that machine twice as smart in 18 months.  Such a smart machine can turn its intelligence toward the problem of becoming even more intelligent, bending Moore's Law so that machine intelligence doubles in weeks, instead of months.  In just a few years, these super-intelligent machines will utterly change humanity forever... possibly wiping us out, possibly becoming something akin to gods themselves & taking up along for the ride, possibly becoming our hyper-intelligent overlords and driving us into the slave pits.

All this makes for wonderful science fiction, but I don't believe in it.  Simply put, there are no geometric curves in nature, and our technology curve is no different.  There is a limit to how much knowledge we can amass, and the laws of physics are absolute.  No matter how many clever ways we or future AI machines may try to around them, there will always be barriers we can't cross and goals we can't quite reach.

We're nearing the limit on Moore's Law already.  Even with some new & wonderful technology that allows us to build more logic gates onto a piece of... whatever, there will be a limit as to how intelligent a machine can be and still be a reasonable size.  Frankly, the human brain is a _*really powerful*_ computer!  Yes, I believe we can build machines that exceed our intelligence, but doing so will be difficult in the extreme... even 40 years from now with a small army of intelligent machines working 24/7 on the problem.  But the same technology that can make the machines smarter than we are can also make logic circuits that can seamlessly integrate with the human brain... and boost our intelligence too!  So even when the day of super-intelligent AI arrives, I won't fear it becoming our overlord because super-intelligent humans will exist too.

Society will be an interesting place indeed in the waning years of the 21st century.  But we'll be a LONG way off from transforming into gods or any other such nonsense.  And, super-intelligent or not, we'll still be petty, bickering apes at the core.  We'll still need some sort of government to keep things from coming apart at the seams.  I just don't want it to be a nanny state that decides what we can or can't do for a living, what color pants we can or can't wear or what we can or can't eat... all in the name of doing what's best for us.  Yikes, there's too much of that crap happening already.


----------



## JoeStrike (Feb 2, 2010)

Telnac said:


> ... I just don't want it to be a nanny state that decides what we can or can't do for a living, what color pants we can or can't wear or what we can or can't eat... all in the name of doing what's best for us.  Yikes, there's too much of that crap happening already.



Y'know it's interesting that our opinions are kind of similar in the end: you don't want powerful entities having too much power over our lives; for you that means the government, while for me it's corporations.

The difference is that our government is answerable to We the People (on paper that is, the paper being the Constitution), while corporations are only answerable to their stockholders - and can use the tons of money they control to buy politicians and drown out opposing voices.


----------



## Telnac (Feb 3, 2010)

JoeStrike said:


> Y'know it's interesting that our opinions are kind of similar in the end: you don't want powerful entities having too much power over our lives; for you that means the government, while for me it's corporations.
> 
> The difference is that our government is answerable to We the People (on paper that is, the paper being the Constitution), while corporations are only answerable to their stockholders - and can use the tons of money they control to buy politicians and drown out opposing voices.


Big Corporations are just as bad as Big Government, imo.  When either gets too much control, the freedom of the people suffer.

But the days of Big Corp are largely in the past.  All the horror stories of today's big companies in the media are overhyped jokes compared to the crap that was pulled in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.

The stuff some people in the government would like to control, tho... that's no joke.  And no, I'm not exempting some Republicans from that, either.  I oppose a social conservative who wants to control your life as much as I oppose a nanny state liberal who wants to control your life.


----------



## Hyenaworks (Feb 3, 2010)

Marietta said:


> I'm going to ignore all above posts because I've already been mad once today and have gotten a headache from it...
> 
> Yes, I am a Conservative, soon to be registered Republican.
> I'm quite proud to be one as well.



lol Don't make me like you more.

I think it's obvious from some of my posts around here that I tend to be more conservative than liberal, but you gotta catch me on the right topic.  Less government, more freedom.  That's what I prefer.  Sadly, it seems no party truly embraces either concept.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 3, 2010)

> lol Don't make me like you more.
> 
> I think it's obvious from some of my posts around here that I tend to be  more conservative than liberal, but you gotta catch me on the right  topic.  Less government, more freedom.  That's what I prefer.


Well, congratulations... you just became worthy to my high standards...



> Sadly, it  seems no party truly embraces either concept.


This. It is the truth.


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 3, 2010)

Yes.  In the sense that I'm anti-monarchy. 

Socially libertarian, fiscally conservative in the Canadian context of the words.  What the US Republicans would consider to be a socialist.  Pro-gun, pro-pot, pro-business, pro-gay (adoption and marriage), anti-religion, pro-health care, and very much into individual accountability.


----------



## Kelo (Feb 3, 2010)

I liked that little chart thing earlier, so I took it!





As it seems I am around where Ghandhi and Nelson Mandela placed yay! And also apparently means I greatly disapprove of the views of anyone who posted in here haha.


----------



## Zrcalo (Feb 3, 2010)

LIBERTARIAN HERE


----------



## Marietta (Feb 3, 2010)

Kelo said:


> I liked that little chart thing earlier, so I took it!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Where is it that one may take this test again?
I can't find it.


----------



## MathiasLupen (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm conservative with libertarian leanings.


----------



## Jelly (Feb 3, 2010)

I'm +++/+++++ on the Shulgin meter of fiscal deconstructability.
please proceed to step on the back of my head on the way to the throne, my liege

fucking nerds :c


----------



## Ranzun the Dragon-Shark (Feb 3, 2010)

Moderate Republican here.


----------



## Aleu (Feb 3, 2010)

Independent with a lean towards the left. I'm fiscal conservative...that's with money...right? >_>


----------



## Irreverent (Feb 4, 2010)

AleutheWolf said:


> Independent with a lean towards the left. I'm fiscal conservative...that's with money...right? >_>



Typically.  Although i find that all parties tend to spend like a drunken sailor when they have control of the national treasury these days.


----------



## Kelo (Feb 4, 2010)

Marietta said:


> Where is it that one may take this test again?
> I can't find it.



http://www.politicalcompass.org/test


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Feb 4, 2010)

Irreverent said:


> Yes. In the sense that I'm anti-monarchy.
> 
> Socially libertarian, fiscally conservative in the Canadian context of the words. What the US Republicans would consider to be a socialist. Pro-gun, pro-pot, pro-business, pro-gay (adoption and marriage), anti-religion, pro-health care, and very much into individual accountability.


 
Anti-monarchy? I thought you broke off from the Crown in the 80's? Although I guess that can't be believed when a certain oath is:

_I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful
and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty
Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada,
Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully
observe the laws of Canada
and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen._


----------



## alliha (Feb 5, 2010)

Without knowing more of the political system in USA, and what is what, i will say i support the party here in Norway which is socialistic and green...


----------



## Ratte (Feb 5, 2010)

alliha said:


> Without knowing more of the political system in USA, and what is what, i will say i support the party here in Norway which is socialistic and green...



you heathen
|:c


----------



## Marietta (Feb 5, 2010)

alliha said:


> Without knowing more of the political system in USA, and what is what, i will say i support the party here in Norway which is socialistic and green...


In the US, they call those Liberals... or the Green Party...
Technically I think they are combined somehow...
I don't know, different people tell me different things... doesn't matter, all of them are lying.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2010)

Marietta said:


> In the US, they call those Liberals... or the Green Party...
> Technically I think they are combined somehow...



In the U.S. they don't even exist.


----------



## Marietta (Feb 5, 2010)

Lobar said:


> In the U.S. they don't even exist.


That's just what they want you to think.


----------



## Lobar (Feb 5, 2010)

Marietta said:


> That's just what they want you to think.



That's just what YOU want to think.


----------



## Wolf-Bone (Feb 5, 2010)

Irreverent said:


> Yes.  In the sense that I'm anti-monarchy.
> 
> Socially libertarian, fiscally conservative in the Canadian context of the words.  What the US Republicans would consider to be a socialist.  Pro-gun, pro-pot, pro-business, pro-gay (adoption and marriage), anti-religion, pro-health care, and very much into individual accountability.



It's too bad not a single human being alive who has the power to affect change, as opposed to "thinking the right things" but having no real power (aka *you*) has any concept of personal responsibility, individual accountability (I take it they're not _exactly_ the same concept, in your view), or any individual having any rights that don't directly benefit them. Also, how the fuck can you be anti-religion but call yourself "socially libertarian"? What, you'd deny someone a job because of their religion but then rationalize it by saying "they have the right to work for those guys that want to blow up my building someone else?" Is the fucking irony lost on you?


----------

