|
Mooseontheloose posted:Secondly, Nebraska isn't exactly proportional. Each district is voted on separately, and whoever wins the majority in the state gets the two senate votes. Exactly like Maine. The Macaroni fucked around with this message at 19:00 on Mar 17, 2011 |
# ? Mar 17, 2011 18:51 |
|
|
# ? May 12, 2024 06:10 |
|
Not a chain e-mail, but I think it's appropriate for this thread, dealing with Tea Party folk. 5 Republican Presidents the Tea Party doesn't realize they're supposed to hate. I imagine it would make for some amusing discussion among tea party friends and relatives.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 05:21 |
|
My mom just sent this to me. She converted to Beckism in a big, big way once Obama got elected, and now every interaction she has with me is veiled jabs at how stupid progressivism is. Within the first five minutes I saw at least five old white people lamenting the loss of Rockwell's America, scary footage of with fear-mongering dialog, and the repeated assertion that judeochristian principles are the only thing that makes this the greatest country in the word. I wanted to believe that the whole video was brilliant satire since it shows such contradictory images and narration as "they want to tear down our best institutions with rot!" is played over footage of a guy tearing down the Berlin Wall, and general "scary liberals suppressing ideas!" voiceover is paired with images from a book burning... in which titles from Lenin are plainly visible. Edit: Fixed link Turnquiet fucked around with this message at 18:43 on Mar 18, 2011 |
# ? Mar 18, 2011 17:47 |
|
Turnquiet posted:My mom just sent this to me. She converted to Beckism in a big, big way once Obama got elected, and now every interaction she has with me is veiled jabs at how stupid progressivism is. Why exactly is progressivism supposed to be bad? I've never met a Tea Partier able to coherently explain it. Edit: Mr. Interweb, your link isn't working. Brennanite fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Mar 18, 2011 |
# ? Mar 18, 2011 18:30 |
|
Brennanite posted:Why exactly is progressivism supposed to be bad? I've never met a Tea Partier able to coherently explain it. Redistribution of wealth, giving my hard earned money to lazy blacks, killing babies with tax dollars, etc.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 18:32 |
|
Brennanite posted:Why exactly is progressivism supposed to be bad? I've never met a Tea Partier able to coherently explain it. According to my super libertarian history professor, progressivism is bad because of big government, and "the idea that the government is a magical fairy who waves her wand, and bippity-boppity-boop fixes anything." His words. I left out the condescending hand gestures that went with this. To his credit, when he brought up eugenics, he tempered it by saying "But a lot of systems of government have their own screwed up horror stories. Progressivism's was eugenics, and that doesn't represent modern day progressivists."
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 18:38 |
|
Brennanite posted:Why exactly is progressivism supposed to be bad? I've never met a Tea Partier able to coherently explain it. Blacks, women or the poor - want to take your money away and not work. Also want special treatment due to stuff that totally happened in the past and is over (racism, sexism etc.) White, middle to upper class - Naive idealists who don't understand their movement is being controlled by the former group.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 19:57 |
|
Brennanite posted:Why exactly is progressivism supposed to be bad? I've never met a Tea Partier able to coherently explain it. It also helps that they only have a vague understanding of the underlying economics or history of a given position. The best example is usually related to "BIG GOVERNMENT REGULATIONS RUINING THE FREE MARKET." When you point out that the utter lack of regulation lead to the McMansion-centric housing market crash, or the derivatives market crash, or the S&L scandals in the 80's; just about every economic crash or disaster going back to the Great Depression was almost directly caused by a lack of oversight, government or otherwise. They blink for a second, you think you've finally gotten through, then they change the subject to unions or long-form birth certificates or whatever.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 20:20 |
|
Brennanite posted:Edit: Mr. Interweb, your link isn't working. It should be working now. The site seems to act wonky when it's late at night for some reason. http://alphanovus.org/?p=256
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 21:02 |
|
I didn't want to cloud up the Japan Nuclear situation thread with this. An environmentalist friend has been posting every single anti-nuclear news article he comes across. I started by pointing out it's very odd to see him linking to Daily Mail and Exxon press releases. After cussing me out on one post, he sent me a chat message:quote:Environmentalist: gotta warn ya... I'm basically beside myself at how quickly the whole retarded mentality that leads to crazy political emails will spring out of someone.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 22:04 |
|
Isn't there a plant in Sweden that processes nuclear waste? It's always seemed like a silly excuse, that "we can't process nuclear waste, so we shouldn't even try." Just because there's no way now to fully process it doesn't mean there's A) No way to safely store it and B) no way to ever process it.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 22:26 |
|
We sure can't if we're not even allowed to discuss it. I also like that he says he's been "anti-nuke" for twice as long as I've been alive. Which means about 50 years. He's been against nuclear power since 1960. According to wiki, the first commercial nuclear power plant was opened in 1958. He's basically had his fingers in his ears from day-one.
|
# ? Mar 18, 2011 22:32 |
|
XyloJW posted:I didn't want to cloud up the Japan Nuclear situation thread with this. An environmentalist friend has been posting every single anti-nuclear news article he comes across. I started by pointing out it's very odd to see him linking to Daily Mail and Exxon press releases. After cussing me out on one post, he sent me a chat message: Yeah, you're not going to get anywhere when he comes right out and says "I am not willing to even be civil towards you if you disagree with me" and "I have lots of reasons but I am not going to tell you what they are so nyah"
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 00:17 |
|
quote:I am staunchly anti-nuke, and have been since twice as long as there's been a you It's like a loving anti-nuke hipster. I can feel the disdain for mainstreamers that think nuclear power is safe I was against nuclear waste disposal back when it was (buried) underground red19fire fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Mar 19, 2011 |
# ? Mar 19, 2011 00:54 |
|
XyloJW posted:I didn't want to cloud up the Japan Nuclear situation thread with this. An environmentalist friend has been posting every single anti-nuclear news article he comes across. I started by pointing out it's very odd to see him linking to Daily Mail and Exxon press releases. After cussing me out on one post, he sent me a chat message:
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 01:01 |
|
revengeanceful posted:Ugh, I hate "environmentalist"'s framing of this issue. By saying he's "anti-nuke" it makes it sound like he's anti-nuclear weaponry, not anti-nuclear power which probably makes people more likely to agree with him. You'd be surprised how many literally think they're the same thing.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 02:07 |
|
This conversation sparked from my wife's status update. The religious individual is the curator for a crationist museum in a town in Alberta near my city.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 02:42 |
|
This loving guy came to open-air preach at my college a few days ago. You can imagine how it went. I could go into more detail if needed (and I'm quite sure I'm going to end up on his blog since we had some words) but at one point someone asked him, "Is there anything I could present to you that would ever cause you to doubt that God exists?" And he said, "No." Then why the gently caress are we even talking to each other?
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 02:56 |
|
the posted:This loving guy came to open-air preach at my college a few days ago. You can imagine how it went. I could go into more detail if needed (and I'm quite sure I'm going to end up on his blog since we had some words) but at one point someone asked him, "Is there anything I could present to you that would ever cause you to doubt that God exists?" And he said, "No." I dunno why you're even talking to him, or why there's a "discussion." It's not a dialogue. It's more of an interactive performance piece. Whose soul are you saving by talking to campus preachers?
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 03:36 |
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:
It's posts like this that remind me why I deleted my facebook account.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 06:12 |
|
Killin_Like_Bronson posted:This conversation sparked from my wife's status update. The religious individual is the curator for a crationist museum in a town in Alberta near my city. The first mistake made was for some reason ceding the "marriage comes from the BIBLE!" point. A rational person can understand the argument that was being made there, but people like that are rarely rational. When you argue, "well even if [X] was true, then [something else that negates their stupid argument anyway]" all they hear is the "[X] is true" bit. You can't concede anything to irrational people "just for the sake of argument" because they'll latch on to anything that supports what they're already thinking, including your hypotheticals. The debate should have been about how marriage has been defined dozens of different ways by hundreds of different cultures (most of whom had never heard of the bible) and has been re-defined over and over again even in Christian-influenced Western cultures. Instead it turned into a biblical debate and the "beauty" of the Bible is they can interpret that poo poo however the gently caress they want to support their own arguments. (Though if you ever get trapped down that road again, perhaps you should ask whose interpretation of the Bible should be codified into law. Should a marriage have to be approved by the Catholic church? What about polygamy? Plenty of that in the Bible. Etc...)
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 08:07 |
|
I just got hit with a "One can only dismiss anecdotal information so much." It's a shame there's no button on the internet that puts together all the points of a debate and displays the winner, because that line means it's me!
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 13:54 |
|
Talking with my stepmother this morning, she started going on about how academics can't possibly know what the real world is like. I asked her to explain what she meant, and asked her "They don't have jobs? They don't have to pay bills? They don't have families?" She refused to explain what she meant by it. Asking her to defend the assumptions she lays out seems like it's worked pretty well in the debates I've had with her. So yeah, the idea that marriage comes from the Bible doesn't hold water.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 15:56 |
|
quote:The first mistake made was for some reason ceding the "marriage comes from the BIBLE!" point. A rational person can understand the argument that was being made there, but people like that are rarely rational. I was not a participant, but agree, I would have gone the route of marriage existing long before christiantiy. Trey is my brother-in-law so I only got to view it after the fact. Thanks for the debate pointers, they'll come in handy in the future!
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 18:30 |
|
Choadmaster posted:You can't concede anything to irrational people "just for the sake of argument" Debates are about rhetoric with sway-able people, not about reasoning with rational people. (and I reckon that those of us who pride ourselves on being rational are in fact misleading ourselves...) I think it's a common rhetorical trope to agree with people for the sake of argument -- think "Brutus was an honorable man".
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 19:00 |
|
quote:Can't pick and choose what religious rules to follow Unless he never wore clothing of mixed fibre, ate shrimp, or looked at another woman lustfully, apparently yes you can! But hypocrisy is not a big deal if you're not gay, right? Seeing as it's sort of on-topic, I'll post this here (especially 32 is relevant): 50 Best Reasons Gay Marriage is Wrong posted:
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 19:13 |
|
Angry Avocado posted:My favorite is number 50, because someone actually wrote it and thought it was good enough to be the stinger.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 19:48 |
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:My favorite is number 50, because someone actually wrote it and thought it was good enough to be the stinger. It's not? To crazy people one of the worst things about gay marriage is that schools will teach their children tolerance.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 20:45 |
|
Alastor_the_Stylish posted:My favorite is number 50, because someone actually wrote it and thought it was good enough to be the stinger. Did you actually read the list? It's not an actual anti-gay marriage list; it's a parody of one meant to show the irony inherent in those claims. I thought it was funny and well thought out.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 21:11 |
|
ErIog posted:Talking with my stepmother this morning, she started going on about how academics can't possibly know what the real world is like. I asked her to explain what she meant, and asked her "They don't have jobs? They don't have to pay bills? They don't have families?" She refused to explain what she meant by it. I do this with my dad all the time. I also fact check things that both of us claim.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 21:29 |
|
The Macaroni posted:^^^ Nebraska distributes their votes proportionately, because the Lincoln/Omaha metro area was tired of getting lumped in with the rural western part of the state (or vice versa). Only Omaha (the second congressional district) gets its own vote. Nebraska legislators are trying to change that though, because Omaha often votes for the disgusting commu-nazi liberals.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 22:00 |
|
Nevvy Z posted:It's not? I'm gay myself and I think it's kind of a bad zinger, because the kind of people against gay marriage do literally think that with no hyperbole. I'm down with 1-49 though.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 22:18 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I'm gay myself and I think it's kind of a bad zinger, because the kind of people against gay marriage do literally think that with no hyperbole. I think the kind of people who are against gays (let's not kid ourselves) would unironically agree with 9 as well.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 22:54 |
|
Cjones posted:Only Omaha (the second congressional district) gets its own vote. Nebraska legislators are trying to change that though, because Omaha often votes for the disgusting commu-nazi liberals. Nope, all three get their own votes, and 2008 was the first time the electoral votes were actually split.
|
# ? Mar 19, 2011 23:14 |
|
Angry Avocado posted:Unless he never wore clothing of mixed fibre, ate shrimp, or looked at another woman lustfully, apparently yes you can! But hypocrisy is not a big deal if you're not gay, right? Dayim. I remember when this was ten points long.
|
# ? Mar 20, 2011 23:49 |
|
White, middle class male from the suburbs. Shocking! Calls Maher a "gutter sniping loony left coward," & also thinks we should bomb Libya from the safety of our couches. What does he care? He's never going to have to actually fight in a war. It only took one smart bomb to take out Hussein, right? Failing that, we can always send in a ground force to sit there indefinitely, right? We can also destroy the infrastructure and indiscriminately kill civilians, it worked out so well in Iraq for the past 8 loving years. Afghanistan became a picture-perfect democracy after we took out the Taliban, right? Of course, if he read Reuters, CNN, or an actual news source, he would know that Quaddafi has surrounded himself with civilians to act as a human shield. But who cares, they're all brown Muslims after all. Barely even human! I don't want to share the planet with these loving people any more.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2011 17:19 |
|
The people aren't at fault, it's just their coping mechanism for living in, and therefore implicitly supporting, capitalism. If the defence industries have decided that America should purchase a trillion dollars worth of cruise missiles with which to throw against an arbitrary, easily isolated nation, then voters have to reconcile their implicit support of the system that allows that to happen by creating a narrative that gives a reason for that pointless destruction. To make things easier, capitalism often supplies narratives of its own accord that people can buy into without thinking too hard.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2011 17:27 |
red19fire posted:
To be fair, Bill Maher is an rear end in a top hat.
|
|
# ? Mar 22, 2011 17:35 |
|
"Gutter-sniping" and doing "anything for a buck" are ironic terms to use, since those seem to be the two things that circulate Palin's entire existence. From what I gather Maher used the term "dumb twat", which is a pretty stupid thing to say on his part, to be fair.
|
# ? Mar 22, 2011 18:19 |
|
|
# ? May 12, 2024 06:10 |
|
tek79 posted:"Gutter-sniping" and doing "anything for a buck" are ironic terms to use, since those seem to be the two things that circulate Palin's entire existence. He's a political comedian with very well known hatred for the Right, why would anyone be surprised that he called Palin a twat?
|
# ? Mar 22, 2011 18:35 |