|
Also haha 'parental support'. Mitt is a disgrace to his father in every way but by god I gotta draw the link to birtherism!
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
Oddhair posted:My reply got... a little long, even with the edits. I am sure it has been posted but do you have a link to the Frumm article you are talking about?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:14
|
|
|
I don't have any crazy (close) family members. Almost my entire family are pretty staunch Democrats. I guess that comes from a heavy union history. I have 2 uncles that dislike Obama purely for race reasons. I guess that's crazy. If he wasn't black I'm sure they would like him. They may have even voted for him and just pretended they didn't to keep up appearances. My mom told me a story about how she was talking to one uncle (and his wife, who gets her news/beliefs from him) and he was convinced Obama is controlling the gas prices. So my mom finally said, "well if he controls them, why aren't they way lower?" (This was right before the election) To which, of course, he had no answer. Long story short, I guess I'm lucky to not have family with crazy political views. But my fiancé's family is all republican so maybe that will give me some things to post ITT. Unrelated, the new thing the right is doing that makes me super angry is saying Obama voters want things for free. It's probably bad for me (health-wise) how angry it makes me. Also, the "slut vote". Fuckers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
For those of you who actually engage in these Facebook/email/forum wars, what signs do you look for in your opponent that they wish to engage in actual exchange of ideas and information rather than just batter you with talking points? Because I'm sincerely curious. I never have these arguments, or rarely, but when I do I'm only interested in continuing if there's an actual discussion which there rarely is. I just got into one the other day for the first time in years. Guy posts article about secession petitions. I get a bit pissed and respond that they are butthurt (I agree that this approach does not lead to discussion or receipt of ideas). A couple more posts then I say that every election generates butthurt on the losing side and acknowledge that pissed liberals indulged the "let's divorce red/blue states" thing also (without pointing out that they did not go to the length of petitioning the White House and signing their names to it). I state, to be conciliatory, that this is natural, but it does not deserve to be taken seriously, just like the liberals saying those things when Bush was elected should not have been taken seriously, and to the extent that it is indulged, news organs and blogs pushing these petitions as if it's important news somehow more valid than all the angry Facebook and Twitter election rants, it detracts from serious news and self examination by the losers on how to better sell their platform or change their platform to one that can be sold. Post about how "well we should just let California go" is followed by me posting the data showing GOP voting states receiving more in federal tax than they give and the opposite for NY/CA (data from 1981-2005). Original thread poster asks if I have more current data, I point him to the raw data at taxfoundation.org and tell him this is the most current data available, acknowledging that the passage of 7 years and economy crash in 08 could have changed a lot of this. Other poster points out GOP is popular in all but urban areas, posts map of US voting counties showing all that red. I point out urban areas is now where the majority of the US lives, land doesn't vote, and post that red/blue mosaic map proportioned to population, and that the population continues to trend more urban. Truther/crazy antiZionist Israel conspiracy theorist jumps in and asks "what's not to be taken seriously" about the petitions, killing the thread so far. I know the original poster, not well. He is a moderator on that particular forum. He's a reasonably intelligent guy and not at all an rear end in a top hat as far as basic personality. I was just curious as to what are signs that an actual discussion is happening in such circumstances, as opposed to the usual rant at each other.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:02
|
|
|
myron cope posted:Unrelated, the new thing the right is doing that makes me super angry is saying Obama voters want things for free. It's probably bad for me (health-wise) how angry it makes me. Also, the "slut vote". Fuckers. If it's people you know, point out that when you are winning the elections and hold all the strings of power, you can indulge in the luxury of saying things like this and be all  .When you are in the position of trying to sell your viewpoints to "sluts" and "takers" and get more of their votes, good luck calling them that and getting them on your side, and enjoy more election repeats like a week ago, sir!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:05
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:I was just curious as to what are signs that an actual discussion is happening in such circumstances, as opposed to the usual rant at each other. I would say a key indicator is that, when presented with actual facts and figures that disprove their argument, they acknowledge such and concede the point, if not outright admit that they were wrong. If they do that, it's a good indication that they are actually willing to listen and consider different points of view. If, on the other hand, they dismiss non-partisan facts and figures as having an obvious bias, or start spinning like crazy, or deflect the argument to some other unrelated talking point, it's fairly safe to assume that they have no interest in true discussion, and just want to batter you into submission with their talking points until you give in or shut up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:12
|
|
|
TheQat posted:That's one of the more amazing examples of projection I've seen, since trickle-down economics is the ultimate example of that "free ice cream" idea You get the bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
Sydney Bottocks posted:I would say a key indicator is that, when presented with actual facts and figures that disprove their argument, they acknowledge such and concede the point, if not outright admit that they were wrong. If they do that, it's a good indication that they are actually willing to listen and consider different points of view. A lot of times they won't admit something's wrong or acknowledge your source or your figure due to biases on their own. They might still be interested in discussion, but that hurdle of trust needs to be cleared. Zwabu posted:For those of you who actually engage in these Facebook/email/forum wars, what signs do you look for in your opponent that they wish to engage in actual exchange of ideas and information rather than just batter you with talking points? Example 1: Friend: We ought to drug test for welfare! Me: Here are some facts and figures showing why not. Friend: I don't trust NYT because they have a liberal bias. This person might be interested in a discussion! It's true NYT does have a bias. While the bias may not be where they think it is, and while that doesn't invalidate the data, it is kind of unreasonable to ask someone to debunk a source they don't trust. If someone links me to a giant Heritage Foundation report, chances are I'm not going to go through it and figure out what misleading factor they've omitted/added in to make it so skewed. I'll likely just say "Heritage Foundation is total bullshit." Either find another source they do trust, the raw data (which again, is kind of bullshit), or argue without sources. Because come on, no one really makes up their mind based on figures, they make up their minds based on emotion and "fairness." Example 2: Friend: We ought to drug test for welfare! Me: Here are some facts and figures showing why not. Friend: Yeah, but you liberals also want illegal immigrants with no voter id's to get free abortions. This person is nuts, so have fun and be as sarcastic and mean as you want. Or ignore them. XyloJW fucked around with this message at 18:22 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:19
|
|
|
Captain Filth posted:I am sure it has been posted but do you have a link to the Frumm article you are talking about? Probably this one
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:27
|
|
|
For example, I know my aunt is so completely far gone that I rarely even engage her seriously anymore. Instead, I just blatantly troll. (I'm in green)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:35
|
|
|
Great thanks, that was a good read and I wish he spoke for a larger segment of the conservative spectrum than he does currently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 18:45
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:For example, I know my aunt is so completely far gone that I rarely even engage her seriously anymore. Instead, I just blatantly troll. (I'm in green)  All it takes is some minimal effort to find out that the Kufi is not worn by only the most devout Muslims. It is just a cap that is common in Africa and worn by people of all faiths.Pretty much the only thing you can do at that point is troll, I think. Captain Filth posted:Great thanks, that was a good read and I wish he spoke for a larger segment of the conservative spectrum than he does currently. Yeah, Frum is generally pretty reasonable, or at least lives within a recognizable reality. I don't agree with a lot of his views, but he's very much opposed to where the Republicans have been taking their party in the past decade or so. Of course, that's kind of why he lost his job at the AEI; he had the audacity to suggest that maybe the Republican party shouldn't be making GBS threads all over Obama's version of the Heritage Foundation's suggested healthcare reforms from the 1990's. And I think they still haven't exactly connected the dots on Frum's message from the healthcare debacle. Obama won, GOP lost; and now when people benefit from the law, especially when the Exchanges start up during the next midterm election, the only people they have to thank are the Democrats because the Republicans not only refused to participate, they promised it would end our country and then tried to repeal it, multiple times. Sarion fucked around with this message at 19:17 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:06
|
|
|
Sarion posted:
Ah, so you mean he's a Christian Kenyan?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:31
|
|
|
Zwabu posted:For those of you who actually engage in these Facebook/email/forum wars, what signs do you look for in your opponent that they wish to engage in actual exchange of ideas and information rather than just batter you with talking points? If they have no respect for evidence at that point, though, it's usually a lost cause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 19:56
|
|
|
Mo_Steel posted:Tell her you agree but that this doesn't go far enough. Anyone who receives a benefit or tax break from the government should have to be drug tested, because we don't want drug heads getting our tax dollars. Earned Income Tax Credit? Piss in the cup. Tax break on your investment losses? Piss in the cup. Subsidy to help cover your new car? Piss in the cup. Are you a government employee or a private contractor working for the government? Buy a T-Bill? Save money in a bank covered by the FDIC? Oh you better believe you're gonna piss in a cup. If the real concern is that government money might go to people who also use drugs or have used drugs, then let's get serious about it, and the 14th Amendment can go gently caress itself while we're forcing everyone to follow mandatory drug screenings. Totally stole this for Facebook. There's a group in Texas called BreakObama and apparently they're also in favor of piss tests for welfare. That's the correct article, Sarion (of course,) I found the change of tone pleasant. I know some republicans I can have great conversations with, many of my anti-Obama friends are just angry without much substance to their views. Oddhair fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:17
|
|
|
Double post, oops, replying from wrong tab.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:36
|
|
|
Oddhair posted:My reply got... a little long, even with the edits. I used to have the same debates with my dad, now we largely avoid discussing politics and religion so that we can actually have a relationship, it was pretty touch and go for awhile. You can also destroy the argument that America is in any type of decline. While I often disagree with his opinions on foreign policy, Robert Kagan(full disclosure: he's a neo-reaganite) beats this argument to death in this article: http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/magazine/99521/america-world-power-declinism I love to use his words against Conservatives, and then explain the source to them. They are loathe to debate the opinions of another Conservative on the assumption that they are all omniscient. Bait and Swatch fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Nov 14, 2012 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:52
|
|
|
XyloJW posted:For example, I know my aunt is so completely far gone that I rarely even engage her seriously anymore. Instead, I just blatantly troll. (I'm in green) Did you know that Stalin and Hitler both had black hair like OBUMMER! Clearly he is a Communazi!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2012 20:54
|
|
|
News on the radio today said that the state of Arizona is just one of 30 states threatening to secede from the Union, and they are a mere 6000 signatures away from 'having to be recognized by the federal government!' Oh no. Oh please. I almost want to see Obama look over this imaginary stack of paper on live TV, and then casually say fine, leave, we'll take our federal aid and border patrol out. AZ, have fun being Mexico's bitch again.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 01:28
|
|
|
Cowslips Warren posted:News on the radio today said that the state of Arizona is just one of 30 states threatening to secede from the Union, and they are a mere 6000 signatures away from 'having to be recognized by the federal government!' We've been trying to do this for a while now: http://azleg.gov/DocumentsForBill.asp?Bill_Number=SB1433&Session_Id=102&image.x=10&image.y=11 This bill would allow the State of Arizona to nullify any federal legislature it disagreed with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 01:33
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:We've been trying to do this for a while now: Is it the "Act to Get Smacked Down By The Supremacy Clause"? I know this is hardly news to this thread, but considering how much the Republican Party claims to love the Constitution, they sure love trying to pass laws that they (should) know will get struck down because of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 01:43
|
|
|
Sarion posted:Is it the "Act to Get Smacked Down By The Supremacy Clause"? I guess we'd pass a law nullifying the Supremacy Clause.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 01:49
|
|
|
Dr. Arbitrary posted:I guess we'd pass a law nullifying the Supremacy Clause. But... but... 
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 02:35
|
|
|
I can't believe "legitimate" news agencies are reporting these dumb gently caress "secession" "petitions" as news aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 03:53
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I can't believe "legitimate" news agencies are reporting these dumb gently caress "secession" "petitions" as news aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa Yeah it really bugs me. Let's report on what people are putting on Facebook since the election! Wolf?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 03:59
|
|
|
AN ACT amending sections 41-101 and 41-401 Arizona Revised Statutes; relating to all future laws of the State or Republic of Arizona (TEXT OF BILL BEGINS ON NEXT PAGE) Be it enacted by the Legislature of the State of Arizona: Section 1. Section 41-101, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 41-101. A. Sherriff Joseph Arpaio is appointed hereditary regent of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He and his divinely chosen successors shall reign over the Christian state of Arizona from his golden throne until Jesus returns to lead all true Christian peoples of Arizona to salvation. Section 1. Section 41-401, Arizona Revised Statutes, is amended to read: 41-401. Constitutional defense council. A. In all cases where Federal law shall conflict with Arizona law, the Federal government shall go gently caress itself. B. Should the United States Supreme Court find a law of Arizona unconstitutional, all members of said court shall go eat a dick. C. Come and pry them from our cold, dead hands.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 04:11
|
|
|
I say we let Texas, New Mexico and Arizona (sorry you're stuck in the middle, NM) secede peacefully. They put up money for the US government to move people who don't want to stay in those states. Anyone that wants to is more than welcome to renounce their US citizenship and move there. We add Puerto Rico, DC and...Guam? I don't know the third...as replacements and still have 50 states. The US could even match dollar for dollar what they contribute. Hell, I'd even go 2:1. Problem solved. They could then leave us alone and die in peace while not letting women vote and counting black people as 3/5 of a person again. What would we lose, honestly? The Cowboys? Some oil drilling? John McCain? I guess we'd lose the Grand Canyon though...
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 05:32
|
|
|
myron cope posted:I say we let Texas, New Mexico and Arizona (sorry you're stuck in the middle, NM) secede peacefully. They put up money for the US government to move people who don't want to stay in those states. Anyone that wants to is more than welcome to renounce their US citizenship and move there. We add Puerto Rico, DC and...Guam? I don't know the third...as replacements and still have 50 states. The US could even match dollar for dollar what they contribute. Hell, I'd even go 2:1. Will there be funding for those of us who choose to not leave and stay in the US? My family has been here since 1929 or so; 4 generations of us grew up here, and I can say without any doubt that the problems we have in Arizona are from people who cannot say they are true Arizonians. Every politician, from McCain to Brewer to that fuckface Russel Peace did not grow up here, do not have roots here, know nothing but the bullshit they brought from elsewhere. This state was built by some of the hardest working people. Our Latino population is an integral part of our history and our legacy, and everyone who has tried to dismiss them and purge them deserves to be purged themselves. I can't lie; I love this desert. I know this desert. I know the people who struggled and fought and worked to build something better here, with little or nothing but searing heat and dust in every part of their body. It's being ruined now by lazy fuckheads who swept in here like loving carpetbaggers of the 19th century and sought to build their own "Bullshit Mountain" on our backs. Goddamnit, I want my state back.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 06:55
|
|
|
EDGECRUSHER posted:Will there be funding for those of us who choose to not leave and stay in the US? My family has been here since 1929 or so; 4 generations of us grew up here, and I can say without any doubt that the problems we have in Arizona are from people who cannot say they are true Arizonians. Every politician, from McCain to Brewer to that fuckface Russel Peace did not grow up here, do not have roots here, know nothing but the bullshit they brought from elsewhere.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
myron cope posted:What would we lose, honestly? The Cowboys? Some oil drilling? John McCain? I guess we'd lose the Grand Canyon though... You'd put several million honest people under the yoke of a theocracy, royally gently caress blacks, hispanics, women and poor people and create a new Afghanistan right across a border?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 07:09
|
|
|
peak debt posted:You'd put several million honest people under the yoke of a theocracy, royally gently caress blacks, hispanics, women and poor people and create a new Afghanistan right across a border? No because everybody who doesn't want to be there gets to move for free. That's part of the deal! (and not just move but assistance finding a new job and whatnot)
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 07:13
|
|
|
Phoenix isn't all bad. My district just elected Kyrsten Sinema. She's an Atheist bisexual feminist socialist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 07:19
|
|
|
myron cope posted:No because everybody who doesn't want to be there gets to move for free. That's part of the deal! (and not just move but assistance finding a new job and whatnot) My family has lived in Texas for about a 150 years now and we have roots all over this place and you are now telling me that because an outspoken vocal minority within the state act like idiots I have to move? This meme is tired and needs to stop. No state can leave the union and the idiots talking about it are not taken seriously by anyone. Before you mention Perry, he is an empty suit opportunist who will say anything, court any demographic, and sellout to any special interest if he thinks it will give him +1 political power.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 07:54
|
|
|
Guys don't kick out Texas, it's about to go blue in a couple election cycles. Actually don't kick out any state, the impotent rage the right wing produces is far too amusing.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 08:08
|
|
|
I recently read a Slate article saying that Texas has the legal ability to split itself into multiple states. What would be the political ramifications of such a thing happening?
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 08:18
|
|
|
In a Facebook comment I recently compared all the executives whining about how they might as well close down their businesses because of Obamacare (like John Schnatter of Papa John's) to small children who threaten to run away from home because they have to eat their peas. I could probably get some mileage out of that comparison with all these seceding states, too.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 09:40
|
|
|
EDGECRUSHER posted:Will there be funding for those of us who choose to not leave and stay in the US? My family has been here since 1929 or so; 4 generations of us grew up here, and I can say without any doubt that the problems we have in Arizona are from people who cannot say they are true Arizonians. Every politician, from McCain to Brewer to that fuckface Russel Peace did not grow up here, do not have roots here, know nothing but the bullshit they brought from elsewhere. Give them 5 years of no Federal assistance and it'll be back to being unspoilt desert (apart from the Mad Max mobility scooters littering the roads), and you can go back in and take it back. I always find it amusing that the more RUGGED INDIVIDUALIST a state claims to be, the more utterly reliant it is on filthy socialist mass infrastructure programmes to supply it with (particularly) water, transport, and just about everything else.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 11:14
|
|
|
point of return posted:I recently read a Slate article saying that Texas has the legal ability to split itself into multiple states. What would be the political ramifications of such a thing happening? This was brought up earlier, I think the conclusion that was come to was that technically any state can do this if they wanted, it's just a question of what the federal government will allow. Texas, contrary to popular belief, doesnt have super unique rights of secession or division etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 12:22
|
|
|
Woke up to this one on FB this morning, I'm the blacked out one obviously.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 15:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 24, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
I've had good results from asking if it's okay for employers to refuse to cover organ transplants or psychiatric care under the same religious objection.
|
|
#
?
Nov 15, 2012 16:47
|
|