|
http://imgur.com/gallery/cDrseRN 
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Genuine question: How can someone be fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time? Isn't the definition or agreed upon expectations of fiscal conservatism that less money would be allotted to social programs?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:31
|
|
|
In my experience it's along the lines of gay guys who like to shoot guns. Not real big on "social programs", more on the "let everyone do whatever as long as it doesn't cost anything" side of things.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:41
|
|
|
cash crab posted:Genuine question: How can someone be fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time? Isn't the definition or agreed upon expectations of fiscal conservatism that less money would be allotted to social programs? -What people do at home behind closed doors is their own business -gently caress the poor Unsurprisingly, a lot of libertarians are kids who were raised republican but find out in college that it's not cool to admit that.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:43
|
|
|
cash crab posted:Genuine question: How can someone be fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time? Isn't the definition or agreed upon expectations of fiscal conservatism that less money would be allotted to social programs? From my experience it's usually just people trying to say "gently caress the government, but I need as many people supporting me as possible"
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
cash crab posted:Genuine question: How can someone be fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time? Isn't the definition or agreed upon expectations of fiscal conservatism that less money would be allotted to social programs? When your concern for your fellow human beings starts and ends with their ability to make and keep money
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:51
|
|
|
The best summary of it I've ever seen is this:
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 03:57
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:The best summary of it I've ever seen is this: Add "gays are okay" and that's literally the extent of it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Nah, the gay part is optional as long as you do the whole "Love the sinner hate the sin" schpeal.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:05
|
|
|
cash crab posted:Genuine question: How can someone be fiscally conservative and socially liberal at the same time? Isn't the definition or agreed upon expectations of fiscal conservatism that less money would be allotted to social programs? Basically their perspective is "I'm not a fundamentalist Christian and am okay with gays and weed, but I also think the government shouldn't spend much"; it sounds reasonable if you don't really understand much about how government works. The socially liberal part refers to not being anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc. edit: I used to call myself "socially liberal and fiscally conservative" back in college (10 years ago), and basically my mindset was "I'm so much more rational and moderate than all those extremist/radical liberals and conservatives."
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:22
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/crushingbort/status/463132110006784000 (I'm not presenting this as IoSM, I just like the quote)
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
OldMemes posted:The Green Party in the UK used to be a decent local government/protest vote, but then Natalie Bennett became leader, and it became a mess. Not only did they decide that someone who was born in Australia and lived there until she was 33 (and still has a strong accent) would be someone the British public would be likely to pick as thier head of state OldMemes posted:What is it with Green Parties being a bit....odd?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:52
|
|
|
Has there ever been a serious chance of a third-party win in major US elections? Cause I've always just kinda assumed those like Liberals and any other third-party groups as harmlessly silly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 04:58
|
|
|
Back in the early 1900s. In 1912, third party candidates got about 5 million votes out of about 15 million and Roosevelt and the Progressive Party actually beat the incumbent, Taft, to come second to Wilson. EDIT: VVV That too, although they came from a split in one of the two major parties rather than as a completely new party and as such had plenty of members already in government. A Fancy 400 lbs has a new favorite as of 05:07 on Jun 9, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Ularg posted:Has there ever been a serious chance of a third-party win in major US elections? Cause I've always just kinda assumed those like Liberals and any other third-party groups as harmlessly silly. The Republican party was a third-party when it won in 1860.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:04
|
|
|
Ah, the good old fashioned "double taxation" buzzword. Here's a great comic by Ruben Bolling about it:  This is a pro-click. Not for the actual post itself, but for all the comments under it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
trapped mouse posted:This is a pro-click. Not for the actual post itself, but for all the comments under it.  quote:Do you realize how improbable it is that the Clinton's arranged for the deaths of 50 people when Bill couldn't even keep a blowjob secret?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:25
|
|
|
Yea i like the comment "oh look its my dads facebook page" Conservatives on twitter are never not a source of IOSM, but lucky Bruce Campbell is on the case! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 06:26
|
|
|
Hail to the king, baby! 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
I am a fan of this one quote:"his death was a purported suicide" he died of pneumonia. That's an odd choice for a suicide method.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:43
|
|
|
Why am I supposed to care about having all my money before I spend it if my taxes are effectively being raised to 23% and all that money has less purchasing power anyway?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 08:50
|
|
|
twistedmentat posted:Yea i like the comment "oh look its my dads facebook page" Most people named Bruce are decent folk. LoL nvm a bit of brainfart there.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 10:20
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Basically their perspective is "I'm not a fundamentalist Christian and am okay with gays and weed, but I also think the government shouldn't spend much"; it sounds reasonable if you don't really understand much about how government works. The socially liberal part refers to not being anti-gay, anti-abortion, etc. My libertarian friend is part of an anti-abortion libertarian group. They mostly whine about how no one takes them seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 12:14
|
|
|
A Fancy 400 lbs posted:Nah, the gay part is optional as long as you do the whole "Love the sinner hate the sin" schpeal. They also argue that businesses should be allowed to discriminate against gays and if that's a bad thing,  the market will stop it from happening.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
I have also heard from that ilk that gays didn't need equal marraige because they could simply prepare and file a "contract" that was essentially the same as far as rights and duties. Yeah.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 12:58
|
|
|
Okay, that makes sense. Not like, real sense or anything, but I can see why people get to that conclusion. Of course, I'm also of the opinion that letting people do whatever they want also entails supporting your citizens to a reasonable degree, but  will instill that into you sometimes.Here's some TRENDING NEWS content, which is always good.  [Tila Tequila suggest hunting immigrants]  TRANSGENDERS! [TB outbreak] IMMIGRANTS! [PM acknowledges Ramadan] ARE TROOPS!I mean, at least the last one has a big of a thread to it, but I love the idea that the PM isn't allowed to do anything even remotely multi-cultural on D-Day.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:00
|
|
|
If we can forget and ignore Jaden Smith, we can do the same for Tila. I believe in ourselves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 14:12
|
|
|
I like to think he got help. 
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:08
|
|
|
Tila never got help.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Met posted:I like to think he got help. His dad's a scientologist, there's no useful help for Jaden.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 15:42
|
|
|
The amount of Bernie bros on my feed who legitimately think Hillary rigged the election herself is just astounding. Look, I liked the guy too, but let's be real here, he was fighting an uphill battle and the progress he did make was pretty impressive. It's really no surprise she swept him.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:26
|
|
|
 Idiots on Social Media: If Sanders becomes president we get peace on earth I love Bernie, but come the gently caress on.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:29
|
|
|
What do they think Bernie would do if Russia or someone starts making moves even bolder than they have been? Negotiate? Putin doesn't give a poo poo. Edit: Not to mention that Congress declares war, not the President. I doubt the President could veto that and even if he did Congress would just veto the veto. I think?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:What do they think Bernie would do if Russia or someone starts making moves even bolder than they have been? Negotiate? Putin doesn't give a poo poo. Declarations of war are ambiguous because the Constitution doesn't say anything other than "Congress can declare war". There's no specifics defining exactly what a "war" is or what "declaring" officially involves. Like, does it count as legit if the notification doesn't include "declares war" or "declaration of war" in it? We haven't made a formal declaration of war since World War II, but nobody would argue that the US has never been at war since. Everything else gets handwaved away as police actions or undeclared bombings so they "don't count". Obama justified air strikes in Libya as not really violating the War Powers Resolution because they were limited in scope and scale. I actually saw someone's dad try to pull this on Facebook: a post was going around about how the United States has been at war almost non-stop for like 100 years, and the poster's father tried to call bullshit by saying that we've only declared war on a country a few times in our history so ACTUALLY
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Declarations of war are ambiguous because the Constitution doesn't say anything other than "Congress can declare war". There's no specifics defining exactly what a "war" is or what "declaring" officially involves. Like, does it count as legit if the notification doesn't include "declares war" or "declaration of war" in it? Are you implying that being technically correct is NOT the best kind of correct?
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:14
|
|
|
Admiral Joeslop posted:Are you implying that being technically correct is NOT the best kind of correct? Well, actually *pulls out dictionary*
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Declarations of war are ambiguous because the Constitution doesn't say anything other than "Congress can declare war". There's no specifics defining exactly what a "war" is or what "declaring" officially involves. Like, does it count as legit if the notification doesn't include "declares war" or "declaration of war" in it? "Well there's no amendment to the Constitution that says a dog can't declare war....." Airbud: Warbuddies.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 18:27
|
|
|
Seravadon posted:"Well there's no amendment to the Constitution that says a dog can't declare war....." Airbud: Warbuddies. "Well there's nothing in the Geneva Conventions saying a dog can't commit genocide.....Airbud: Ethnic Cleansing
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 18:48
|
|
|
"Hitler fed me. He did nothing wrong. I'm here to correct your error." - Air Bud 8: Blondi's Revenge
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 06:05 |
|
|
Maggie Fletcher posted:The amount of Bernie bros on my feed who legitimately think Hillary rigged the election herself is just astounding. Look, I liked the guy too, but let's be real here, he was fighting an uphill battle and the progress he did make was pretty impressive. It's really no surprise she swept him. Perry Normal posted:
I haven't contributed to this thread lately because I'm a guy in his twenties and all my friends are in their twenties, and the amount of Bernie fellating combined with all the strange conspiracies about Hillary (taken from right wing blogs and posted unironically by "socialists") was giving me a headache. It has seriously taken over my facebook feed, maybe because I clicked on a few too many articles and they decided that political arguing was all I wanted to see from now on. This interaction has apparently been deleted, but someone who had been proselytizing for Bernie for a while decided to make a post that said "you are not allowed to call yourself an environmentalist if you support Hillary Clinton." I get a little annoyed whenever people do the whole "you can't call yourself ___ unless ___" so I asked her why that was, and posted Hillary's voting record on the issue, which was 100% pro-environment. She shared a blog post with me showing how Hillary refused to vote for a bill that would get rid of a dangerous chemical in our waters. I looked into it, and found out that not only was the part about the dangerous chemical not in the bill, but that Hillary joined other liberal democratic senators against it most likely because it didn't go far enough to protect the environment. Of course she then proceeded to call all those senators not "true" liberals and said that she hates all democrats. Oh well.
|
|
#
?
Jun 9, 2016 19:07
|
|