*Shoots thread in the face*

As much as people on both sides will disagree.... You all sound EXACTLY THE SAME.


"OMG! NO I AM RIGHT! YOUR VIEWS ARE TEH FLAWED BECAUSE YOU ARE! *insert political allignment here*!"

It is always like that.

Which is why it's so utterly pathetic!

Hooray for totally constructive addition to argument!

why are conservatives considered unintelligent?

Because more liberals don't know me.

Rob is right. You know he's right.

No he is left. Damn commie.

Actually, I'm MIDDLE.

DAMN NEUTIES!

Mort, Raoul: That was sarcasm. I used atheistical because:
1. I wanted to.
2. The book I'm reading used atheistical.
3. It uses elements of the previous two words (beginning of activist, end of liberal) for added flow.

Kuat: A party is made up of (tens of) thousands of politicians and millions of members. Even single elections involve two individuals with vastly differing platforms, agendas, and bases, which would result in drastically different actions once elected. We wouldn't be invading Iraq, drilling in ANWR, or adding hundreds of billions of dollars to the national debt if Gore had been elected. No doubt there would have been other problems, but to pretend that completely different sets of errors whose responsible parties have completely different ideologies could reach some sort of practical parity is ridiculous.

And I could probably list off half a dozen federal politicians of both parties who I know care deeply about the good of the country.

You're hilariously wrong in your assessment of politics.

Oook, where did I say anything that would contradict that?



Why is it? The democrats with their own polarized philosophy would lead the country into other problems. Unlike Bush, the would be too soft on the 'war on terror' as it were. They do indeed support big government, which I don't support (Sadly Bush and Co aren't much of an option in that reguard either). I'm saying that if roles were reversed, and it was a democrat president with a democrat majority, things would still be bad. Why wouldn't they be? What glowing policies have the proposed in the last years? We all know about the Repub's F*** ups, but the democrats are struggling for any ideas themselves that would actually have a positive effect.

You are playing a semantics game. I'm not saying that tit for tat it would be as bad, or even better. I'm saying that both parties have become inept at actually leading the country. Show me actions and policies that prove me wrong, not just words.

I have a feeling I won't get far with this. You've reapeted yourself twice already without actually saying anything new. As fun as it is to treat the oppenent like an idiot (read what is in bold), you still aren't adressing the question of what makes either party better than the other, or why either would be good for the country. And don't use "parity" for the third time, your language is getting stale.



They are in the minority, if anything.

Oh man, Gore. That would have been awful. He'd probably start pandering the the crazier environmentalists and institute laws to "protect" the environment regardless of the proven scientific merit. He'd probably have made gasoline cars and nuclear energy illiegal.

And we'd probably have socialized health care.

Shutup.

Kuat: All right. Wrong approach.
Prove it or retract.

I don't really know, but I think it goes back to the enlightenment. Compare someone like Rousseau with an Adam Smith. The former wrote things that today we'd identify with the left, and basically said that people were flawed and needed to strive towards a higher ideal, ie his. Smith, on the other hand, had ideas we'd identify with the Republican right, and accepted people as they were. I think there's an inherent tendency in the left to see people who don't agree with them as somehow inferior. *shrug*

That or they're jackasses. In either case, I relish in proving them wrong.

As for academia, people have often said that conservatives aren't welcome because they haven't abandoned unworkable ideas about race and gender. That might have worked 50 years ago, but less so today when we have a black, female, Republican Secretary of State. Besides, leftists haven't abandoned unworkable theories about the way the world works, like Marxism (nearly any political science professor) or their failure to distinguish between philosophy and science (the people who attacked Lawrence Summers).

A little anecdote for kicks:

I worked at a booth at a peace/anti-Bush rally with my school's Arabic club a few months ago. Typical ****, but I kept myself from arguing with anyone because we were there to provide information about the Arab world and not to be political. I printed out a ton of information on Arab news media and culture, and I also offered to sign people's names in Arabic. One of the big themes of the rally was how stupid all the Republicans are and how we were duped into going to war and reelecting Bush. You would expect, then, that the people at the rally would jump at the chance to learn more about the Arab world, right? No. So I'm stuck there listening to these tools drone on about how they're so goddamn intellectually superior while they just giggle like dumbasses when I write their names. They ignored the stuff we printed out and clearly didn't know two ****s about what they were spouting off. But I'm ignorant. lasfdja

You're kidding, right?

In general, our whole gonvernment is corrupt.

Sine: It's even more annoying when you're supposedly on their side. Of course, growing up in Southern Illinois resulted in similar experiences, except with (racist) Republicans. Gives you a keen insight into standard conservative ideology and previously inexplicable quirks of policy when it's filtered through that perspective for you.

IRG: No, I'm not, wonderchild. You're welcome to give it a try.

So... what's this I hear about liberals being open minded? That's hardly what I'd call an intellectual response.

Sometimes a shutup is warranted.

Stupid as what Obi_Kwiet said was, in the face of a response like "shutup" he comes out on top. At least he had something to say

..And he spelled it correctly - shut up is two words. Christ

Why don't you go employ an arab or something, sine.

Shut up.

Make me.

Careful what you wish for!

Is that a threat?

With regard to making Free shut up, or employing an Arab?

If I have to shutup, you have to stop being a fricking grammar nazi.

Um... there are no admins more reasonable than Sine, but sassing him is about the most retarded thing I've ever seen anybody do on this forum.

Seriously. Shut up.

1. DSettahr
2. Brian
3. JG
4. Vincent
5. Brad
6. Det
7. GoY
8. mb
9. blujay

.. to name a few

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

I utterly disagree with Sine on many topics, and his methods of arguing them, but I'd be the first to say that he has no faults as an admin and cussing him up pointlessly makes me angry.

This thread seems to lived past it's useful life. It's just barely struggling along, spreading stupidity and flames.
:banned:

Er... you weren't on Freelancer's list.

I have that same list on my wall... only it's pinned there with a knife.

Ok, despite my desire not to seem like a kiss-arse, I would say that 90% of the names on that list are admins that I've personally seen acting in nothing but an exemplary manner. If I'm truly honest with myself I've known Sine (in the past) to be a bit arrogant.

I don't understand where the laughs are coming from. Maybe I don't spend enough time here to comment.

Meh.

/Resume arguing

Indeed. As I said several pages ago, the problem isn't that conservatives or liberals are ignorant. It's that people in general are ignorant. All they care about is their personal lives and maybe who's gonna win American Idol or how funny that last episode of [insert name of popular sitcom] was. They've never really thought about their political views, and just go along with their friends.

It's Sturgeon's Law: 90% of everything is crap.

And don't forget the corollary: 90% of everybody thinks they're in the 10% that's not crap.

No no no. I'm referring to the fact that you suddenly abandoned your attempt at proving Kuat wrong and retreated to the "prove it or retract" option.

Heh, I suppose because he can't prove me wrong.

Anyway, I should put my money where my mouth is, but it's hard to; it's being in a forest and the guy asks you where the trees are.

I mean, from Davis siphoning funds to buy himself a jet, Clinton's great many scandals (Please, you have to be daft not to know at least Whitewater and the Lincoln incident), LA democrats taking bribes and their sheer ineptitude, why must I go on? There are a plethora of scandals in the government period. Saying that one side is oh-so-much better than the other is insane.

However, let him think what he wants. I could bring any amount of proof, and he would give his exact same speil.

Edit: I have to also add a sticking point; most dems were fairly passive to Bush's plans. In many cases, they are willing participants in the administration's flaws. It seems however that some wish to ignore that. It isn't emperor Bush; the current state of the union is symbolic of the entire system that currently exists. The legislative branch is not a hood ornament. The people who occupy those seats are not there to warm them. Why are they exempt from blame?

Sith: The burden of proof is on him. I have no reason to waste my time opposing a case he still hasn't made.

Kuat: Stop trying to move the goalposts. Throwing up universally known Democratic scandals is not the unique answer you'll need.

What the hell, I'll give you the right answer. There is no way you could prove that "the Democrats are just as corrupt as the Republicans" because the statement is meaningless without strictly defining terms. Thanks for playing. Come back when you want to discuss the relative benefits for voting for one party over the other instead of waxing angsted and reciting platitudes.