http://www.somethingawful.com/d/most-awful/most-awful-minorities.php?page=8

Isn't this coming from the guy that predicted that the Republicans would retain majority control of Congress in 2006?

This election should only have happened in a serialized comedy.

Black Dude.
White Lady.
Guy who twitches when you turn the water faucet on too hight.
GUY ENDORSED BY CHUCK NORRIS
Drama.
Crying on camera.
Making up Stories.
and so much more...

See on their own all of these things are par for the course. But so many things are happening together during this election.

I don't believe I made a prediction along those lines. Didn't surprise me that they failed to maintain congress since they failed to deliver to their constituents.

Wookie, can you please list one problem with Obama? A pointed, logical argument that isn't based around your no-fair attitude (which yes, is very neocon/reverse-liberal)? It's got to be a logical reasoning why he'd be a bad president for our country. Citing that he wants the black vote will not cut my question. You have to give me a reason most reasonable people would agree on regardless of their politics.

I'm willing to bet you can't. You're bashing one of the brightest minds looking for office, and I can't even fathom where half of your complaints come from? You'd rather have Clinton?

Wow, confirmation that my theory of the United States elections is pretty much a joke now.

You didn't know that Huckabee had Norris' endorsement?

uhh, yeah, that was on digg like a year ago

I would rather have Clinton than Obama but I would rather have a dentist drill my teeth with out numbing before I had either one of them as President. I don't see where you get the "no fair" attitude. Maybe you could explain why you think so.

And, no, I'm not going to list any logical arguments for why I, as a Conservative, believe an unqualified liberal senator would be a bad president. The policy differences between the two ideologies are surely quite understood by you so I don't know why you would want a conservative to explain what he would not like about a liberal. But he does sound good reading speaches so apparantly that should count for something.

Translation: I'm a tool of Ann Coulter and FOX NEWS

To be fair, a lot of the neoconservative blogs he reads are only ghost-written by coulter

Unqualified?

I'd like that one to be quantified based on a metric other than how many years of experience he has. Because, and this is quite an important (and correct) point, years of experience means bugger all.

Read: "I don't have any. Or rather, they exist but I don't understand them. I do, however, understand the views I'm supposed to be able to regurgitate and the unnecessary hyperbole that goes along with being 'Conservative'!"

Seriously, Wookie, all the time we see you engaging in tidbits of dialogue that really amount to nothing more than slander. You have a fairly absurd worldview, and I for a long time I figured you had a fascinating and insightful take on history and politics and you simply didn't have the time to express it on an internet forum (or enough respect to humour the forumites with it. let's face it, they are pretty much all idiots. don't worry, this stuff is in brackets so they can't read it).
Now, I'm beginning to understand that you're just.. well, stupid.

I really wish I was Conservative, being right-wing is really easy. You don't really need any sort of understanding of history, economics, philosophy or political theory. You just need to learn and remember a set of talking points and constantly regurgitate them as loud as possible.
When asked to explain these talking points, you simply hark back to some fictional moment in history when all was perfect and invent some fictional enemy that hates this fantasy world.

When you begin to read any sort of political theory, you understand that these simple concepts of 'free market! yay!' simply do not work. Regulation, taxation, trade barriers, they all have a complex relationship that form a market that works (just about) but most certainly isn't 'free'. The only countries that even have a 'free market' are those that have it forced upon them.

Socialists actually have to understand the exchange between labour and relations of production. There's a reason why a three-year University course of politics will involve Karl Marx so much. It's really difficult stuff! Marxism is complicated. (And the works of Karl Marx were vast and comprehensive, and Marxist theory is essential for any practical understanding of economics).

So really, I don't blame you for being 'Conservative'. It's a lot simpler. But you, Wookie, you're not even very good at conservatism. And that's saying a lot.

I don't read "blogs". I wouldn't even know where to go to find one other than search google for neocon blogs. The whole neocon phenomenon is incredible to me. It seems that if you don't espouse venomous hatred towards W then you're a neocon. I love the fact that so many of you love calling me a neocon. My opinion of neocons is that they either fall into two groups. Better than average Democrats and sub-standard Republicans. Either way, neocons are too liberal for my taste.



I tend to humor your posts here but I am not interested in any criticism of yours of me think may be valid. I will never forget your statements of support for the 9/11 attacks against my country or, rather, that you stated the only reason you didn't support them was the inevitable military response from the US they provoked.



He has plenty of experience in government which is completely irrelevant to being President. In fact, I don't think he has done anything substantive in the private sector. At least not from listening to what he cites as the things he has done. The President is an executive position and, generally, for me to consider one qualified for the position they should have CEO, mayoral, or gubernatorial experience. Reading speeches well doesn't cut it for me.

another reason why i miss having Huckabee in there, everyone running has a background in backroom dealing to get votes instead of being in a position to give the Legislature the finger with a veto

First, how I don't know where you get off assuming that the average liberal voter isn't just as bad. There are smart people who are both conservative and liberal, but they are not the ones who are defined by republican/democrat party lines. Taking the average retarded condensation of "conservative" and applying it to all people who fall with in the catagory of conservative is grossly hypocritical.

I'd have to agree.

e-blaggopolisphere

You're a neoconservative because actual conservatives are horrified at what Bush has done and actually understand things like "math" and "how screwed America's economy is and why it's the (almost entirely neocon) republican party's fault."

I'm a conservative. You're just scared of change.

It's hilarious how Mort's whole post was about how you don't have a ****ing clue and you gloss over it with an ad hominem. Get lost.

I don't know when conservativism became associated with regressionism but it's not. Conservativism is to anal retentivism as liberalism is to anal explusivism. One way or another, you're still taking a crap - it's just that conservativism will take a lot longer to get there and you're probably going to have less of a mess when you're finished. :p

Well, I know I could search google if I had any serious need to find blogs. I don't have any that I visit. Ever.



I do realize that you are the resident internet bully here so I don't take your attacks very seriously. I guess because I don't rampantly complain about the things I don't like that Bush has done, I'm all of the sudden a Neocon. I like the conservative things Bush has done and only prefer him to the liberals he defeated for the presidency with regards to the things I disagree with him on. As bad as Neocons are, liberals are going to bring about the downfall of this country.

I am scared of change. I would prefer America maintain it's conservative roots rather than continue to shift left, which neocons selectively do.



I didn't even read his post beyond his opening insults to me. I hold no opinion of his, with regard to real world matters, in any regard at all. While I could agree with him on any number of things such as what video game is good or what TV looks best, I will never have any respect for him unless he were to substantively renounce his previous statement.

Hooray, another generic talking point! Bring absolutely everything back to 9/11, so you can casually ignore everything else! I see you've been going to the Giuliani school of debating.



Oh I get it, you don't need logic or rational debate because you have emotions (and grudges) which are invariably superior to any sort of reasoning. Couple this with previous relate-everything-to-911 tactic and you have a winning combination! I wish I had it this easy.

Edit: To be perfectly honest, I have no real recollection of what you're talking about. You can hunt down the thread and quote what I said way-back-when (these forums have a fairly impressive backlog of thread history) and I can elaborate. I know you have a tendency to misunderstand things. Alternately, you can act like a real person and actually engage in rational debate. You know, argue against the argument not the person. I think we (and everyone) has 'debated' the 911 issue more than enough, to the point where a terrible tradgedy is reduced to an annoying conservative talking point.
That said, for three days after the World Trade Centre attacks all air traffic in the US was halted. During these three days, temperature variation increased by 3 degrees and led to more cirrus clouds forming. Cirrus clouds are quite pretty, so you can add this to the list of reasons why 9/11 was a good thing.


...





...

America doesn't have conservative roots. America was founded as one of the most liberal countries in the world, that was sort of the whole point. America doesn't have a monarchy or a religious oligarchy or any sort of 'roots' to 'maintain'. The only thing America can do is change because there is (deliberately) no institution to prevent it.

A vote for McCain is a vote for Bush's third term.

I really can't see him winning, especially if Obama wins the primary.

When America was founded, homosexuality was strictly illegal, slavery was legal and a pillar of our economy, only male land owners could vote/hold office and we did not consider the natives capable of owning their land. Need I go on? You can quote idealist slave owners all you want; when our country began, we had a long ways to go before we could be considered lunatic fringe conservative, and they sure as hell didn't get the average man (or politician for that matter) to fight by rallying them around the finer points of Jefferson or Franklin's progressive societal ideals.

Actually, the way you put some of that would reinforce Mort's wrongly held opinion that America doesn't have conservative roots.

Slavery had nothing to do with conservatism but it was a global "industry" and one that conservatives rightly put an end to (as well as further advance civil rights to the point that democrats could somehow claim they are the party of civil rights) and many natives didn't conceptualize land ownership.

I was just talking about his assertion that it was founded as a liberal country and went conservative.

Liberal and conservative as we know it did not exist back then.

You're all mixing up words. America was founded on LIBERTARIAN roots, which is classical conservative. Modern conservatives are closer to classical liberals, and modern liberals are closer to classic socialists.

Either way, America is moving away from it's roots if it goes in either direction. While I think the man is crazy, if you want America to stay "on course" with its original intentions, Ron Paul would be an ideal candidate, not John McCain or any other republican candidate.

But the truth of the matter is that libertarianism doesn't work in a world of nuclear warfare, fixed world markets, and evil leadership. Moderate checks and balances between a two party system, democratic and republican, can ensure the most equal, non-volatile state.

Also: Wookie, you need to stop posting in these thread, since you haven't actually made an argument and debated it for 20+ threads. We've asked you at least 4 times in this thread to support your arguments, and you haven't. You're an arrogant soap-boxer with little more than entitlement backing your arguments up. Stop breathing my democratic air and move to a country that still has slavery so you can live comfortably.

You make me chuckle. I don't explain myself to you people because I feel no need to. I personally extend to you the opportunity to ask me anything you want through the PM system here where I will engage you in a 1 on 1 basis. Not in the open forums. I tired of that long ago.

If you feel no need to explain yourself, then it is clear you are incapable of truly understanding or examining your own beliefs.

No, it is more that I tired many years ago of substantive debates on the internet in relatively juvenile forums such as these. I am perfectly able of explaining my opinions and deeply held conservative values. It's simply a waste of time to do so here.

You probably got asked difficult questions that shook your values, so you decided to turn away and close your eyes and hope real hard that the gays went away.

Don't be silly. The Republicans were the liberal party when they ended slavery.

Also, this means you just shouldn't post. If you're willing to make idiotic claims (and trust me, if you held them up to the light, you'd see it too) but not back them up or allow them to be discerned, you're contributing nothing to the thread but your ideology. Thus, you're just as bad as a fundie.

Reality: In all public discourse you look like an incompetent tool, but you can always deny a private discussion later!

And you wonder why he doesn't want to have much to do with any ind of political debate. Of course it has nothing to do with childish responses like yours or the fact that just about anyone with any kind of conservative leanings is attacked because they aren't liberals.

i wodnt vote 4 hilary cuz hes a negro:cool:

Isn't Wookie the guy who said he would be glad if 'good old racism' kicked in so Obama wouldn't be elected? Enough said.

(Which makes me wonder, suppose there was a black candidate Wookie would support, would he still be glad if 'good old' racism kicked in?)

WTF? It's possible to be a conservative on here without getting flamed. Jon`C is generally well respected here, backs up his arguments and self-identifies as a conservative. Even obi_kwiet, when he takes the time to explain a position and isn't getting wound up by Rob is generally treated well. And in obi's case he carries baggage from evolution threads and religious threads of the past.

Wookie contributes nothing to this thread despite creating it! He wants political discussion then refuses to elabourate on any of his points. Where is the discussion in that? And why should he or anyone be surprised when there is skepticism as to how well founded his beliefs/points are when he goes "ner ner ner, I'm not telling or explaining, you's all dumbs"?
He thinks it's a waste of time explaining his views here, so why does he bother posting them if they're not up for discussion in a general political discussion thread!?

Yeah, I'm failing to see how your point doesn't make sense the other way around, Avenger. Every single person that "bashes" wookie, at one point, gave him a chance to prove he's not drooling. He's only reinforced the notion that he is incapable of comprehending basic grade level arguments, and will, time and time again, retort with talking points he learned on Fox or Ann's new book. The identification with a racist alone should be enough for you to see why we don't back-slap and jostle around. He's a frightening person when it comes to politics; and it's not because he's a "conservative." It's because he's a soap-boxing ideologist that can vote.

The post you're referring to is where I said that if Obama is the nominee then hopefully good ole racism and islamophobia will help defeat him. I didn't add any little smilies to imply sarcasm so I was obviously quite serious. In a follow up post, I believe I said something along the lines of those not being good reasons to vote against somebody but that I wouldn't argue if it got the result I wanted.

I could easily support a conservative black candidate. Race is a non-issue for me.

This. I was really talking about the state of the society, but I forgot to mention the intellectual forces behind the revolution as well.

I'm not playing, but this concept struck me as hilarious. I mean, Wookiee *started* this thread.