No offense, but I hightly doubt your knowledge of communism. Do not use labels that media uses incorrectly without understanding them. Policies that are being adopted at not communistic, nor are they socialistic. They may have some small parallels on some aspects, but that is as far as the similarities go.

You're right, I misread one of your earlier posts.

Regarding all your other posts, however, could you please try to sound less like a parody of conservatism? It makes you really hard to take seriously.

Communism may not be technically correct in reference to the current policy but when you look at the record of the opinions of the Premier and his staff and associates, it is easy to see the incremental shift I believe they plan.

So, reviewing my posts tonight I see the following.

1) I first commented that I find it funny that the most glaring recent examples of major stories being fabricated were networks other than fox.

2) I then commented on Jon'C "news ticker" research and recalled a glaring example of deceptive journalism.

3) I then pointed out that limiting access was not censorship.

4) I then responded to Jon'C about comedy programs, censorship, and sarcastically agreed with his news ticker post.

5) I commented that my recollection of the 2000 election had nothing to do with O'Reilly.

6) I then reiterate that a lack of access is not censorship but then joke that it isn't when "Chairman Obama" does it. The obvious implication is that it would have been considered so had Bush done something similar.

Still, then the personal attacks come after the "Chairman Obama" comment. Of course I have been well integrated into the community here so I know that the proper response is to insult back so I joke about DADT and such.

People need to grow the **** up and stop wearing their feelings on their sleeve. I mean, it wouldn't be so bad if this place was just an anything goes type place but even CM will ban people when his feelings get hurt. This site has long ceased to be a friendly tolerant place. You can openly talk about the gay members of the site liking oral and anal sex in the most vulgar terms as well as post images with obscene and offensive language without even a warning so why in the hell are people banned for some perceived insult?

Ah, crap, I'm getting off my soapbox and going to bed.

Actually, believe it or not, I appreciate this post. There is no reason not to sound like a parody of my beliefs here. So many people have formed such faulty opinions of me from well worded and polite posts that I gave up a long time ago.

Interesting bit of research. Search for my oldest posts on this site. I couldn't even recognize my style of post. I posted in a truly thoughtful and polite manner. I seem to recall the breaking point for me was in the summer of '07. Continuing to post in my then usual manner I was attacked relentlessly. Some admin changed my title to a retard and then when I complained made it an unhappy retard.

I have since tried to relegate this place to its appropriate position. An occasional diversion.

Okay, I have to admit, this made me laugh.

What I still don't understand, though, is why you bother at all. It's obvious that you're quite aware many of the things you're saying are absurd, and that you intend them to be absurd. Why? Is it to get a reaction like you've gotten from Bill? And if so, is this really anything other than trolling?

The only other explanation I can imagine is that you just like seeing your words on a screen. I don't mean that to be mocking or insulting; it's quite literally the only other reason I can think of that you do what you do. It's bewildering, really. What do you get out of self-parody that you wouldn't get out of either sincere participation or no participation at all?

First I will say that I was not trolling. I didn't expect anyone to actually get butt-hurt over a "Chairman Obama" comment. If you look at the many people Obama has appointed to various positions as well as his various opinions on record, taking a shot at the communist similarities should be anticipated rather than shocking.



My point is that a conservative has little reason to participate in a constructive conversation here. I have participated politely and thoughtfully in the past. I have been personally attacked and relegated to retard status.

Even considering that my style of post is usually one that disregards substantiation I would disagree that I post absurd things. Even in this thread I haven't seriously posted anything absurd. Perhaps my jaded manner of post blurs the line between the serious and the sarcastic.

The most recent topics I have posted seriously on concern debt. I fundamentally disagree with the "enlightened" members here that debt is good. I routinely express my thoughts substantiating my opinion but, again, the elite like Jon'C ridicule the opinion as if it is stupid. Now, I have actually learned some things from people like Jon'C and gone back and found flaws in my posts because of the discussion but they are rude and rarely meet me with any consideration let alone respond to a PM to clarify a disagreement.

I enjoy frequenting the site because it is small enough to ensure that discussions stay few enough and lively enough that you don't have to scroll through pages each day. The older and more mature members here know me and probably remember some of my personality from a decade ago. Actually, when I do email or PM some of the older guys it's pretty neat. I don't want to out any of them as having any tolerance of me. That wouldn't be fair.

I actually intended to go further with this discussion but why bother? Doing so seems like putting Massassi on a pedestal of the past and going back on my general philosophy of not taking this place too serious.

Wookie, my problem with you is that you seem to think that all of us "enlightened" lefties are going to take everybody's potatoes, pretend to share them with everybody, but then in reality post them to Obama so he can make a massive spanish ommelette for his freaky dog.

Yes, I believe in the Welfare State (despite its many and obvious flaws), but I am also a NORMAL human being, not a bloodthirsty communist. There IS a middle ground.

EDIT (since leaving home and arriving at office)

I suppose what I'm getting at is that Conservative views are hunky dory by and large by me, but I draw the line at folk saying "you know what, I quite like news that can be categorised as "gay-bashing"". Welfare and Health - your opinion is welcome, valid and important. I believe welfare is the better system, you believe not: fine. Intolerance on the other hand is something best left in the past, and let's face it - turds like Glenn Beck are bigoted dinosaurs of a best forgotten era.

OMG. I go away for a day and come back to see you've filled the thread with 2-3 pages to read. UGH. Now I have to REAAAD.

Ok, before the conversation turned into an interesting yet long story of Wookie's posting history, I gather that Antony is offended by Obama being called Chairman? Glorious Leader? I don't understand why. The Obama administration has put so many anti free market people in high positions of power and influence, with an ongoing quest of nationalizing every single industry and major company of America, and yet nobody speaks out against it. As if the government has a perfect, or excellent, or good, or average, or normal of managing it's own assets. Now it wants to manage the American health, economy, and industry?

Why does the government want to control so much? I don't get how this could benefit me. Unless the government is trying to become the world's largest stock owner, I don't see any other purpose other than transitioning to a communist system.

Because left wing governments have a tendency to meddle, and right wing ones tend to leave people to it.

There is a difference between bailing out a company deemed important to the economy and nationalisation.

There is a difference between a welfare state and communism.

Also, the end result of extreme communism and extreme capitalism is the same - you end up with one organisation controlling everything. You'll find that most liberals are liberal with regards to morality and society, and fairly central regarding finance and government.. I think healthcare and infrastructure (transport networks, telecoms etc) are the biggest areas where liberals feel the government should be involved, primarily because a) they are, or are becoming, essential, b) they trust big companies even less than they trust the government to deal with these things.

Summary: your average liberal does not want a communist state.

I personally prefer my potato analogy, but Detty is bang on.

Hah

oh no, Obama is after SF_Gold's booming travel services.

I think it's cute how personally offended Antony is.

To answer the original question- The topic has now been discussed. It's agreed that some people hate Obama, and some people hate Fox news. Good job.

Good for you. Seriously.

Take microeconomics, low level sociology and literary criticism. You won't stop being a conservative but you will probably figure out fairly quickly that what you call 'conservative' isn't.

Thought this was funny in light of earlier conversation:

"Rush Limbaugh, shall we say, does not have the most subtle approach to racial issues. But the quote being bandied about where he says that slavery "had its merits"*is by all appearances fabricated, lifted from an unsupported Wikiquote citation. There’s no evidence that he really said such a thing. CNN’s Rick Sanchez, who used the quote, issued a retraction, saying that he "should not have reported it."

Glad to see CNN is performing up to the journalistic standards set by Fox! Wikiquote? I mean c'mon

I wonder if Gold noticed the Fox news ticker thing at all.

That's good and all, and I completely agree, but if they had some better standard than Fox they wouldn't of even done it in the first place. I find it unacceptable regardless of whether they apologize to use a ****in' WIKIQUOTE (and an unverified one at that). I'm still knocking the same points off, and I still stand by that the other media outlets are just as bad.

Just because they apologize doesn't make it okay, at least that's the way I look at it. If they were sorry, it wouldn't happen again, but it does.

I suppose the difference being levelled is that CNN made a retarded mistake, wheras Fox wilfully lies.

But that's total devil's advocacy there.

Well there's really two parts of this;
1) Wikiquotes
2) They didn't take the time to verify it.

The second point falls on the media in general, the same thing happened last month with the Coast Guard exercises on 9/11. CNN jumped the gun and started reporting shots fired because they were going off of radio transmission and didn't take enough steps to verify what was actually going on.

You do realize that complaining about this is only going to make me stricter, right? So you can either get over it already, or go elsewhere.

Stop making things up.



Sanchez's show is commentary, not reporting. Not that that excuses the error, but the defense of Fox seems to be that while their commentary programs obviously have a right-wing bias, their reporting is as good and unbiased as anyone's. If commentary gets brought into the discussion, Sanchez's use of a fabricated quotation pales in comparison to the bad journalism we've seen from Fox pundits.

As opposed to talking about the straight members of Massassi liking anal and oral, which wouldn't bother you...?

Not to be on the wrong side of the argument (SF_Gold's side, of course), but that's not made up. Perhaps it may be an exaggeration, but it's not "made up". Obama surrounds himself with people who have a proven extreme-left-wing stance, and he is certainly for putting many industries under government control. That is hardly a secret, and it's definitely not "made up". It's just a matter of whether or not you like it.

No. "An ongoing quest of nationalizing every single industry and major company of America" is not just an exaggeration of what Obama's already done, it's a statement about what he intends to do, and it's a ridiculous invention.

INTERNET. SERIOUS BUSINESS.

Summary of Thread :

- Wookie is not a conservative.
- Obama is not a communist.
- But Obama is not a consvervative, either.
- Joncy has too much time on his hands.
- Goldie is a moron.
- Cool Matty hates fun.

Gold threads are always like this

A million times this. AFAIK the US government has some stake in a couple of corporations in two industries: finance and automobiles. They certainly don't own anything outright, and the corporations they've loaned money to definitely don't constitute the entirety of their industry.

I'm not going to excuse investment in the car companies because I think the car companies are awful and should have been put down. The financial sector is important, though, and I'm being totally serious when I say that anything the US government is doing to control the financial sector is to save them from themselves.

bahaha, I wish. I just type at 130 WPM and have a photographic memory.

What's that? You're a web-crawler bot that tries to fake intelligence by combining snippets from dozens of blogs but ends up just quoting wikipedia instead? Got it.

How's your indoor lawn going?

News is sloppy when your major concern is raising the number of eyes per dollar spent.

Pretty good actually. On iteration five now. Think I've got most of the problems with drainage sorted out, but it still requires much more maintenance than I'd like, and I still wouldn't install it over anything but a concrete floor. It stays a lot greener now too, since I switched to a shade species.

Just out of curiousity, are the repeated comments by various people that I'm not conservative meant to offend me or something? Kind of like calling me a Republican or a Fox News viewer? Well, at least it is accurate to call me the latter two but to say I'm not conservative is inaccurate. Maybe it's just the new try-to-get-under-wookie06's-skin tactic. If anyone seriously believes it I would guess that their opinion is that I'm not smart enough to actually have conservative philosophy to reach my conservative view on each issue and instead simply form the opinion that Rush Limbaugh tells me to have.

Whatever.

Why did you revive it.

I dunno, I don't get it either.

This thread is full of hurrrr though, on both sides.

I don't know why they would say you're not a conservative.

Me neither.