If your considering copy and pasting your latest drive by spam here because you cant find any other place.
DONT!
Oprano has a ZERO tolerance policy for spam. Yours WILL be deleted. If you are looking for more exposure for your product please contact advertising@oprano.com for more information.
Legacy Archived Main BoardBusiness chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here.
I've seen no difference between Republicans or Democrats as far as intellect, wisdom, kindness or any other positive human quality.
--------------
You see no difference between Pat Robertson, David Duke, your average book-burning, nigger-hating, church-going, flag-waving republican and a typical democrat? I see a BIG difference. I don't know how you're missing it.
Flag waving became wrong when it was co-opted by Republicans who think they're part of a new species called homo superiorus because they had the dumb luck to be born in this country, and if we don't share (or pretend to share) in their simple minded fascistic ethnocentrism we're traitors who can get the fuck out of THEIR country.
The reason I'm entirely against the Republican Party is because I think that, at this time, we're in the 'good little German' phase. 50 years from now we're going to be looking back on Shrub the way we look back on Joe McCarthy, and I want to be on record saying I hated the bastard when he was in his height of power.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 05:41 AM You see no difference between Pat Robertson, David Duke, your average book-burning, nigger-hating, church-going, flag-waving republican and a typical democrat? I see a BIG difference. I don't know how you're missing it.
Yes, I see a big difference between Pat Robertson and the typical Democrat. I also see a big difference between Senator Byrd and the typical Republican. Like you, when I compare the extremes to the typical I see differences.
What kind of bizarre comparison shell game are you trying to play?
Do you ignore mirrors? What are you afraid of?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 05:41 AM Flag waving became wrong when it was co-opted by Republicans who think they're part of a new species called homo superiorus because they had the dumb luck to be born in this country, and if we don't share (or pretend to share) in their simple minded fascistic ethnocentrism we're traitors who can get the fuck out of THEIR country.
What else would you be willing to surrender just because you'd be afraid of being caught agreeing with the "Evil Republicans". Is the Politburo cracking down?
The "German phase". Right. Kaiser Clinton then Kaiser Bush. The Senatestag. Too funny. What next? The Afrikan Corps? The Weimar Constitution didn't even last two decades. The American Constitution is going strong after more than 200 years. What's the difference?
History is tricky.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
why do you insist on ignoring the fact that the type of Republican I'm talking about is completely in control of their party?
and exactly what do you mean by Senator Byrd being different than the average Republican? Of course he is, he hasn't proposed any police state legislation or compared getting a blowjob to having man on dog sex. You're not going to get much mileage out of trying to use Byrd as a straw man, bro, his record has been pretty good the last 40 years or so and he's no extremist of any stripe, but the fact that you're reaching out so desperately is indicitave of how badly you're trying to win an argument.
I'm not trying to argue. I'm saying that the Republican Party is a great danger to our civil liberties internally and our international status externally. I'm not trying to score points. How do you argue against the fact that Republicans want to teach creationism in schools? How do you defend that? Why would you even want to? How can you not see deadly evil when they parade it in front of your face every chance they get?
I'm not making this shit up. The extremists in the Republican Party OWN the party, therefore they are no longer extremists, they are mainstream Republicans. A Republican vote is a vote for them. This is no shell game, these are dangerous people.
I have no love for Democrats just because they're democrats. I HATE Joe Leibermann and Tipper Gore, but it's not the Democrats who are making a comfortable home for Santorum, Gingrich, Limbaugh, Robertson and every other slimeball who ducked out of Vietnam but wants to send the children of poor people off to a pointless war or who rails about family values and wholesome morality when they're on their third divorce. Hypocrites and chicken hawks. Why would you, a self-professed narcotic using, open minded, non-religious pornographer, want to fight so fiercely for people who would happily see you lined up against a wall and shot like a dog? They HATE you man, just as bad as they hate me. The Republican Party thinks you're filth and they're not afraid to say it publically.
There is a slice off the top of the Republican Party who believes that Repubs will lower their taxes and that's all they allow themselves to think about. They think the Gary Bauers and Pat Robertsons will just go away or the democrats will take care of them or they couldn't possibly mean what they say anyway, but they do bro, they mean every word of it. It's because of the votes of the economic Republicans that the Morality Republicans are so powerful, and they're just about too powerful to get rid of now. What's it going to take to convince you? Kristalnacht in Los Angeles? A Chinese nuke in NY? A nationwide ban on Un-American art and literature? It's going to be too late by then...
This thread has gone on too long for me and if nothing I say has made an impression on you yet it's not going to, so I'm going to give it up. I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you're allowing yourself to be misled when I know that you're intelligent enough to see thru it if you cared to, but I can't penetrate that shell.
I don't think Colin is trying to defend Republicans the way you describe Dig. Clearly, your belief that he is has your G-string well up your crack and you just ignore the point he is maing and go right back into your tirade.
You wear your heart on your sleeve and instead of having a debate or exchange of opinion, you take everything TOO serious and are hell bent on trying to "enlighten" everyone else to your line of thinking -- clearly with the attitude that your ideas are the only valid ones.
What exactly are you doing in life with all this "understanding" to better position yourself? To make your area a better place. To help?
How exactly are you taking advantage of your infinite wisdom besides passionately bashing conservatives and supporting liberals??
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM How do you argue against the fact that Republicans want to teach creationism in schools? How do you defend that? Why would you even want to?
I don't, Dig. I don't think we should teach Creationism in our schools. Where do you get this from? I have absolutely no interest at all in Creationism ending up anywhere but the "ash heap of history".
You ARE trying to win a debate. You want to point out the good of the Democratic party and ignore anything bad about it. You want to point out the bad of the Republican party and ignore the good. You search not for knowledge but for points. Go ahead. I don't care. I understand where you are coming from. You've replaced on flag with another. Saluting that Democratic Party flag is different that saluting the American one, right?
Not only are there Democrats and Republicans, there is a Libertarian Party, a Constitution Party, The Green Party, The Natural Law Party, A Reform Party, and many others. There's even a Socialist Party in the good old US of A. Not everyone can fit neatly into two simple categories. You can't fit a square peg into a round hole without really mashing it, ya know?
Last edited by Colin at Apr 29 2003, 07:34 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM Why would you, a self-professed narcotic using, open minded, non-religious pornographer, want to fight so fiercely for people who would happily see you lined up against a wall and shot like a dog? T
I believe in ideas and policies which coincidentally may be believed by Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Socialists [they are in favor of cat-spaying. Me too.], Constitutionalists, Reformists, and any other groups of "isms", "ists", and "ats". Doesn't matter at all to me who believes them and who doesn't, Dig. I don't expect that it is likely that a large group of people can form a platform with principles that I completely believe in.
Drug-free now BTW. Just for the record.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 29 2003, 07:01 AM I don't think you're a bad person, I just think you're allowing yourself to be misled when I know that you're intelligent enough to see thru it if you cared to, but I can't penetrate that shell.
Yeah, I know. Your beliefs are right. Mine are wrong. You're intelligent. I'm misled. You're independent. I'm a sheep. You can predict the future. I can't. You draw the correct lessons from history. I draw the incorrect ones. Your eyes are wide-open. Mine are closed. You learn. I'm propagandized. You defend the truth. I defend the indefensible. You report. They distort.
Fun game. What's it called?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
"Man, most political debates are just sad to see anymore. Most everyone seems to draw up lines in the sand siding up with either Liberals ™ or Conservatives ® rather than simply formulating their own opinions on different issues. Any opinions given are degraded for the mere fact of either being in agreement with government policy or critical of government policy, despite the fact that both play an important role in continuously striving for a better government. Any disagreement with one's own opinion is immediately considered to be wrong, rather than just being a differing opinion. Its like watching a retarded vegetarian argue with a retarded carnivore about what kind of pizza to order."
A. I want to be able to say anything I want but I'd like to be able to say "shut up" to people every once in a while and them have to honor my request.
B. I want to own a gun but I don't want you to be able to own one.
C. I want to be free from search and seizure but I'd like to be able to enter your house whenever I wish and take whatever I want.
D. I think slavery is wrong but I have no problem if anyone wants to follow me around and do shit for free. Actually, I wouldn't mind if everyone in the world had to do exactly as I said. Sounds like it would kind of fun for a while.
E. I think the seatbelt laws are an affront to human dignity. If one doesn't have the freedom to not wear a seatbelt, what freedom does one really have?
Now, since I can't have those things I guess I'll have to compromise.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
I gave up arguing politics with Dig many moons ago, as he has demonstrated an amazing incapacity to understand what his opponent is saying.
__________________
Do you have money sitting in the bank making nothing? I will give you 15% annual returns GUARANTEED by contract. Your money is returned within 90-120 days. 100k minimum investment - All slots currently filled - check back later
This is funny stuff, dig is consumed by hatred.... I think he is brainwashed...
No use in debating him on these issues, he is one of those people who Serge says are POSTERS, NOT READERS.
__________________
Make big money on your Domains! Why wait 40 days to get paid with the other guys? Parked.com pays the most for your traffic, and cuts checks twice a month!
Originally posted by Diamond Jim@Apr 29 2003, 12:53 PM I gave up arguing politics with Dig many moons ago, as he has demonstrated an amazing incapacity to understand what his opponent is saying.
Jim,
How do you always show up when these conversations appear? <_<
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Mike, on what do you base your comment that Dig is consumed by hatred? It sounds very much like a canned line you borrowed from somebody. It's a pretty lame-assed assertion - it would be very easy to build a credible arguement about any side of the political spectrum being haters. To listen to American conservatives wail about the discrimination of affirmative action, the oppression of income taxes and restrictive environmental laws, criticism of welfare programs, yada yada yada, you would think they hate America too.
Just out of curiousity, does anyone know who started using that tactic - describing people who don't fart in tune with the RNC and the Bush Administration as haters? Was it one of the speechwriters who pull the strings and make Bush and Cheney talk, or some obnoxious moron like Ann Coulter? It has to have been by somebody promininent on the right. You are about the third or fourth bobble-head for Bush I've seen use that line, on me or on someone else - so I'm assuming it's right out of a playbook someplace.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
i dont think its a stretch to say that dig is a little bitter and angry considering that he himself said more than once in this thread alone "i hate....." in addition to what seem to be some pretty consistent, bitter remarks combined with a flat out refusal to accept or consider opposing viewpoints. the tone when he talks about anything political is usually pretty consistent.
i personally dont have a problem with it. i dont think its a healthy behavior for an individual, but i think its healthy and necessary to the political system as a whole.
you are starting to do the same thing by abandoning discussion and retreating behind your comfortable party line where you know you can always fire back. who is "describing people who don't fart in tune with the RNC and the Bush Administration as haters" as you put it? Was Mike commenting on Dig's party affiliation? or his remarks about other peoples views?
I don't find dig's tone or attitude substantially different from others who participate in political discussions on Oprano, except of course he's coming from the left. His "flat out refusal to accept or consider opposing viewpoints" does not make him unique either.
I think dig's description of the good democrats/bad republicans is sophmoroic and simplistic in the extreme. I don't find dig's arguements that one party is right and another wrong, evil, or immoral any more or less fundamentally flawed than the idea that liberals believe in a foreign ideaology, for example.
When a person makes the statement that there is no point in debating someone because "he is brainwashed", it is obvious that "abandoning discussion and retreating behind [a] comfortable party line" started before I jumped in.
The question about who first started using the hater line was sincere, BTW.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Dig, it's all about marketing and positioning and you know it.
A Democrat will point to McCarthyism but ignore Senator McCarran's Act of the same era.
A Democrat will point to a few examples of racism against African-Americans and turn that into
"The Republican Party is racist"
A Republican will point to a few examples of anti-semitism in the Democratic party and turn it into "The Democratic Part is anti-jewish"
A Republican will point to a white lie told by a Democratic president and turn it into "Bill Clinton is an untrustworthy devil".
Coca Cola, Gillette, and McDonald's tell you their good qualities but not their bad. They don't run any ads telling you about cutting yourself or cholesterol and fat.
It's marketing and everyone is doing it and the political parties are certainly no exception. The Republican Party is not an exception. The Democratic Party is not an exception.
It's all about story-telling. You can tell the story anyway you wish. You can say "Bill Clinton balanced the budget" or you can say "The budget was a comprise. The Republicans actually wanted to cut spending more but had to make a deal to get it passed".
You can say "Clinton balanced the budget" or you can say "the US debt increased nearly 2 trillion dollars under Clinton".
You can say "Reagan and Bush ended the Cold War" or you can say "The USSR would have collapsed anyway".
You can say "We won the war in Afghanistan" or you can say "We didn't win. Osama Bin Laden is still out there" or you can say "Thre are still Taliban out there and we'll never if they won't retake control".
Marketing a political party is very easy to do. Since there are three branches of government, one can blame or credit one of them in the story-telling and not the other. If there is a Republican President and a Democratic Congress, the president can be blamed for legislation gone awry as can the congress. Do we blame the GOP for the Patriot Act and ignore the 70% of the Democrats that voted for it too? Do we blame or credit the originator of a bill, the people that voted of it, or the president that signed it? Should we use the same criteria in all evaluations? It seems to me that in political debates the criteria is always changed to fit the circumstance and there is no neutral mark that is ever used. Hell, seems to me that the criteria is usually manufactured on the spot.
Are we interested in truth or are we interested in telling stories?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
"I don't find dig's tone or attitude substantially different from others who participate in political discussions on Oprano, except of course he's coming from the left."
And, of course, that is exactly why you would defend him by totally ignoring his own statements...
It IS the current nature of the Left to not only hate; but to foment hate by any means that works, including outright lies. Dig is an America-hater. He can't change that because he cannot see it. He is a consummate kool-ade drinker.
There's a fundamental problem to begin with. Any situation is too complex to describe it completely. Any event that hits our radar screens as a 'political event' has a long chain of preceding causes and other related events that would take longer to describe than the actual event itself. So we abridge the story. We summarize. How we choose to summarize both in the discussions we have and in our own internal thought scheme is quite interesting. We all come from different places, have different interests, and have different goals. A huge influence on our story-telling.
I just want to know what happened. I try and discover what the chains of cause and effect are with as little bias as possible - as doomed to failure as that inevitably is. What are the sources of bias? How can we filter them out? This is why I've tried to get outside and abandon political parties. Of course, it's silly. One just ends up with new biases to contend with.
I think one's world-view is testable to an extent by the ability to make predictions about the world. Failed predictions should cause one to question either the original assumptions or the logic of what caused it. The philosophy of modern science [Karl Popper is good for anyone not familiar with him] is that one should make testable predictions from one's hypotheses. We are all often doing this. Each of these political discussions seem to have a lot of predictions. Why? I suppose everyone has their own reasons. Being right is fun, of course. For me, it's a science-thing. A test of one's world view. Am I right? Am I wrong? If I'm wrong, what didn't and I know and what can I learn from it?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by JR@May 1 2003, 08:04 AM how American is it to accuse everyone that does not agree with you of being an "american hater" or "communist" or "a traitor"
Yeah, you gotta bring the witch-hunt to a non-American.
I know that you do not believe this because you are either Leftist or over-tolerant because of some deep-seated guilt; but when someone makes the sort of statements Dig does as a matter of routine, they sure as hell can't be called patriotic; and in my personal opinion, those statements denote a hatred of the very roots (capitalism) that this country runs on. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, he hates this country. Logically, that makes him an Anti-American and an America-hater.
Are Conservatives allowed to have an opinion and freedom of expression; or are those things reserved for the Leftist 'intellectual elite'?
Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 08:23 AM when someone makes the sort of statements Dig does as a matter of routine, they sure as hell can't be called patriotic; and in my personal opinion, those statements denote a hatred of the very roots (capitalism) that this country runs on. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, he hates this country. Logically, that makes him an Anti-American and an America-hater.
Where has Dig said anything against capitalism though? He owns a business. He employs people. He works hard. Pretty capitalistic if you ask me.
I agree with JR and I see Dig as Patriotic because he acts it. He talks about Republicans "messing up the country" and he doesn't want to see that. Now, he overreacts for my personal tastes and I disagree with his assessment that the end is coming anytime soon but in the end, to each their own.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by Torone@May 1 2003, 05:23 AM I know that you do not believe this because you are either Leftist or over-tolerant because of some deep-seated guilt; but when someone makes the sort of statements Dig does as a matter of routine, they sure as hell can't be called patriotic; and in my personal opinion, those statements denote a hatred of the very roots (capitalism) that this country runs on. Therefore, IN MY OPINION, he hates this country. Logically, that makes him an Anti-American and an America-hater.
torone... lets start again.
i am on your side.
i made you a webpage.
please let me know what you think
Airing our grievances and engaging in political debate are the very spirit of patriotism and the foundation of American life. Of course there will always be people who take things to the extreme, or stick to the party line of their choice; and then there are a whole bunch of people who fall somewhere in the middle. Since it's generally the extremists who are most vocal (and usually make statements and points worthy of argument), it seems like there are only two choices -- but that's not really the way things are. There are shades of gray and the result of debate is that we hopefully end up with some sort of compromise that puts us in that gray area. The people on either end of the spectrum probably end up unhappy with the result, but that end is likely to satisfy the most people (who're more middle of the road).
I disagree with, and even despise, much of the ideology ascribed to the Right; but I can't imagine calling anyone who DOES subscribe to that ideology "unpatriotic" or an "America-hater." I cannot fathom how those people who want to see America declared officially a Christian nation, or would squelch the right of free speech of those whose ideas are contrary to their own can possibly maintain that they're upholding the American way, but I'd never call them unpatriotic. Deluded, perhaps, but not unpatriotic.
US history holds many stories of people who have been imprisoned and even died for exercising their right to disagree with public policy, and I personally feel it is a denigration to their memories to move toward an America where a person has to feel threatened for daring to voice their opposition to the way things are, or they way they feel things are going.
Our country and our system aren't perfect, that's for sure. But I certainly wouldn't want to live anywhere else. We have the right, and I'd go so far as to say even the duty, to argue against those things we don't like and have them changed.
04-29-2003
h34r:
Linear Mode
