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.
Split the US in half by some fair method [one side splits, the other side chooses].
All the Democrats move to one side of the country. Let's call it Lefistan.
All the Republicans move to the other side of the country. Let's call it Rightistan.
Abolish the two party system. All other aspects of government stay the same.
How different would the Leftistan and the Rightistan countries be after 50 years?
Do they need each other?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
If this happened I would finally get away from all of my annoying relatives. Wow - no more political debates over the holidays! Wooohooo! (I will refuse to travel out of my country - and they would never come here - lol Unfortunately though, hubby and I would be separated as well. We are polar opposites when it comes to politics. We just "don't go there" anymore for the sake of our marriage. lol
Interesting experiment though...instead of North vs. South it would be Left vs. Right - how appropriate. Although...the Right would win over the Left if there was a war between our two new countries...I think we kinda need the war mongers to balance the peace mongers out.
Would Leftistan's economy prosper due to all the money they would save on national defense? After all, Rightistan would have the the largest and most modern armed forces money could buy.
__________________ ARS offers More Control over your consoles, your payouts, your tours, your join price.
Originally posted by wig@Apr 23 2003, 11:53 AM Where's Ayn Rand when you need her?
Leftistan would not survive without Rightistan!
more propaganda victims.. Newt Gingrich is a vicious asshole, therefore the conservatives are tougher in war.
Historically conservatives are isolationists, it's the leftists who go to war and fuck people up. The difference is we do it for self-preservation, the right does it to hide domestic ineptitude.
"SANTORUM: We have laws in states, like the one at the Supreme Court right now, that has sodomy laws and they were there for a purpose. Because, again, I would argue, they undermine the basic tenets of our society and the family. And if the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue yes, it does. It all comes from, I would argue, this right to privacy that doesn't exist in my opinion in the United States Constitution, this right that was created, it was created in Griswold -- Griswold was the contraceptive case -- and abortion. And now we're just extending it out. And the further you extend it out, the more you -- this freedom actually intervenes and affects the family. You say, well, it's my individual freedom. Yes, but it destroys the basic unit of our society because it condones behavior that's antithetical to strong, healthy families. Whether it's polygamy, whether it's adultery, where it's sodomy, all of those things, are antithetical to a healthy, stable, traditional family" http://salon.com/news/wire/2003/04/23/sant...orum/index.html
on the right you can only have sex with your wife with the lights out, missionary style, vagina only of course, and there are govt. cameras in your house. Everybody goes to church, your librarian keeps a list of your reading material and your mail carrier is a govt. informant. I think I'd want to live on the Left Coast
Actually, Leftistan would attempt to invade/annex Rightistan in order to make sure everyone was 'giving' 'their fair share'; but would (because of the ineptness inherent in the Leftist system) lose. After beating them back into the Stone Age, Rightistan would rebuild their country and help them to establish a Representative form of gov't. Since Leftists never change, at the end of 50 years, things would be about back to what they were at the start.
Dig,
Much is being made of Santorum's words by the Left; but it's really smoke and mirrors. The fact is that if he was a Leftist, nothing would be said; and if it was, there would be hordes of leftists jumping up to defend him.
Question: Why do leftists think that they have an exclusive right to say whatever they choose, no matter what it is; and that everyone else should remain the 'silent majority'?
No matter how I might feel about sodomy (BTW, that term technically applies to the act, not the gender of the participants), I have a much stronger feeling that...
THE GOVERNMENT DOES NOT BELONG IN A PRIVATE RESIDENCE!!!
Funny thing is, IMHO in 20 years they would be almost identical, assuming that the center splits down the middle. Probably even find them working together to stamp out the terrorist conncections between the theocrats in Rightistan and the PETAcrats in Leftistan.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 24 2003, 07:10 AM Funny thing is, IMHO in 20 years they would be almost identical, assuming that the center splits down the middle. Probably even find them working together to stamp out the terrorist conncections between the theocrats in Rightistan and the PETAcrats in Leftistan.
i dont think it would happen because the existence of either would be dependent on criticising the other.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 24 2003, 06:00 PM stretching it a little bit eh Colin?
you're saying we want to make discussing homosexuality illegal illegal? which Senator proposed that?
Hey Dig,
Not sure. Maybe so.
I am not in favor of making someone's employment dependent on their opinions or their wisdom to keep quiet about their opinions no matter how distasteful they may be. I don't think any of this year's holy trinity of politically incorrect nonconformists; Lott, Moran, and Santorum should be or should have been forced to resign from their position for their unpopular comments,
Illegal is probably too strong of a word.
Calling for the resignation of Senators who "step out of line". Hmmmm.
There is the argument that a Senator as a representative of a state or of the nation should not, and maybe should be prohibited from, making such remarks. The counter-argument is that such opinions are a necessary part of the political process.
Santorum's comments were regarding legislation and I find them less offensive and more necessary than Moran's or Lott's on those grounds alone though I strongly disagree with him and both of them in kind.
Last edited by Colin at Apr 24 2003, 06:53 PM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
I don't want them to resign, I want them to stay in office. I think it's GREAT when Republican leaders fuck up and say openly what they usually disguise in thinly veiled codewords. There are waaaaaaay too many idiots out there who NEED to hear Santorum talking about police busting into bedrooms and dragging people away on the charge of First Degree Blowjob. Otherwise they just won't understand what the Repubs are really about.
I am not terribly enthusiastic about the possiblity that waxing nostalgic about the good old days of segregation becomes an acceptable mainstream political practice. What's next? Mainstream politicians advocating a return to Jim Crow, or advocating Third Reich style means of dealing with the "them" dujour?
Besides, Lott wasn't forced to resign from the Senate - he was just moved out of a leadership position for stating the party's positions on civil rights too bluntly.
---------------------
I say do it, get em out there saying what they REALLY mean.
Originally posted by PornoDoggy@Apr 24 2003, 08:31 PM Colin, the "Some liberals want to make discussing homosexuality in public illegal" is beneath you.
Nothing is beneath me. You should know that.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 24 2003, 08:40 PM why even try to rationalize and defend the indefensible, Colin?
Because there are various ideologies that always come to heads in these debates. It's quite interesting. Most of the time I feel pretty much on the fence not from indecisiveness but because I can't see one as better than the other and I don't like where either leads.
In this particular one ...
1. How far should we take free speech?
2. How far should we be politically correct?
What kind of society do we want to live in? What kind of society do I want to live in?
Such questions of ethics to me are indeterminate.
As much as I don't want to head down the "slippery rope" back to 1950's era bigotry I also don't want to live in a society where one cannot express their opinion - no matter how intolerable those opinions may be.
This is the same dichotomy of decisions that exists in the holocaust-denial laws in some European nations.
You tell me. What's a libertarian to do?
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
I agree with you guys on this. These guys are bigots.
Senators making statements that conjure up images of 1948 Mississippi KKK rallies or Henry Ford styled secret jewish cabals from "The International Jew" are offensive and, well, inappropriate. I wouldn't say them myself.
I don't expect that we'll have a jewish quota system in colleges or that we're headed for segregated restaurants again at any time soon as a result. But, yes, history does show such things often do start this way.
And if we stop them from saying these things? That's pretty offensive too. We know where that ends up too.
A "Third Reich" style world requires both these factors.
I guess we're pretty balanced where we are. Don't legislate it. Speak out if you disagree with it.
Forced conformity is a strange thing when it's for the greatest common good.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 24 2003, 08:40 PM just leave the dark side, you'll be much happier with us
There is no party for me. I don't like the choices I have to make.
Libertarian. Love the principles but I rather suspect that if went all the way we'd find the invisible hand needed some guidance. I think the military would be too small. Read their party platform. It's simplet. Let's start getting rid of laws!
Democrat. Great on social issues overall. Certainly in keeping with the spirit of freedom and equality. I like the new emphasis on "fiscal responsibility". I don't like the socialized economy. Too much Marxism. I don't want to be more like Europe. Foreign policy? Too many Dems were opposed to the war for my taste. Too much internationalism. Not enough self-determination. Weapons proliferation is to me the most important security issue of the past five decades. We've already been getting it wrong for half a century. Let's start to get it right.
Republican. Too controlling socially. My personal life is none of your business. Thanks. Might be taking over the Democrat's old role of big government. Rugged individualism is here. That's good. We're America. Not West Europe. Bush is right. Stop the weapons proliferation.
When taken in totality, I don't like any of these choices nor any of the others. What's left? The system we have. Sort of like specialized interest parties that each make their case and we end up somewhere in between. I like it.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
you say that more and better speech is the best answer to hateful speech, and I agree with you. However, when the dissenting voices to hate speech comes down on someone's head you say we're forcing them to be 'politically correct', whatever that's supposed to mean.
I say they're being forced to stand by or retract their comments. It's not the democrats fault that conservatives can't defend themselves, they apologize every time (oh, I didn't REALLY mean that....)
and what is rugged individualism? You mean like Clinton coming straight from the trailer park to POTUS? Or chicken hawks screaming for war? There is no rugged individualism in the republican party today. Corporate welfare is bankrupting this country.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 25 2003, 06:59 AM However, when the dissenting voices to hate speech comes down on someone's head you say we're forcing them to be 'politically correct', whatever that's supposed to mean.
My usage of the term "politically correct" wasn't mean as insultory. In the content I am using it, is is exactly the opposite.
I said:
1. How far should we take free speech?
2. How far should we be politically correct?
To me, these are both positive things. The question if how far to limit or permit either of them especially in so much as the interests of one can only be advanced by encroaching on the other. I don't know the answer to that. It is not at all clear to me.
BTW ... What's your opinion on Moran's statements?
Last edited by Colin at Apr 25 2003, 07:42 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
Originally posted by dig420@Apr 25 2003, 06:59 AM It's not the democrats fault that conservatives can't defend themselves, they apologize every time (oh, I didn't REALLY mean that....)
Though the Republicans lead this category by far, the Democrats do have their moments.
"By no means did I intend or believe that members of the Jewish community are united in their support for a possible war with Iraq. I certainly never meant, nor do I believe, to imply that the Jewish community is responsible for or should be blamed for this war." - James Moran
And ... What about Robert Byrd? The ex-KKK member is a Democratic Senator and fond of using the word "nigger".
Last edited by Colin at Apr 25 2003, 07:49 AM
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
You all miss one important point:
"I'll have the (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years."...LBJ
And of course the 'white (n-word)' comments of Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd.
Of course the rhetoric against a certain Hispanic circuit court nominee...
None of which made a big fuss.
The fact is that the Libs have their own 'destruction machine'; namely, the TV network news. The fact is that they actually employ people to watch for things like this. The fact is that they wish to use the 'free speech' thing themselves while denying it to others.
Further, if you check it out, the sodomy laws which are being discussed are very old and were probably passed during a period of Democratic rule within those states.
I do not agree with those laws. At the same time, I believe that both sides of Congress should be judged not on what they might say; but on what they actually DO. If they VOTE harmfully, then they need to be VOTED out. If, like a couple of recent cases, they actually commit illegal acts, then the rest of Congress needs to remove them. Under NO circumstances should a Senator or a Representative be removed or forced to resign over something they said in public or private. That would amount to the complete destruction of the 1st Amendment, since this IS Congress, which "shall make no laws...etc.
As for private individuals, only the gov't is constrained from interfering with their 'free speech'. Think about this 'protected speech' thing. It's a back-door way to limit free speech. Who decides what is 'protected'...?
Originally posted by Colin@Apr 25 2003, 07:38 AM And ... What about Robert Byrd? The ex-KKK member is a Democratic Senator and fond of using the word "nigger".
Much has been made of David Duke; but where is he right now?
They send theirs to political office. We send ours to prison.
You all miss one important point:
"I'll have the (n-words) voting Democrat for the next 100 years."...LBJ
And of course the 'white (n-word)' comments of Senator Robert 'Sheets' Byrd.
Of course the rhetoric against a certain Hispanic circuit court nominee...
None of which made a big fuss.
First of all, you really have to be pretty stupid to use the race card to attack the left's objection to a "certain Hispanic circuit court nominee", because few, if any, on the left are objecting to his appointment simply because he is Hispanic. It's the Republicans using race in this instance to avoid discussing relevant issues.
Second, Senator Byrd - like Senator Helms, Governor Wallace, and any number of politicians from that era, evolved past their Klan heritage into something else entirely. I've read a little bit on the accusations against Byrd. Many of them center on letters written to the Klan offering his continuing support after he resigned from the Klan in the 1940s. There are others that reference his opposition to the desegregation of the military under President Truman. Hardly relevant, considering that Lott was pandering to the Klan and the White Citizen's Council-type folks well into the 1990s, some 50 years or so after Bryd's so-called Klan activities.
LBJ and Byrd used the N word. Whoopie-fucking-doo. Let's see ... a Texan born in 1908, a West Virginian born in 1917 - how suprising is that? I had a pair of grandfathers born in the 1890s, and great-uncles born anywhere from the early 1880s until the early 1900s, and they all used the word. My father and my uncles all used the word, although less frequently than my grandfathers did.
And Colin - I agree with you that people should be free to say what they want. I guess my point is that when someone like Lott comes out and says the world sure would have been better if we would have elected this bigot and kept them n****rs in their place, I would hope the general public reacts with the same outcry we would see if a Senator proposed making Joseph Gobel's birthday a national holiday.
__________________ SEX STORY TEXT Exotic Material for Adult Websites Available for part time (project or ongoing) work ...
I agree with you, if I understand you correctly, on not holding people to their political positions from decades ago. Even some of the guys that used to be NAZI's aren't anymore. I'm not being facetious. Times change. People change.
I think we should be careful to hold people in both parties to the same standards. If we're truly interested in making such statements on the basis of such lofty and noble standards of equality we should make them equally both against people in "our parties" but also in the other. It's quite evident that whenever a Democrat makes such a statement the Republicans by and large jump down their throat and vice versa.
Members of each party can go back and forth trying to discredit the other based upon their best guesses of what the person's intent is. Seems to me that people often think the members of their own party are more honest, moral, and ethical than those of the other. Cloudy vision results from such nonsense.
__________________ Almighty Content. Your one stop for live content.
I think we should be careful to hold people in both parties to the same standards. If we're truly interested in making such statements on the basis of such lofty and noble standards of equality we should make them equally both against people in "our parties" but also in the other.
but this is what politics is.
politics is based largely on discrediting the other side(s). the side that succeeds in painting a worse picture of the other side wins.
Quote:
Members of each party can go back and forth trying to discredit the other based upon their best guesses of what the person's intent is.
i would not say "best guesses of what the persons intent is". i would say that politicians try to discredit by sucessfully characterizing or mischaracterizing their intentions.
thats politics.
Quote:
Seems to me that people often think the members of their own party are more honest, moral, and ethical than those of the other. Cloudy vision results from such nonsense.
i think we all do this. we are all biased because we have political beliefs. we cant possibly look at any politician objectively if we already have a political view. having a political view on issues causes us to view those politicians, actions, statements or remarks that are consistent with our own views or beliefs in a more favorable or positive light.
04-23-2003
Linear Mode
