Premier Rock Forum

steve wrote:

Kenoki wrote:just that i agree left-left-liberals are, mostly, fucking wrong. and you are acting as a perfect example.

Like we were wrong about slavery, about abolition, about woman's suffrage, about prohibition, about children in the workforce, about minimum wage, about fascism, about civil rights, about Apartheid, about the Vietnam war, about the current war...

Wait, we are not wrong. We are almost never wrong. Fuck you for saying we "mostly fucking wrong." Fuck you for ignoring the obvious.

steve, civil rights are just that, rights. and anyway, why don't you tell that to your friend FDR. all of the things you have listed above were changes that should have been, and were, made my thoughtful individuals of the past who worked on common sense--also, in part by individuals who knew change was around the corner and had to step up for political clout... and also because citizens in a climate of social change demanded it. let's not get all romantic thinking that everyone does the right thing for the right reasons...

but the left isn't reponsible for damage? the current war? in 2003, did you support giving bush a blank check to do EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO? (and please, spare me the hillary answer) i sure as fuck didn't--but my representatives (as a registered democrat) sure as fuck didn't represent my opinion, nor really the opinions of any leftist i knew or now know. i don't think i started leaning more right (and by that i mean basically an undemonstrated ideal, not what we know as the right currently) until this war began and i saw all my leaders failing me and coming up with the lamest talking points imaginable when we are in real crisis.

now fast forward four years--kids still getting their shit blown off, my once little nephew, david--14ish when this shit started, 12 when the world trade center was fucked up--is graduating from basic in oklahoma in one month and heading off to our favorite killing grounds. thanks guys!!!! most of our liberal representatives are fuck tards, the same as the right. both forsake the poor and all levels of the middle class for their own inflated financial security. hello "socially responsible" investments--what kind of backwards term is that? got some money to make off of your ass, while at the same time investing in some oil.

oh, but now, oh let's pull out of the war! please! we're hurting the kids! RIGHT, a little too late assfuck. how about we talk about the insane amount that we owe to common citizens of Iraq and how pissed off they are. recently, at what i called an "army party," consisting of all army intelligence, i was listening to folks who were all recently in the middle east casually mention how the people there don't want us there. i'm pretty sure all these MF's were conservative too. so the fact that they would say we are unwanted pretty much shot to shit anything rush or coultier or whoever are trying to claim. BUT if we pull out now without any sort of serious reparations, which could include peaceful international occupation and rebuilding, we will have ourselves a really volatile enemy for our children to deal with. that is no joke. with the right and left it's either leave with no agenda or stay with no agenda... no one wants to talk about an occupation.

further into this glorious lefty thing which you say is almost always right--do i want to throw my money away on federalized social programs controlled by a little central government in a big fucking pond? money for anyone who fucks up or meets a guideline? fuck no, stick that extra in my Social Security, thank you very much, and then hand that Social Security over and let me manage it. and then let's talk about streamlining this bitch and squashing my taxes. this is a HUGE country and getting bigger by the second -- state rights!!! we need them!!! bring social programs back to the community and let the people take care of the people, because not everyone deserves a hand-out and you certainly can't formulate whether someone is deserving based on a page of guidelines. unfortunately, the right-wing does not have a solution for this... it's just cut and run, essentially, without handing the power of change and compassion back to the people because they don't believe the people are very smart.

the left is all about my rights? then let me keep my right to bear arms, please. do i love going to CMP (civilians marksmanship program) in alabama to check out the shipment of M1s recently released by the government? yes! does pelosi want to get some of these classic, slow shooting "semi-automatics" banned entirely? and bayonets? yes! fuck you pelosi! you just can't trust antique rifle dorks, i guess--some of the nicest people i have ever met tho we generally have nothing in common. i enjoy target shooting and, should a tyrannical government try and strip me of my rights in a hostile manner, i have a method of protection! is that wrong of me? seriously? i understand not wanting to own or touch a gun... even i keep mine at my father's house because i don't feel comfortable having them in my own home--but come on now. you want my dad to lose his peaceful hobby? seriously?

my point is, it seems no one is offering good solutions for anything. just things to make bad decisions better without actually eliminating the bad decision in the first place. yeah, let's hand out money to everyone, good idea. more taxes? awesome. to completely dismiss everything the right wing has to say (and this is outside of christian-right, eventually those convictions will fade away) and act like the left is tight is retarded. currently the left is not tight. it sucks, at least our representation does. so what if they are pro-choice--of course they should be! and if anyone tried revoking that right, or our basic civil rights, the people would revolt... and if the people did not revolt then we are fucking schleps and do not deserve democracy. as a lefty (furthering right) i would think we should be extra critical of the left wing, because they make me not want to be there.

unarmedman wrote:However, my sarcasm in my previous post is due to the fact that there are people out there that believe that conservative principles are 100% contrived out of disdain or animosity for portions of society. That they are 100% created for the control of America by the rich and pious.

I don't deny that the current administration and the people who hold power in the GOP are not true "conservatives".

However I deny "conservatism" is even a valid governing philosophy that holds any principles. How can those who disbelieve in government be capable of governing?

American political "conservatism", as it is today, it's modern strain traced back to the post WWII years, is intellectually dishonest and rests on a disingenuous rejection of the very liberal American Revolution. It rejects the liberal history of the United States from abolition through universal sufferage. It denys or distorts the liberal history of this country for a belief in some magically pure make believe "old days" of antebellum America.

While some libertarian type ideas of conservatism are reasonable and worth consideration, "conservatism" as a whole is bankrupt. It is dishonest and skewed towards the personal goals of those who defend it. It is not a philosophy, it is a childish tantrum of "me first! gimmie gimmie!".

While perhaps not "100% contrived out of disdain or animosity for portions of society...100% created for the control of America by the rich and pious" you would be hard pressed to prove to me it is not 99% so. Even that 1% would make no cumulative difference to the end result.

unarmedman wrote:Last I checked most Democrats are pretty well off, and call themselves Christians as well. In other words, I don't think the faith has much to do with the politics

If you knew anything about me you would know I am no defender of the Democratic party. As I like to say, I am not cynical, I am just from Chicago.

The problem isn't one of Democrat versus Republican or right wing versus left wing. That type of debate is all a smoke screen for politics. The problem is one of the haves versus the havenots. The political dynastic elites of either party who hold indefinite power over the rest of us while they rob us of the fruits of our labor and send us to die in their aggressive take overs of the world's dwindling resources.

It is the classic historic struggle of the minority with money and power against the majority of those without. Everything else is just distraction used by the elites to retain their elite position. Divide and conquer, rinse and repeat.

steve wrote:

There's a thought: Public figures should not express political opinions

next paragraph:

steve wrote:You support a fascist regime

NerblyBear, please read all the posts before responding. I hate to see people waste time on me like this.

Jeez...at least Steve got the sarcasm. And it was meant for him.

So...."Mission Accomplished???!?!?"

Happy Saturday night!

unarmedman wrote:
However, my sarcasm in my previous post is due to the fact that there are people out there that believe that conservative principles are 100% contrived out of disdain or animosity for portions of society. That they are 100% created for the control of America by the rich and pious. Last I checked most Democrats are pretty well off, and call themselves Christians as well. In other words, I don't think the faith has much to do with the politics.

I wouldn't say that conservative principles, as such, are contrived out of disdain or animosity. I think that's too broad of a brush with which to paint a political worldview which has, at least in the past, had its share of respectable adherents. But I do think that today's American neo-conservatism bears little resemblance to what one used to call conservatism. The Bush administration isn't in favor of conserving the environment, or in conserving morality, or in conserving much of anything really. Today's reality is that the U.S. political system is largely a machine that runs on huge amounts of cash and publicity. Corruption is rife everywhere, within both Democratic and Republican ranks. It just so happens that the neo-cons take the prize for the overall level of corruption.

I also would question your linkage of faith and wealth. I wouldn't call these neo-cons "pious" in any meaningful Christian sense of the word, seeing as how they couldn't care less about the plight of the poorer classes. George Bush is just as evil as were those Enron executives. He lies continuously, and I'd not be surprised to find out that his elaborate protestations of faith are little more than a smokescreen covering up a festering and tawdry personal life.

I'd be in favor of eradicating any mention of faith in today's political climate. It's absurd that an atheist wouldn't win a vote for town dog-catcher, let alone president.

Again, though, I'll keep prodding you to respond in a cogent and nuanced way to my above arguments. If you can't, don't be surprised if we consider you a dunce.

unarmedman wrote:I hate to see people waste time on me like this.

I am at work and have time to respond. Besides I wanted you to waste your 1000th post.

unarmedman wrote:NerblyBear, please read all the posts before responding. I hate to see people waste time on me like this.

Okay, so you admit to being a dunce who can't stand up for his own side because his opinions are based on a thin tissue of hearsay.

Sad to hear that. Maybe you should think twice before posting on a subject you know next to nothing about.

unarmedman wrote:You're right Steve. You're always right.

Sarcasm aside, of course I think I'm right. I wouldn't bother saying things I was convinced were wrong. Your petulance masks the fact that you too think you're right. You are welcome to fuck that as well.

There should be no debate.

I take this to mean you think there should be debate. I think there should be debate, but I don't believe you do. I believe you want acquiescence. You want agreement. This is masked in the language of a mock debate as cover. "Teach both theories" regarding evolution circumvents the obvious problem that there is only one theory, which is opposed by a religious reckoning, and "teaching both" manufactures acquiescence. "Both sides have problems" ignores the degree of problems and their nature. The left has minor problems with the personalities of its adherents, the right kills people, puts them in jail, reads their mail, prevents them from marrying and sends them to war. Saying they "both have problems" is like giving a beggar a penny and saying "both" he and you have money now.

Limited government shouldn't be considered.

By this I take it you would like to see a limited government. I don't believe you. You suport a government that would attack soveregn nations over imaginary sins, usurp powers never before held by a government, search my home and my person, torture me and jail me indefinitely for nothing. A governement that would tell me who I may marry and what a woman may do with her body. This is not a limited government, it is a controlling, intrusive, violent, sociopathic entity.

Uniform taxation isn't an option.

Not while there is no uniform level of income, no. Poor people can't afford to pay as much tax as rich people, and shouldn't have to. Our system currently works in the reverse, with poorer people subsidizing rich ones.

Open our borders, 100%.

They are open for money and goods, why not people? Ahh, because money and goods are the business of the wealthy, and people are to be kept in their place.

Universal healthcare for everyone, no other options.

I don't understand. What you suggest is impossible. Rich people currently pay for better health care than poor ones, who have none. Why would that change if poor people had some health care rather than none? Rich people would always have the option of paying more for better health care, just like now.

School vouchers are an attempt by the right to hijack the public school system and send all children to religious schools.

No, but you're close. School vouchers are offered under the mock-debate guise of "parental choice," which hides the fact that only rich people have the money required to send their children to a school of their choice, even with a small stipend. The stipend is essentially a tax that would go to private schools as a bonus, while the remaining public schools would be deprived of the pittance they currently get. As a zero-sum game, you must agree that public schools would be hurt by this measure, and the poor children they teach.

Human life should be considered from when a person is old enough to say "hey I want to be alive" until they're so old they have to have someone else decide to kill them.

Once you demonstrate that you care about those already alive, I will begin to entertain your objecions regarding a ball of cells the size of a pinpoint. Unil then, they are a distraction (a mock-debate tactic) from the issues confronting real, live walking-around-and-suffering people.

Faith is for fools. Religion doubly so.

Well, no. Faith is for two kinds of people: Those who believe what they have been told because they prefer not to question it, and those who doubt reason, evidence and rational thought. There can be reasons other than foolishness for these positions.

No one should even talk about these things. No reason to discuss.

Talk and discussion would be excellent. Hearing a rote recitation of right-winger doublespeak and received wisdom in service of foregone conclusions is not productive, and that's all the right wing has time for.

Everyone who disagrees with you is just wrong. Fuck them all.

Well, fuck the right wing, yes. I don't particularly care if you disagree with me on my choice of footwear or how to play small pairs out of position. But if you are a right-winger, then yes, you are my enemy and fuck you.

Thanks for clearing that up. And you're so kind about it too. Have a nice weekend in your myopic world.

One of the nice things about this opposite-day post of yours is that it concludes with the suggestion that I am myopic, a tacit admission that I am not.

And yes, when I say "fuck them," I mean you. Fuck you.

unarmedman wrote:Wow El Protoolio, you got a bit worked up there.

You probably are responding on what you believe you can infer is my position on issues just from my argument, and bringing up those topics. But you really should ask me before arguing! Otherwise you might take a lot of time in an unnecessary response (like above!)

Trust me, I don't agree with many positions that are considered traditionally conservative. Some I do agree with. The current administration's application of its supposed "conservative" ideals has been quite flawed. You don't need to tell me that.

However, my sarcasm in my previous post is due to the fact that there are people out there that believe that conservative principles are 100% contrived out of disdain or animosity for portions of society. That they are 100% created for the control of America by the rich and pious. Last I checked most Democrats are pretty well off, and call themselves Christians as well. In other words, I don't think the faith has much to do with the politics.

Maybe you agree with this perspective, I don't know. Doesn't matter to me. But when Steve responds to me the way he did (and to anyone who disagrees with his politics, for that matter), I don't see him any differently than I see Rush. I just change the channel.

I guess today I decided to listen again. My mistake.

DOUCHER!

kenoki wrote:but the left isn't reponsible for damage? the current war? in 2003, did you support giving bush a blank check to do EXACTLY WHAT HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO DO?

Let me get this straight: You're blaming the left for the Iraq war because they validated Bush's impeachable lying to Congress, but exonerating the right-wingers whose idea it was in the first place? I can understand blaming the Democrats for such a dumb move--I blame them myself--but this is enough to make you a right-winger? Huh?

both forsake the poor and all levels of the middle class for their own inflated financial security.

Agreed. But you should know that most Democrats who have their eyes open reject the tactics of the current Democratic Party. Most of the ones I know, at least. This doesn't amount to a rejection of leftist principles.

bring social programs back to the community and let the people take care of the people, because not everyone deserves a hand-out and you certainly can't formulate whether someone is deserving based on a page of guidelines. unfortunately, the right-wing does not have a solution for this... it's just cut and run, essentially, without handing the power of change and compassion back to the people because they don't believe the people are very smart.

What you're advocating is an impossibility. "Letting the people take care of the people" has been proven not to work in an individualistic, consumerist society such as ours. We need federal programs to maintain a basic, fundamental way of life for people who have hit hard times because it's the right thing to do. "A page of guidelines" might seem like nonsense to you, but when that page includes the lack of health care and day care for working mothers, I'm in favor of federal support. Your idealistic plan would need to be provided along with some evidence that this "community spirit" would work the way you intend it to. The problem is that such evidence doesn't exist.

the left is all about my rights? then let me keep my right to bear arms, please. do i love going to CMP (civilians marksmanship program) in alabama to check out the shipment of M1s recently released by the government? yes! does pelosi want to get some of these classic, slow shooting "semi-automatics" banned entirely? you want my dad to lose his peaceful hobby? seriously?

Sorry to break it to you, but us on the left have more important problems to worry about than whether your Dad can get his rocks off by shooting beer cans. Also, the Second Amendment was only intended to apply to state militias, not individual citizens. Sorry buddy. The free flow of guns makes our society more dangerous, not less dangerous.

And are you really so deluded that you think your stockpile of AK-47's will have any chance against a SWAT team? If the government wants to fuck with you, trust me, no amount of piddly handguns will stop them from doing it.

my point is, it seems no one is offering good solutions for anything..

Really? I think there are a bunch of solutions out there. The problem is not that solutions don't exist. It's that corporate-funded politicians don't want to implement them. And the worst of this bunch are neo-con right wingers.

Sorry to rain on your parade, but you still come off like a doofus.