Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 22, 2014, 06:39:46 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 527
1  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of the Huey P. Newton Gun Club on: Today at 07:43:12 am
Whitey's Worst Nightmare=Auto-FFs.
2  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: The Office of Senator LumineVonReuental (A Few Thoughts) on: August 20, 2014, 05:00:14 am
Well, I did read your speech.  And while I don't agree with you politically I do think it's pretty great that you spoke from the heart on what bothers you about this game.

While I feel as though I should say that it's ridiculous that some people take a win at all cost approach to this simulation, I really can't.  Because like you yourself said this is a game.  In fact, this is a political game.  While I do not like it, name calling, dishonest tactics, and political machinery should be entirely expected.

How do I deal with that?  Easy, by not giving a sh*t.  Once you decide that winning is overrated you can just sit back and laugh at everyone else who loses sleep over what happens in the game. If you wish to continue being serious though and wanting to win the best I can advise is to a) get a whole lot more people to register in your party and b) get a really good preferential voting strategy down that outsmarts Labor (this is key, especially on Senate elections).

But really all you really need is a lot more voters than the other side.  So hit the streets and start campaigning among your RL friends to see if anyone has no life and is ready to join this simulation.

3  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Summer 2014 At-Large Senate Debate on: August 19, 2014, 10:16:58 pm
In closing, I hate you all and I wish you had cancer and just died.

Also, do things to yourself that I cannot express due to the draconian rules against obscenity that prevail in this haven of fascism.
4  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: George Zimmerman VS Darren Wilson on: August 19, 2014, 07:55:24 pm
No.  Just no.
5  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Simple Truths Silver Mine on: August 19, 2014, 02:57:03 pm
The CRA was less the result of conscious action by LBJ than it was action on the streets by activists who risked their lives to see it become a reality. Any person in office who didn't sign off on that risked political suicide, which is something I think LBJ readily understood.

LBJ didn't do all that Civil Rights stuff for only political reasons; his own anti-racism was also a factor.

You would have a point if he hadn't been a huge racist...
6  General Discussion / History / Re: House of Paine article of the History of the Left/Right paradigm on: August 19, 2014, 02:51:59 pm
An interesting article; however, it seems (correct me if I'm wrong) that the author is coming at this subject from that libertarian 'everything can be collapsed into tyranny versus liberty' standpoint, which I think is rather simplistic. After all, what are those two things to be directed towards. It's quite conceivable that you can have an authoritarian government which seeks to smash how society has traditionally been structured, whilst on the other hand you can have a 'libertarian' (weak) government which stands aside and allows for the continued dominance of powerful forces that have traditionally ruled over society. For example, the feudal system, to a very large extent, was not upheld by central governments, but rather by individual landowners. The state in the feudal era wasn't particularly 'authoritarian' (which does not neccessarily make it good) because it was so weak and had so few resources to draw upon.

Thus, one can't neccessarily collapse the left-right division into an 'authoritarian vs libertarian' axis, because that a) ignores the purposes of a certain type of government and b) ignores the practical realities on the ground. Just a thought.


As I noted he had a more strict American libertarian viewpoint on the matter of power than anything.  I am a bit more, well Marxist in thought.  I for one believe the "non-coercion" principle is pretty much garbage and that in some instances the use of force is necessary to achieve objectives.

Of course, strict doctrinaire libs would argue that is statism, but their philosophical beliefs don't give room to combat the scourge of corporations (and arguably many of them see no harm from such institutions).  More to the point, contrary to the beliefs of Anarcho-Capitalists, capitalism can only exist when the state is present and actively supporting it.

So what would I do?  I don't know, but a TNF post is a pretty good start.
7  General Discussion / History / Re: House of Paine article of the History of the Left/Right paradigm on: August 19, 2014, 07:40:29 am
So maybe it is on that line of thinking that the author has completely omitted the race issue.  But then again, if that were the case he would've at least done the intellectually honest thing of devoting more than three words to describe just how important abolitionism was to the Republican cause.  At the same time, the white supremacy of southern Democrats is completely ignored.  Methinks that the author is trying to subscribe to a very convenient version of history where there is a left wing party and there is a right wing party and nothing in between.  Methinks he's wrong and is ignoring the possibility that not all coalitions (especially in American history) are necessarily ideologically sound and that the two party system in the US has forced in the past and will continue to force Big Tent alliances.  This was arguably a lot more true of the Democratic Party than it was the Republican Party.  While one could argue that the cultures of Norwegian socialists in Minnesota and Brahmin businessmen in Boston were alike in many ways, it would be very hard to make that same argument between Irish socialists in Butte, Montana and white landowners in South Carolina.  As I noted to TNF once on chat that is because the Republicans have always had, and will continue to have a general overall strategy and theme ("Americanism") while the Democrats in the past and to this day prefer to operate as a cultural coalition that have almost no unifying theme except they are "not Republican".  This might also explain why, ironically, that it is harder for Republicans to connect with non-white minorities, being the party of "100% Americanism" as Teddy Roosevelt once described.
Again, this is an opposite fallacy of what many on the forum make that anti-black racism was the deciding factor of how liberal or conservative someone was.  This guy, by contrast, seems to be operating in a world where race wasn't a significant factor.  Well race was a factor, and on a level much more than even many on this forum give it credit for.  As I have noted in the past, racism against the ethnic working class in the North by Republicans and certain elitist Democrats is almost completely and totally whitewashed in favor of a simple black and white view of the way things went.

So too, is the history of the Republican Party thoroughly whitewashed (author references a historian who erroneously states that the "even the name of the Republican Party is a lie", pray tell what is the point of calling it that then?) beyond all recognition.  The early GOP was a hodgepodge coalition of everyone from former New England Whigs to upper midwest anti-slavery Democrats to former Free Soilers to anti-slavery Know Nothings to German Marxists, etc etc.  Slavery WAS THE ISSUE that united these people together who differed on a great many other issues like trade, currency, and other morality issues.  This account of the Republican Party's formation as merely a successor to the economic nationalist tradition of Hamilton is about the most revisionist claptrap I've come across in a good long while, to say the least.  Does the author seriously believe that the Homestead Act was born out of Hamiltonian influence?

Further, not even the explanation for the Whig Party is satisfactory and leaves much to be desired.  While the Whigs generally were on the more conservative side of the coin, even that is not an entirely honest conclusion on the party.  Certainly by the 1840's the Whigs were more an anti-Democratic Party than they were merely a "conservative" party.  People forget, much like this author, that the Whigs consisted of a wide ideological coalition of people who were united in their opposition to Andrew Jackson than anything.  The party leadership might've been economic nationalists, but the only three Whig presidents we had in action certainly didn't live up to the nationalist label as the author has portrayed.  If anything, the motivation of Whigs to form a party was in response to the activism of the Jackson Era, though the inherent elitism of many Whigs arguably makes them irrevocably conservative compared to their more populist Jackson Democratic counterparts.
Of course, I should also mention that the author quotes George Wallace almost unironically when describing the political system that has existed since the 1930s.  I do agree with him about the inherent conservatism of much of the New Deal (do you guys really think FDR did it with government alone?  I mean come on!) as well as Wilson's own conservative sympathies ("the Fed", lol) that is overlooked by many.  However, a reference to George Wallace in an article that completely omits any mention of blacks or race (interesting fact: if you do a word search for "race" you'll come across those four letters in the word "embrace" three times in the article) or any mention of the white supremacist Jim Crow regimes is pretty suspect.

Point is, I highly doubt that Grover Cleveland was a Left Wing Democrat.

But yeah that is all for now, I'll reread the article later and comment more as time permits.
8  General Discussion / History / House of Paine article of the History of the Left/Right paradigm on: August 19, 2014, 07:39:01 am

A very interesting article that I feel compelled to share and comment on extensively.

I admit that as a left wing Anarchist there are many points of agreement but also many points of disagreement with some of the comments in this article.  Here are a few things I noticed:

  • The author seems to be focusing on the "totalitarian" elements of "liberalism" a lot.
  • The article's definition of left vs. right is more about the type of authority and the degree thereof.  Admittedly, I don't disagree with the conclusions.
  • The revolutionary nature of early leftists is strongly stressed in opposition to the strong support of established institutions by the right.
  • What is notably absent, however, is any mention of race related issues.  In fact, I couldn't even find the word "black" in the article (yes I did a word search).  Slavery is mentioned, but as almost an aside issue of not much importance.  It's almost like the Civil War never happened.
  • The author also seems to use very linear logic in regards to the progression of the parties and seems to assume that the political positioning remains constant.
  • Not to play a broken record here, but for all of his talk on focusing on the ends for 19th-early 20th century Republicans, he seems to have either ignored or willingly whitewashed the ends for a sizable faction of the Democratic Party and instead focus almost exclusively on the means.

Admittedly, I agreed with a lot of the conclusions the author had about there being "two conservative parties" in the United States presently.  And even more to the point, I do agree even with his conclusion that the farthest left one can get is an anarchistic state with the greatest amount of power distributed to the greatest amount of people.  In no true philosophical sense can one consider the modern American liberal (or the liberals in many other states to be fair) to be on the Left when the solution almost always will be more state control.  The very existence of state power is evidence of societal inequality, as it is only through the existence of a small but powerful elite group that state control can exist and be exerted on the people.  To my mind there is no greater example of this than the influence of corporate money on the two big American parties (thank you Citizens United), which has resulted in the existence of state capitalism and moral supremacy on behalf of the owners.  It is through this lens that I view the trend of Wall Street greed and Soccer Mom Nanny Statism that is common through American "liberalism" to be absolute evidence of their conservatism.
Of note, I cannot but feel a great deal of vindication after reading this:

Quote from: Karl Hess
The modern (or “neo”) liberal position has come to be known as a left-wing position. Actually, it lies alongside the conservative tradition, down toward the middle of the line, but decidedly, I think, to the right of its center. [Neo] liberals believe in concentrated power—in the hands of liberals, the supposedly educated and genteel elite. They believe in concentrating that power as heavily and effectively as possible. They believe in great size of enterprise, whether corporate or political, and have a great and profound distain for the homely and the local. They think nationally but they also think globally and now even intergalactically. Actually, because they believe in far more authoritarian rule than a lot of conservatives, it probably would be best to say that modern liberals lie next to but actually to the right of many conservatives.[33]

The bolded part especially I think is stating a pretty basic truth.  I am not sure I would conclude that "liberals" are to the right of many "conservatives", but the tendency towards elite leaders and elitist policies in the party is more than obvious.  How do you explain, after all, the mentality that Americans should only have political leaders who hold Master degrees at Ivy League colleges?  How do you explain the mentality that the government needs to save failing private banks?  And more to the point, how else do you explain the current bastardization of American liberalism of playing world policeman, supporting political reform that makes most Americans dependent on the insurance industry, and an almost sneering attitude towards people who protest about their civil liberties being violated?  To me this ranks more of the old school 19th century British Imperialism that advocated an international empire based on the idea of "civilizing" the "third world" nations to save them from their savage selves than anything.  Need proof?  Well just open up any random thread in the Politics section and number how many red avatar posts defend the things that I have mentioned openly and go as far as to mock posters for having the audacity to defend stances that would've had 70's liberals foaming at the mouth for starters.

I do realize that the author comes from more of a Classically Liberal mindset and his reference to Rothbard indicates a more libertarian philosophy, but overall I think he is really onto something about modern day liberalism.

However, before I go too far patting the Thomas Paine fan on the back for a well-written article, there are a number of unforgivable historical overlooks committed.  The first and foremost being the almost total exclusion of race-related issues.  Racism was and still is a big factor in this country.  To not even mention it once in an entire article over the historical ideological development of the parties is either extreme or willful ignorance.  I am most shocked that a supposed "liberal" interpretation of American history would omit such a enormous issue, especially given that racism was largely used by conservative elites to disenfranchise or alienate the "uncouth".  Not even the very obvious example of anti-black racism is mentioned (again, the word "black" is not even mentioned once in the entire article) and slavery is mentioned as an almost aside when describing the "Republican Party" as simply "the Whigs with an anti-slavery veneer".  To me he is committing the opposite fallacy that many of this forum's members do, instead of thinking slavery was the only issue he thinks that it was just a side issue.  The fact of the matter is slavery DID happen, racism DID happen, and the politics of the country were drastically affected by it.  It is simply wrong to assume that race only exists in a vacuum compared to other issues.
As I've said before, abolitionism wasn't a solely left wing or liberal enterprise.  Sure, there were many of that era's social conservatives (which you can get an idea of where they stood on issues by some of the article's commentary) who believed in regulating the personal behavior of people to prevent the nation from falling into anarchy and chaos who believed that slavery made black people lazy and sexually immoral.  However, there were also people who were genuinely radical on the issue of race for their time who advanced ideas of racial equality outside of moral expectations.  In any other country this would be any easy thing to compare/contrast with previous political coalitions, but in the US particularly in the late 19th-early 20th century, things become murky as hell.  Many "conservative" Republicans of the time were very much pro-Civil Rights (though I have in the past on many an occasion questioned just how dedicated they were to equality) while many "liberal" Democrats of the time had views on blacks that would be considered cartoonishly racist by today's standards.
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: People who are both FFs and HPs (at the same time) on: August 18, 2014, 06:56:35 pm
The CRA was less the result of conscious action by LBJ than it was action on the streets by activists who risked their lives to see it become a reality. Any person in office who didn't sign off on that risked political suicide, which is something I think LBJ readily understood.

Ugh, this is also true.

I guess even George Wallace would've signed it if he was elected in 1960.
10  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: People who are both FFs and HPs (at the same time) on: August 18, 2014, 04:28:23 pm
LBJ is the canonical example of this.

Wow, how did I miss this one? Jeez.

Well there's the fact that LBJ was not an FF in any sense of the word.

Civil Rights Act, bro?

Other than that yeah he's pretty horrible.
11  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: People who are both FFs and HPs (at the same time) on: August 18, 2014, 04:27:31 pm
Mechaman (sane)
12  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Is BushOklahoma literally addicted to Braum's? on: August 18, 2014, 05:18:32 am
Has anyone on this forum other than Bushie been to Braum's?

Yeah every once in a while.  Outside of their "sherbet freezes" (which are basically shakes made with water instead of milk which I really like because I'm lactose intolerant) it's really nothing to write home about.  I mean yeah sure, the burgers taste better than Mick Dicks and it is less likely to kill you than KKKarl''s Jewnior, but that doesn't necessarily make it exceptional.

Let me put it this way: I thought the "steak sandwich" was the most revolutionary thing ever until I realized that it didn't taste as near as good as a Five Guys burger.  Which really says a lot, because I'm one of the few people who doesn't seem to go apeshit over a Five Guys Burger (in my defense, there are plenty of Tulsa joints that beat the sh*t out of Five Guys, but it's one of the mainstream examples that came to the top of my head to contrast with Braums).

EDIT: Whataburger is also a good contrast.  Prob should've just quoted IndyTX.
13  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: National Front to Restore Democracy on: August 16, 2014, 03:36:21 pm
This Front sees eye to eye with this honest Dave fearing campaign.

Sully support and endorse.
14  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Summer 2014 At-Large Senate Debate on: August 16, 2014, 03:32:00 pm
I agree 100% with the PPT's directives and believe that we need much more of them.  As for whether or not he has the power. . . . probably not.  However, I see no problem with him trying to usurp or overthrow such a corrupt authority.
15  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1904 Presidential Election on: August 16, 2014, 03:16:25 pm
Why the leftist love for TR? Parker ran to his left.

Parker was a Bourbon Democrat, Roosevelt was a Progressive. Sure, Parker opposed imperialism but he was for cutting government expenditures and opposing tariffs.

You do know that "free trade" was generally seen as a very liberal position until about the mid 20th century don't you?  Hell, Bryan (the King of the American Populists) ran a very heated campaign against McKinley's heavy tariff plan by arguing that it was outright business favoritism and Wall Street cronyism.

It wasn't until the post New Deal era or so when free trade magically became "conservative" due to issues like outsourcing and globalization becoming bigger.
16  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1904 Presidential Election on: August 16, 2014, 03:08:25 pm
Why the leftist love for TR? Parker ran to his left.


Having lost the 1904 election badly with a conservative candidate, the Democratic Party turned to two-time nominee William Jennings Bryan, who had been defeated in 1896 and 1900 by Republican William McKinley. Despite his two previous defeats, Bryan remained extremely popular among the more liberal and populist elements of the Democratic Party. Despite running a vigorous campaign against the nation's business elite, Bryan suffered the worst loss of his three presidential campaigns.


Yes, which is like a historian pointing out that the Democrats nominated a conservative candidate in 1992.  It doesn't necessarily mean he ran to Roosevelt's right just like Bill Clinton didn't run to the right of George HW Bush.

While I won't make the case that Alton Parker ran to Teddy's left, it's pretty hard to make the assumption that Teddy Roosevelt was running to his left.  Roosevelt, after all, praised and expanded the militarist tendencies embraced by his predecessor McKinley (ie, expand the American Navy so we can spread our market of influence abroad) and supported the general conservative Republican platform of the time of low taxes, high tariffs, and support of the Gold Standard.  Sure you could say he made some conciliatory statements towards labor, but so did McKinley.
By that time, a more neutral response to labor was required.  And while I will not argue that Teddy Roosevelt's stance was that of a hardline conservative, it was hardly as pro-labor as LaFollette Republicanism or *gasp* Tammany Hall!

Now I am not going to do the same bit about how Ted didn't really advance any serious left wing agenda, but I will just say that Alton Parker's campaign basically looked at Teddy's 1st term and was like "yeah, I think Ted is a real cool guy, he's anti-monopolist and doesn't afraid of nothin!  Okay I guess Imperialism is a little excessive and I wish he was more pro-free trade!"  The idea that he was running as a pro-monopolist who strongly protested Roosevelt's first term is hilarious and can be easily debunked just by reading the wikipedia entry on the 1904 Election Campaign.
And yes, just like Roosevelt he accepted money from Big Business hand over fist while making some small noise about the need for "reform".

What made the 1904 Election remarkable was how much the two men agreed on the basic issues and how much of a "good spirited" campaign it was compared to the previous two elections when the American people had two pretty distinct choices to choose from.

To make a more recent parallel here, Teddy Roosevelt is Dubya and Parker is Gore.
17  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Election What-ifs? / Re: Jameson County Game Thread on: August 13, 2014, 10:23:29 pm
Tessa Ryan's studio room
The Brickhouse:

Located in the downtown of Hensley, the so-called "Brickhouse" was a four story 24 bedroom apartment complex building that was built way back in the day when town was experiencing it's post war population boom in the 1940s.  While the appliances in the complex were considered state of the art when it was first leasing, by now they had at best "a certain kind of quaintness" and at worst were considered "the seventh circle of Hell in Jameson County."
Home to a number of low income welfare recipients, including the beautiful and young Tessa Ryan, a promising former track and field star at Jameson County High who unfortunately couldn't quite make the cut for the Class of '09 due to her own delinquent behavior.  Sure, you could blame it all on that one night she was at her older brother's frat house partying with a bunch of his blazed out of their minds club brothers that resulted in a little bun in the oven a few weeks later or her father kicking the bucket after suffering a meth overdose or go back even further than that and blame her mother for walking out on the whole poor welfare scavenging family, but in the end the principal and teachers at Jameson County unanimously agreed that it was a result of her own personal failings as a disillusioned and just flat out lazy student that she couldn't get her GED. . . . much less her diploma.

Times were hard and times were certainly tough working at the local grocer begging for as many hours as she could get at the minimum wage.  After all, she has a child to think about, damn it!  Sure, the result of some bad choices made years ago, but surely not something that she should suffer her whole life for?  Or have to suffer the indignation of minimum pay subsidized by a cradle to the grave system?
Not that her bosses would understand, religious freaks the lot of them.  To them she was just another young slut who made her living off of the hard work of others.  It certainly was hell before she got with Frankie, and the subtle scorn got even stronger when the two started shacking it up three years ago.
Society was so judgmental sometimes.  Yeah sure, he was 12 years older than her.  Big deal.  Yeah sure, he has been to jail a dozen or so times.  Big deal.  Yeah sure, he's an alcoholic.  Big deal.  Yeah sure, he's made a lot of his money overselling his "disability" and selling a few dimebags on the side.  Big freaking deal.
Cos at the end of the day he is something that none of these other losers in town are: her man.

Frank, shirtless, is resting on the couch with a pipe in his hand.  Tessa, dressed in one of Frank's oversized flannel shirts that he leaves at her place, looks over lovingly as she prepares a pot of white tea.  Frank takes a deep hit from his fancy little Sherlock Holmes pipe, letting the powerful yet soothing waves overtake him.
Frank: Good thing Nancy was around.  I was wondering how we were going to get a few minutes alone sometime soon.
Tessa laughs as she throws some buttered toast into a skillet.
Tessa: Well yeah, apparently there is a special exhibit at the Metropolitan Zoo.  Nancy says that she and Drew are going to the big city to visit some folks of theirs.  They didn't want Simon to go all alone, so they invited Trek.
Trek?  Who the hell names their kid Trek?
Oh right, my girlfriend.

Frank lets out a sinister laugh.
Frank: Well that's great.  There are many many things I've been thinking about doing to you.
Tessa looks back at him with a devious smile.  Frank suddenly gets a look of innocence on his face.
Frank: Err, I mean many things I've been thinking about doing WITH YOU!  You know like happy romantic not dysfunctional couples do?  I got the money for it baby, you know that.
The mood suddenly changes.
Tessa: Look Frank, I been through this befo-
Frank: You know those high and mighty store owners are always going to look down on you.  No matter how much harder you work they will only treat you like sh*t.
Tessa: Frank, with all due respect I am not your trophy girl.  I want to work my way into the world.
Frank: And what has the world done to you in return?  Oh that's right, it's been stepping on you since day one!  Here I am, like I have for the past few years, giving it the finger and beating the unholy hell out of it whenever it comes near you.  You want to be a hard working woman?  You don't want to rely solely on me for help?  Fine, you can always apply at the plant-
Tessa: You think the management at the plant is just going to take a high school dropout on the government dime into their workplace?
Frank: Baby, I'm a Connelly!  My name is golden around those par-
Tessa: They're Republicans-
Frank: If I put in a good word with the big man I can get you a nice reception desk pos-
Tessa: Frank, they're Republicans.
Frank: I mean, sure me and management have had our differences as of late-
Frank shuts up.
He stays quiet for a few seconds.
Frank: Yes. . . . . .I know.  But even they have limits dear.  These pro-business Republicans are. . . . . well they're pro-business.  And believe me doll, at that plant there is nothing more pro-business than making sure Connelly men and others are well satisfied.  Believe me, if there is anything "pro-business" people are it's not suicidal.  Labor exists to keep management in line.  Not the other way around.
Tessa laughs.
Tessa: Spare me.
Tessa sits down next to Frank, who wraps an arm around her and starts playing with her still wet hair.
Frank: It may not seem this way now, but the world is ours baby.  You just got to say the words and I'll give it to you.  Wrapped in tin foil and smelling of kool-aid.
Tessa: Is that what you say to get all the girls excited?
Frank moves Tessa onto his lap and puts his hand towards the small of her back.
Frank: All the time.
Tessa leans over Frank and starts kissing him.  Right as something special was about to happen somebody's cellphone decides to conveniently ring!
Frank reaches into his front jeans pocket and opens it up.

From Gerry H

Yo Frankie,

u r needed dwn at H.  pls cum asap.

Frankie chuckles before quickly typing his own response:

To Gerry H

Hello Gerald Harrell,

Please for the love of all that is good and holy, quit typing like a fat retarded faggot.


Frank gives Tessa  a quick kiss.
Frank: Love ya.  Hey. . . . I'll see ya tonight?  Alright?
Tessa kisses him quickly on the neck before he walks out the door.
As Frank closes the door he gets a text back:

From Gerry H

hai mn u shouldn't say wurds like "retarded" or "faggot".  dem is disrespicktful 'n bigeted wurds, 'kay?

lso, u showin up r nt?

Frank: Dear wanking baby Moses.

To Gerry H

I'm glad you learned something from all those Glee shows your wife makes you watch with her.  Too bad Phonics doesn't seem to be something they stressed.

Yes, I'll be there soon.  There better be a damn good reason why I'm being dragged over there in the middle of the freaking day.  Or I will kick somebody's ass.
I'm serious, I will literally do it.  I will kick somebody's ass.
18  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: 1904 Presidential Election on: August 13, 2014, 12:27:18 pm
Obvious Debs vote is Obvious.
19  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Martin Luther King Jr on: August 13, 2014, 12:26:02 pm
FF, and one of the most underrated people in US History due to the extreme whitewashing of his socialist views on society in favor of a feel good message that doesn't alienate polite conservatives and social librules.
20  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Summer 2014 At-Large Senate Debate on: August 13, 2014, 12:19:41 pm
For the record, for all of you watching:

21  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Best Democratic Almost-President: George McGovern or Hubert Humphrey? on: August 13, 2014, 07:16:46 am
Hubert Humphrey is a treacherous, gutless old ward-heeler who should be put in a goddamn bottle and sent out with the Japanese current.

Buhbuhbuhbut muh Civil Rights!
22  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Ted Nugent on: August 13, 2014, 07:02:59 am
I'm totally not getting the "he's a sh**tty musician" angle.  His style might not be your cup of tea, but the guy can play the axe.

Ugh. . . . . this.
The Nuge always had a pretty distinct guitar sound.  Sure, he wasn't really a 70's rock revolutionary but he wasn't exactly "insert Led Zeppelin soundalike here".

As for the man personally?  Easy HP vote, obviously.  Though I do got to question circlejerk threads like this.  It feels like more and more the Individual Politics board has gone from actual thought out views of what people think about somebody to just a forum version of the Three Minutes of Hate.

Just my two cents.
23  Atlas Fantasy Elections / Atlas Fantasy Elections / Re: Office of President Pro Tempore TNF: Senate under Proletarian Leadership on: August 13, 2014, 12:37:12 am
Official seal of the Office of the President Pro Tempore of the Senate

Regulations concerning the Senate cafeteria
President Pro Tempore of the Senate and Regional Senator TNF of the Midwest

The Senate cafeteria shall henceforth only procure materials from worker owned and managed cooperatives. In cases where a worker owned or managed cooperative does not produce materials needed by the Senate cafeteria, the procurement of materials must be from a company that uses union labor.

All renovations to the Senate cafeteria, or to any part of the Senate chambers, shall henceforth be made with union labor.

The Senate cafeteria shall henceforth not employ managers except those chosen by the workers of the Senate cafeteria themselves by secret ballot. The workers shall manage the cafeteria themselves, set working hours, and determine their roles at work by democratic means from this point forward.

Seems to me a good time for some good ol' fashion union bustin'.

Hey, you're not a Senator, so perhaps you shouldn't tell the Senate how to manage its employees.

Forced unionization is immoral dude. Sounds like someone needs to read Hayek and Mises.

What chapter and verse is that in the NIV version?
24  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Name two states that the preceding poster would over- and underperform in. on: August 12, 2014, 07:57:08 pm
Over perform in Vermont and Maine
Under perform in Arkansas and Texas (dur)
25  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: Who was the most "electable" candidate for both parties, by year? on: August 12, 2014, 06:38:30 am
I'm not sure if I buy this whole "electable" candidate argument.  Really, we can only know how "electable" somebody really is once they are in the general election.  For all we know Paul Laxalt might've done better than Reagan in 1980, Dick Gephardt was a sleeping landslide in 1988, Lamar Alexander could've been the Agent of Upset in 1996, Orrin Hatch could've decimated Al Gore in 2000, Bill Bradley could've made a few butterfly ballots in Florida meaningless, the media might've greatly underestimated Howard Dean in 2004, Biden could've been a 400 EV landslide in the making, Huckabee could've kept the margin down in a few swing states, and Tim Pawlenty could've given Obama a real scare.

We can never really know, can we?
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 527

Login with username, password and session length


Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines