Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 12-28-2010, 01:41 PM
 
Location: Austin
453 posts, read 454,266 times
Reputation: 213

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by rjb111 View Post
IDK if it's Moore's or Maher's, but I sure do wish his crayons would break already..
It's neither actually. There's nothing wrong with colorful language or personalites. I'm sorry if I made you see red. Orange you glad I'm such a creative person coming up with new ideas out of the blue? Or would you rather I just white everything out because I'm not always keen on green. No need to send out an amber alert on Moore or Maher because they aren't the only ones able to see the gray area rather than seeing everything in black-and-white like Glenn Beck does.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-28-2010, 01:49 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,556 posts, read 44,263,959 times
Reputation: 13503
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadScribe View Post
Ok, excuse my apparent ignorance. But if you are alluding to the fact that our current gov has ideas in alignment with this- how would it have been different with a Republican candidate in office, in your opinion. Which points would have changed.
The Republicans have less of a socialist slant. Furthermore, Obama's economic policies also follow fascist socialist beliefs:

FASCISM—KEYNESISM—SOCIALISM
Keynes at Harvard - Chapter 7
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:01 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,902,544 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by daugenstine View Post
I agree to a certain extent. It's not the role of govenment to tell women what they can and can't do with their bodies,...
Problem with that position is that our constitution protects individual liberties and the main contingency is that a baby is viewed as an individual life to which also is protected by such. Which is why this is a conflicted position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daugenstine View Post
nor should they or anyone else have the right to tell us we can't marry someone of the same gender. Gay couples marrying have no bearing on the economy.
Another issue to which is confused. I agree the government should not have a place in marriage at all and should stick to arbitration understanding the difference of between blood unions and civil only when it concerns it. However, the issue with this is not telling people they can't marry, but understanding that the term does not properly identify them. The fact that the public is ignorant to the meaning of words is not license to simply ignore them in official capacity, to do so would result in extreme confusion.

If government stayed out of marriage completely, then it would be a non-issue. Homosexuals could then use idiomatic identification and most could care less, but in official capacities, the term is incorrect to associate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daugenstine View Post
However, the government is also supposed to look after the working class and the poor rather than just the rich.
The government is restricted to the promotion of the general welfare and empowered with the role of providing for the common defense. That means they have no power to dictate the well being of any individual. They can not mandate how someone lives or spends their money (Social Security is unconstitutional) nor can they place levels of acceptance or restrictions on classes without also violating the constitution. The problem is that the progressives have decided to change the meaning of what those things are and so the result is the corruption and violations of our protections that exist today. The only one who has the power and authority to look after an individual is the individual. To claim otherwise is to disregard the very protections we have in order to serve self interested agendas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by daugenstine View Post
It's not their job to run the country like some large corporation and let lobbyists and CEO's enforce all their plutocratic ideas on everyone else like the Reagan Administration did.
You have been fed garbage and are reading fantasy. This is the problem with Moore. You are reciting the talking point Marxist view of Regan and honestly, I have no interest in correcting you here as by your demeanor, you are right, even in the face of being wrong. /shrug
Quote:
Originally Posted by daugenstine View Post
I don't know how you think that's propaganda by what Moore covered in his film, but it's factual.
Context, generalities, omission to promote implied meaning. All rooted in fact, but concluded in fallacious means.

Just pulling off the top of my head one of his movies "Bowling For Columbine", he took footage of Heston from multiple times and sources and cut it up, pasted it together to form a context to which he implied a false meaning. He also did the same with the statistics by comparing incorrect incidents with each other to again conclude support for his position. This is what he does. He takes facts, twists them out of context, and puts them in a fashion to make it appear to support his position. Its propaganda. You can't defend him, its a waste of time and someone who decides to spend the time pointing out the details to you is going to show you this in a very humoring manner. /shrug


Quote:
Originally Posted by daugenstine View Post
If it was all hogwash, Moore wouldn't have won several awards at the Cannes Film Festivals on more than one occasion.
Illogical reasoning. Your reasoning does not support such. Think a moment, Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, though can you point to one thing he did that was deserving of it?

We see movies win awards all the time that are complete garbage. These "awards" are given by those who share his opinion. It would be like me claiming that some conservative movie must be true because the RNC gave it a raving review.

Moore wins because Hollywood supports his opinion. The entertainment industry is firmly behind anything that supports similar opinons. He pushes propaganda that is controversial and people like to rubber neck and watch conflict. Ever wonder why those stupid reality shows are so popular? They have nothing of value, they provide nothing entertaining other than conflict and people love to watch conflict. Moore is a master of propaganda work and people love to watch it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:10 PM
 
Location: Hades
2,126 posts, read 2,373,553 times
Reputation: 681
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
The Republicans have less of a socialist slant. Furthermore, Obama's economic policies also follow fascist socialist beliefs:

FASCISM—KEYNESISM—SOCIALISM
Keynes at Harvard - Chapter 7
I tire easily of arguing about the Dem's link to socialism here, as clearly Republicans in vast numbers, benefit from socialist programs already implemented in the States, and dont seem to gripe about their benefits much. More about what they are owed and how they are being jipped. I just really wonder how a Rep pres would "fix" all this. Seems mighty naive to perceive that the two parties are so diametrically opposed that one will bring the nation to ruin, but the other will save it and make it a land of gold and honey. Just ridiculous fantasies really. We're all in the mess. Keep arguing about how the "other" brings you down and you really solve zilch.

Obama's policies do NOt follow fascist socialist beliefs, but keep drinking the kool aid if it makes you feel better. I mean no offense, I just dont agree. Not in the least. And I am far from a gung ho Obama supporter. I am just sickened by the ties people keep trying to make with the pres and Fascism and Socialism. These "claims" are the front cover laughing stock on European newspapers and mags. Its beyond ridiculous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:12 PM
 
13,053 posts, read 12,902,544 times
Reputation: 2618
Quote:
Originally Posted by daugenstine View Post
Don't forget these are the same "conservatives" pumping everyone full of fear over us having a black President, gay soldiers, health care for non-whites that can't afford insurance, and Mexican immigrants coming to do the jobs nobody wants. I found it ironic how Meg Whitman ran an anti-immigration campaign right after she fired her housekeeper. I see a big pattern here and that is many suffer from "projectile dysfunction." They accuse the liberals of being like Nazis, yet none of us serve any of their racial and homophobic prejudices. That sounds like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
It isn't the conservatives pushing that fear. It is completely dishonest to claim such. From day one that he was elected and even before it was the liberals claiming such. They did pick a few racists out of the wood work and had the media focus on them intently, but again, like Moore... context and propaganda. Anytime someone said "I disagree with Obama's policy here..." people said "Racist".

I am sorry, but you really need to think for yourself. From what you are posting, its like you have been told "what" to think and have no understanding of what you are actually talking about. Its just a regurgitation of a talking point. Each time you respond, you come back with a talking point and fail to properly answer to the issues someone brings up.

Please for the sake of sanity, stop repeating.. start thinking.


How about this...

IF you support the constitution. If you support the framers intent. Then you should be able to express your position, your point, by simply quoting the constitution and the framers own words from things like the federalist papers, letters, etc...

If you can support your position IN CONTEXT of what they discussed, then you will have shown you are not simply mouthing off what you have been programmed.

All of the topics are covered in their writings. Contrary to the arrogant fools in the education systems (honestly, I have met more stupid people with graduate degrees than not) opinoin, the framers were actually brilliant people, with extreme vision for the direction and eventual issues this country would encounter. You can defend any topic today using their very words.

Try that for a bit and see how what you have been "told" and what actually "is" compares.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:18 PM
 
Location: Austin
453 posts, read 454,266 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
Problem with that position is that our constitution protects individual liberties and the main contingency is that a baby is viewed as an individual life to which also is protected by such. Which is why this is a conflicted position.


Another issue to which is confused. I agree the government should not have a place in marriage at all and should stick to arbitration understanding the difference of between blood unions and civil only when it concerns it. However, the issue with this is not telling people they can't marry, but understanding that the term does not properly identify them. The fact that the public is ignorant to the meaning of words is not license to simply ignore them in official capacity, to do so would result in extreme confusion.

If government stayed out of marriage completely, then it would be a non-issue. Homosexuals could then use idiomatic identification and most could care less, but in official capacities, the term is incorrect to associate.


The government is restricted to the promotion of the general welfare and empowered with the role of providing for the common defense. That means they have no power to dictate the well being of any individual. They can not mandate how someone lives or spends their money (Social Security is unconstitutional) nor can they place levels of acceptance or restrictions on classes without also violating the constitution. The problem is that the progressives have decided to change the meaning of what those things are and so the result is the corruption and violations of our protections that exist today. The only one who has the power and authority to look after an individual is the individual. To claim otherwise is to disregard the very protections we have in order to serve self interested agendas.


You have been fed garbage and are reading fantasy. This is the problem with Moore. You are reciting the talking point Marxist view of Regan and honestly, I have no interest in correcting you here as by your demeanor, you are right, even in the face of being wrong. /shrug


Context, generalities, omission to promote implied meaning. All rooted in fact, but concluded in fallacious means.

Just pulling off the top of my head one of his movies "Bowling For Columbine", he took footage of Heston from multiple times and sources and cut it up, pasted it together to form a context to which he implied a false meaning. He also did the same with the statistics by comparing incorrect incidents with each other to again conclude support for his position. This is what he does. He takes facts, twists them out of context, and puts them in a fashion to make it appear to support his position. Its propaganda. You can't defend him, its a waste of time and someone who decides to spend the time pointing out the details to you is going to show you this in a very humoring manner. /shrug




Illogical reasoning. Your reasoning does not support such. Think a moment, Obama won a Nobel Peace Prize, though can you point to one thing he did that was deserving of it?

We see movies win awards all the time that are complete garbage. These "awards" are given by those who share his opinion. It would be like me claiming that some conservative movie must be true because the RNC gave it a raving review.

Moore wins because Hollywood supports his opinion. The entertainment industry is firmly behind anything that supports similar opinons. He pushes propaganda that is controversial and people like to rubber neck and watch conflict. Ever wonder why those stupid reality shows are so popular? They have nothing of value, they provide nothing entertaining other than conflict and people love to watch conflict. Moore is a master of propaganda work and people love to watch it.
So Moore is a master of propaganda, but never Beck. Barack Obama won the Nobel Prize for restoring peache between Egypt and Israel - something no Republican has ever done. I love how you seem to think civil unions between gay marriage receives the same recognition as marriages between straight couples. As far as individual rights regarding abortion are concerned, what are the women supposed to do when they were victims of rape or insest? Are they supposed to quit school or college and spend the rest of their lives making minimum wage and starve to death because they can't support themselves without welfare or any job skills due to lack of education? One thing I find most interesting about many of those pro-lifers out there is the majority of them always say the women could give the children up for adoption, but none of them I've seen ever opted to adopt any of those children. They don't really have many orphanages around anymore thanks to Reagan slashing funding for all them and putting it into Star Wars.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:23 PM
 
Location: the very edge of the continent
88,556 posts, read 44,263,959 times
Reputation: 13503
Quote:
Originally Posted by NomadScribe View Post
I tire easily of arguing about the Dem's link to socialism here, as clearly Republicans in vast numbers, benefit from socialist programs already implemented in the States, and dont seem to gripe about their benefits much. More about what they are owed and how they are being jipped.
Um... no... lefties have the monopoly on that. The entire POC forum consists of lefties complaining they don't have enough freebies and benefits, and lefty-started threads insisiting that the government provide more, which is what fascist socialism is.

Quote:
Obama's policies do NOt follow fascist socialist beliefs
Indeed, they do. Apparently, you neglected to read the chapter, historical quotes and all:
FASCISM—KEYNESISM—SOCIALISM
Keynes at Harvard - Chapter 7
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:26 PM
 
Location: Austin
453 posts, read 454,266 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nomander View Post
It isn't the conservatives pushing that fear. It is completely dishonest to claim such. From day one that he was elected and even before it was the liberals claiming such. They did pick a few racists out of the wood work and had the media focus on them intently, but again, like Moore... context and propaganda. Anytime someone said "I disagree with Obama's policy here..." people said "Racist".

I am sorry, but you really need to think for yourself. From what you are posting, its like you have been told "what" to think and have no understanding of what you are actually talking about. Its just a regurgitation of a talking point. Each time you respond, you come back with a talking point and fail to properly answer to the issues someone brings up.

Please for the sake of sanity, stop repeating.. start thinking.


How about this...

IF you support the constitution. If you support the framers intent. Then you should be able to express your position, your point, by simply quoting the constitution and the framers own words from things like the federalist papers, letters, etc...

If you can support your position IN CONTEXT of what they discussed, then you will have shown you are not simply mouthing off what you have been programmed.

All of the topics are covered in their writings. Contrary to the arrogant fools in the education systems (honestly, I have met more stupid people with graduate degrees than not) opinoin, the framers were actually brilliant people, with extreme vision for the direction and eventual issues this country would encounter. You can defend any topic today using their very words.

Try that for a bit and see how what you have been "told" and what actually "is" compares.
Actually I did earlier. You seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with Beck and Limbaugh has all been fed lies. They didn't come out and say the actual N-word about Obama because that's not kosher in today's society, but I know it's been burning in their minds for a long time. Had you been paying attention you would've seen that I posted some quotes, but since you wanted to open that can of worms, I'll be glad to do it again. Here you go.

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:28 PM
 
Location: Hades
2,126 posts, read 2,373,553 times
Reputation: 681
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Um... no... lefties have the monopoly on that. The entire POC forum consists of lefties complaining they don't have enough freebies and benefits, and lefty-started threads insisiting that the government provide more, which is what fascist socialism is.

Indeed, they do. Apparently, you neglected to read the chapter, historical quotes and all:
FASCISM—KEYNESISM—SOCIALISM
Keynes at Harvard - Chapter 7
Your opinion on the lefties- Clearly you hate the lefties so how could I possibly manage even a reasonable debate with you when your bias clearly shows you are incapable of such a thing.

We don't agree. Think we can leave it at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-28-2010, 02:31 PM
 
Location: Austin
453 posts, read 454,266 times
Reputation: 213
Quote:
Originally Posted by InformedConsent View Post
Um... no... lefties have the monopoly on that. The entire POC forum consists of lefties complaining they don't have enough freebies and benefits, and lefty-started threads insisiting that the government provide more, which is what fascist socialism is.

Indeed, they do. Apparently, you neglected to read the chapter, historical quotes and all:
FASCISM—KEYNESISM—SOCIALISM
Keynes at Harvard - Chapter 7
Yeah! Tell that to all the poor people in New Orleans we left to drown during Hurricane Katrina! I guess it's all their fault that the levees broke, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top