ying and yang

[SteamWake]

As the United States moves to a more socialist model Cuba moves towards capitolisim :doh:


Even one of Havana's leading economists recently said Cuba's economy needed to be turned upside down -- "feet up." So taxi drivers got private licenses, farmers now have their own plots of land and government workers have to pack their own lunches.


http://www.mcclatchydc.com/255/story/77132.html

[Fr8monkey]

Just beause the U.S. is moving towards the 'center' from the facist model, doesn't mean we are going socialist. Really, this hating Obama more than loving the USA is getting old.

[MothBalls]

As the United States moves to a more socialist model Cuba moves towards capitolisim

If it sucks so bad for you, just f'n leave and stop bitchin about it.

[Aramike]

If it sucks so bad for you, just f'n leave and stop bitchin about it.So wait - you're suggesting that a citizen of the US, exercising his free speech, should LEAVE rather than attempting to effect change?

How very American of you... wait, I mean liberal. :down:

See, while my views are decidedly centrist I find myself more and more absolutely DESPISING liberals due to their seemingly incapability to ever engage the discussion on issues over mindless rhetoric. I actually agree with liberals on a great many things, but cannot at all ally myself with people so typically mentally deficient that the best they can do is rest on their laurels based upon a mandate that is inexistant.

It's a funny yet sad irony that when liberals oppose policy, it's patriotism. When conservatives do, it's divisive and they should just leave. Mothballs, isn't there ANYTHING bigger to you than the party line?

Mothballs, you HAVE to be better than that. Please prove me wrong about you. You have a track record of absolutely AVOIDING the issue - either you proclaim the opposition to be hillbilly rednecks or you merely suggest that they go away altogether.

You can't be serious.

If you dislike someone's point make a counter point. You seem content upon suggesting, time and time again, that you're right merely because of the side you've chosen, That's silly and transparent.

I suspect you're far smarter than that, and although ideologically I may not completely agree with you (although I do somewhat), I do suggest that you attempt to make your points clear and avoid the meaningless ad hominem attacks you're so accostomened to. That should be EASY if you actually know what you're talking about and can support your ideas with factual reasoning and logic.

Until then, its hard to not dismiss you as merely a shill for the Democrats. Sorry.

[MothBalls]

Actually, just tired of hearing it. This has become a dumping ground of chain mails and nutjob blogs.

Guess I'll exercise on of my freedoms and just stop reading it for good.

[Aramike]

Actually, just tired of hearing it. This has become a dumping ground of chain mails and nutjob blogs.

Guess I'll exercise on of my freedoms and just stop reading it for good.I edited the above since you posted, but to wit:

If you're tired of hearing something usually the best recourse is to just avoid the place in which you are hearing it.

Certainly suggesting that someone leave that place is ... well, unAmerican.

[Freiwillige]

Just beause the U.S. is moving towards the 'center' from the facist model, doesn't mean we are going socialist. Really, this hating Obama more than loving the USA is getting old.


So the fact that America's Fascist model succeeded so well since the 40's doesn't tell you something?
while the "new" liberal America is failing and falling behind.

I love my country, Ooops that makes me Nationalist another bad word.

[Fr8monkey]

I am not trying to step on anyones toes and I am not posting for MothBalls; but I have to say something:

How very American of you... wait, I mean liberal.

Wow... That's very conservitive of you.

See, while my views are decidedly centrist I find myself more and more absolutely DESPISING liberals due to their seemingly incapability to ever engage the discussion on issues over mindless rhetoric.

This can also be said a conservitive viewpoint.

... but cannot at all ally myself with people so typically mentally deficient that the best they can do is rest on their laurels based upon a mandate that is inexistant.

Sincewhen is winning a majority of the House and Senate as well as the White House NOT considered a mandate? The Republicans lost the last election in a big way, partially due to the fact they "can't play well with others".

It's a funny yet sad irony that when liberals oppose policy, it's patriotism. When conservatives do, it's divisive and they should just leave.

Amazing since I was told "If you aren't with us. you are against us and for the Taliban" numerous times. 5 years ago you oppose policy, you were a traitor to America. Now it's patriotic as long as you stoop to calling the leader of the free world a "liar" and a "nazi"; things that if was done 5 years ago you would be called un-patriotic.


...either you proclaim the opposition to be hillbilly rednecks or you merely suggest that they go away altogether.


I have called a "commie" by the other side many times and told to go to Canada... sour grapes.



If you dislike someone's point make a counter point. You seem content upon suggesting, time and time again, that you're right merely because of the side you've chosen, That's silly and transparent.

Try making a counter-point at a town hall meeting where you are constantly being interrupted by the "free-birthers" and the pro health industry people. Hard to do when you are constantly shouted down when you try to speak (which is by the way anti-democratic).

Nothing personal, but for someone that seems to have viewpoints similar to the poster, you seem very bitter and have trouble showing it.

[Fr8monkey]

So the fact that America's Fascist model succeeded so well since the 40's doesn't tell you something?
while the "new" liberal America is failing and falling behind.

I love my country, Ooops that makes me Nationalist another bad word.

Funny you mention the Facist model working since the '40s. Then you must believe it was working in the '40s in Italy and Germany. Explain why dictators in South America murdering the opposition after 1950 is better than the same in Europe in 1940? Let's get ahead by embracing the "old" conservitiveism you are so proud of

Yes, it does tell me something... uncontrolled nationalism is a bad thing just as uncontrolled socialism is.

[Aramike]

This one's fun:Wow... That's very conservitive of you.Yet I'm not.

Want to know my positions or have you already figured them out?This can also be said a conservitive viewpoint. Actually, it's more of a viewpoint mirroring what most unbiased, thinking people would think, in my opinion.Sincewhen is winning a majority of the House and Senate as well as the White House NOT considered a mandate? The Republicans lost the last election in a big way, partially due to the fact they "can't play well with others".:har::har:

Do you know what is considered a "mandate"? Hint: it's not having a majority in anything - it's having a large majority of the ELECTORATE on your side.

Really, that point couldn't have been serious...:haha:Amazing since I was told "If you aren't with us. you are against us and for the Taliban" numerous times. 5 years ago you oppose policy, you were a traitor to America.:yawn:

And what was your party's defense to that? Oh yeah: dissent is patriotic.

Really, its pretty idiotic to argue against something that you complained was bad for your side but is not acceptable for the same people so long as it is an idictment of the other side. All that does is invalidate your original complaint.

Besides, I was adamantly against people who characterized dissent as such, but I guess as the typical liberal you can't discern between intellectual honesty and "you must be against and therefore a Republican".

Is it a conscious decision to be that ignorant or does it come naturally?Now it's patriotic as long as you stoop to calling the leader of the free world a "liar" and a "nazi"; things that if was done 5 years ago you would be called un-patriotic.Please link your indignation to Bush being called a Nazi.

Furthermore, anyone saying that about either side is an idiot. My original point wasn't about the extremists ... but I guess for someone like you it must be far easier to characterize it as such so you can have something to argue against.I have called a "commie" by the other side many times and told to go to Canada... sour grapes.:har::har::har:

Seriously, I can't stop laughing.

You just demonstated the liberal moral standard SO clearly that it surpasses comedic levels.

Let's see - you're justifying your side's behavior by saying the other side did the same thing?

After mentioning the "Nazi" example, do you REALLY want to get into that?

The funny thing about morality is that, no matter who does what, your verdict on it will be the same. Yet, you flat out practically state that it is okay that your side does it because you believe the other side did.

Too bad your density prevails all the while suggesting that, through your own logic, it is okay that the other side does it, because your side clearly has no problem doing it. Logically, that means that the first side to do it isn't wrong in doing so.

Moral equivalency is a bitch, isn't it?Try making a counter-point at a town hall meeting where you are constantly being interrupted by the "free-birthers" and the pro health industry people. Hard to do when you are constantly shouted down when you try to speak (which is by the way anti-democratic).:haha::haha::haha:

Really? This is a town hall meeting?

I thought this was a bulletin board where we had free reign to post our opinions however we liked, and there's really no way for anyone to shout us down!

Oops.

I guess because some forums of discourse are deemed as unruly, we should all act like idiots in all forums.

Oh, and I was at several town hall meetings. Most had periods of outburst but were fairly well-controlled for both sides (and I'm pro-universal healthcare). What about you? Any experience at town halls other than YouTube?Nothing personal, but for someone that seems to have viewpoints similar to the poster, you seem very bitter and have trouble showing it. Nothing personal, but I despise ad hominem attacks. And, I despise hypocrisy in intellectual debates (as your post has in abundance). Anyone that engages in either aren't really worth paying attention to, I don't care what side it's from (I've been critical of both sides, just look at my responses to CasteBravo).

Look, extremist ideas are bad enough and easily dismissed. No one in their right mind will argue for a flat earth, for instance.

But saying that universal healthcare is bad - or good - (or any other debate for that matter), is stupid if its on the sole basis that you believe that people who disagree with you are just wrong. That's just idiotic.

Make a point, respect the other, or hold your damned peace.

[Fr8monkey]

You just demonstated the conservitive moral standard... name calling and flaming the poster or speaker.

[Aramike]

You just demonstated the conservitive moral standard... name calling and flaming the poster or speaker.Nice try at dodging the points.

By the way, many would say the name-calling would be the liberal moral standard. Funny how it's wrong only when it pertains to your side. That's just more proof that liberal morality isn't morality at all...

...and that's coming from someone who's not conservative. Hah.

Besides, I didn't call anyone any names. If you interpretted my post as such, then you are merely assigning "names" to yourself, which would seem to indicate a "guilty" conscious.

Yet, if you could refute my points in the arena of ideas and logic, I suspect that you would have. Instead, you attempted to play yourself as a victim. Kudos. You almost won the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Fr8monkey]

I haven't dodged any points due to the fact you haven't made any. All you have done is say you actually agree with liberals on a great many things; yet you say the most stupid things about them. I don't have a guilty conscious, nor am I a 'victim'. far from it... I have not done anything wrong. That is the role of a person with no arguement, tear down someone personally and put them on the defensive. I don't play that. If you have nothing constructive to say, that shows.

Comments on "Nobel Peace Prize" and "liberal morality isn't morality at all", doesn't further the discussion; and just proves my point... you have nothing to bring to the discussion and I am not playing school yard politics with you or you kind. Good day.

[Aramike]

I haven't dodged any points due to the fact you haven't made any. All you have done is say you actually agree with liberals on a great many things; yet you say the most stupid things about them.Too bad that, despite the available graphics, there isn't a "smilie" laughing hard enough to properly display my regard for this post.

So wait - your point is .... my points are "stupid" because they are "stupid"?

Dude, *I* could argue more effectively against my own points than that. I don't have a guilty conscious, nor am I a 'victim'. far from it... I have not done anything wrong. Of course not. Liberals never do anything wrong ... because nothing is wrong.

Okay, that's a cheap shot that I hardly believe ... but it's funny nonetheless.That is the role of a person with no arguement, tear down someone personally and put them on the defensive. I don't play that. If you have nothing constructive to say, that shows. :har:

Nice attempt with the "I know you are but what am I" rebuttal.

How is THIS not an "argument": "Do you know what is considered a "mandate"? Hint: it's not having a majority in anything - it's having a large majority of the ELECTORATE on your side."?

Or this: "The funny thing about morality is that, no matter who does what, your verdict on it will be the same. Yet, you flat out practically state that it is okay that your side does it because you believe the other side did.

Too bad your density prevails all the while suggesting that, through your own logic, it is okay that the other side does it, because your side clearly has no problem doing it. Logically, that means that the first side to do it isn't wrong in doing so.

Moral equivalency is a bitch, isn't it?"?

I guess it's not an "argument" if its something you disagree with, if you're a liberal.

Actually - nevermind that, I know liberals who are far more intellectual than that.Comments on "Nobel Peace Prize" and "liberal morality isn't morality at all", doesn't further the discussion; and just proves my point... you have nothing to bring to the discussion and I am not playing school yard politics with you or you kind. Good day. Wait, you got into the discuss without a valid point and are now exiting after having been refuted on your vapid "defend all liberals" posturing?

Indeed, good day.

[SteamWake]

Strange, I dont remember mentioning Obama. :hmmm:

Here is something a bit more local...


California appears poised to be first to ban power-guzzling big-screen TVs


http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-bigtvs14-2009oct14,0,4908205.story

and since you bring Obama up...

LEAKED NETWORK MEMO REVEALS: Obama Controls Your Television Set
by John Nolte

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/jjmnolte/2009/10/15/leaked-memo-reveals-the-white-house-has-control-of-your-television-set/