General [M]ayhem

Go Back   General [M]ayhem > Real Time Sub-Forums > The Pit
Register Members List Mark Forums Read [M]erchandise Calendar

Reply
 
Thread Tools
matt00926
baaaaaa
 
matt00926's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vote McCain! View Post


Look at civil rights. The federal government didnt do shit on the issue until after a whole bunch of state governments enacted their own laws protecting minorities. Then the federal government pulled its head out of its ass.

You have that backwards broseph
__________________
cd09d75f80807fd8baa143b39fa895eb [pornmay.com]
Old 12-25-2009, 05:17 PM matt00926 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#121  

Advertisement [Remove Advertisement]

chuckybob
Mario raped Peach in her fuzzy spot while twisting and twirling his mustache sexylike
 
chuckybob's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xayd View Post
bahahaha



bahahahaha x 2

such convenient lies you people make up to tell yourselves.

  • *snip*

way to research
Old 12-25-2009, 08:19 PM chuckybob is offline  
Reply With Quote
#122  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom View Post
which is why the us should have done what most of europe did... buy up the slaves and set them free. But they didnt because the north wanted greater consolidation of power in the union.
I don't know what the fuck you're talking about in reference to Europe, by the 19th (and well before that) century slavery was already non-existent on a wide scale there. As far as buying up slaves in the US to compensate slave holders, the very small amount of whites who owned significant amounts of slaves were among the wealthiest people in the US and probably the world (Mississippi alone contained more millionaires than the entire Northern US at one point IIRC). That would have been an incredibly heavy burden on the average person to pay obscenely wealthy people money for their business which was horribly immoral anyway. Maybe an argument could be made for the small scale farmers that owned a slave or something but otherwise this is a load of shit.
Old 12-27-2009, 01:19 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#123  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
That is why you fail.
*shakes head sadly*

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Medical marijuana is nice example.
Progressives don't control the federal government and are pro-legalization and anti-drug war so I don't know what you're talking about here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
No, you're not. What you just said does not match up with what you said before. What you just said is the law. What you were bitching about before was not a common argument among proponents of states rights.
The federal government does all sorts of things not explicitly condoned by the constitution, so no it's not really law and hasn't been since the ink dried. States rightists use that argument to enact their regressive policies, you're just being plain dishonest/ignorant if you're saying that's not a common argument from them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
A basic study. Anything beyond a basic, fifth grade level study of the south shows that what you think is so off the mark I can't even find it with google maps.
Feel free to point out what parts I got wrong then.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Because it's nearly two hundred years old and is an ideology pushed by a few thousand people in a country of a few hundred million.
States rights has more support than that among conservatives and I'm talking about the South throughout history which is very obviously an example of the "struggle" for states rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
I'm not mistaken. Discrimination still exists everywhere but to think it's a significant part of southern society shows you're taking everything you know about it from Spike Lee movies.
lmao you seriously have no experience with impoverished black communities in the South if you think this is true. I've lived in the South my entire life so you can drop "You don't know how it really is here!" shit.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Contain, yes. Filled? No.
lol
Old 12-27-2009, 01:40 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#124  

SemperFly
 
SemperFly's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
*shakes head sadly*
now you made me feel bad
Quote:

Progressives don't control the federal government and are pro-legalization and anti-drug war so I don't know what you're talking about here.
Oh so you're saying that the Democratic majority control of the federal government does not mean that progressive liberals are in control? Funny, considering you have numerous times in the past confused the previous Republican control with conservative ideology and pretended there's no difference.

But I guess it only matter when it's about your team, right?

And my point remains; that is but one example where the federal government's control over an issue that legally belongs to the states is "anti-progressive" and steps on the right of the people.
Quote:

The federal government does all sorts of things not explicitly condoned by the constitution, so no it's not really law and hasn't been since the ink dried. States rightists use that argument to enact their regressive policies, you're just being plain dishonest/ignorant if you're saying that's not a common argument from them.
Breaking the law does not mean the law doesn't exist. The Constitution is the law; it's what legitimizes the government in the first place. That's why every oath of office, enlistment and commission refer to it. That's why we hold elections according to its rules. That's why people like you are happy to bring up the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments when discussing Bush's transgressions. You're happy to use it when it's convenient for you but when it's not, throw it out the window.

You're the one being "plain dishonest/ignorant" by acting like regressive policies are a staple of states rights advocates or that there's even a singular ideology among them aside from the states rights issue itself.
Quote:

Feel free to point out what parts I got wrong then.
How about the fact that the vast majority of southerners were not as wealthy as the north (which, by the way, was guilty of wage slavery and shitting on what is now called the blue collar worker until labor laws were put in place) nor did the vast majority of whites in the south even own slaves.

But yes, a basic study of the history of the south will support your point. Maybe that's why only morons and middle schoolers form their opinions on a basic study of history.
Quote:

States rights has more support than that among conservatives and I'm talking about the South throughout history which is very obviously an example of the "struggle" for states rights.
States rights, yes, but not fucking slavery and segregation, you imbecile.
Quote:

lmao you seriously have no experience with impoverished black communities in the South if you think this is true.
Only the fact that I grew up in them.
Quote:
I've lived in the South my entire life so you can drop "You don't know how it really is here!" shit.
yeah, I buy that
Quote:
lol
You're almost as bad as cockAZNsensation with this childlike, after-school special view of discrimination. Most people are pretty damn open minded but if you've been so hurt by this cruel and mean world that you can't help but see it everywhere you turn, you have my sympathy. It'll be ok.
Old 12-27-2009, 07:10 PM SemperFly is offline  
Reply With Quote
#125  

cgb8007
 
All I want is someone else to pay for my herpes meds...
Old 12-27-2009, 10:25 PM cgb8007 is offline  
Reply With Quote
#126  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
thats because running a successful campaign requires exposure, which requires either A) money or B) someone willing to finance.people arent likely to back a political candidate who's views differ from their own, and so we have things now like the republican party only financially backing candidates if they align with certain ideals.
This isn't new.

And people are plenty willing to back a candidate whos actual policies differ from what they want as long as he has a likable personality or can be convinced by the media that given policies are necessary. Was there a large popular movement for free trade? For war with Iraq? For privatization of the military and government sources? For support of dictators and oligarchs in third world countries? Favor policies that resulted in stagnation of wages for the average American while skyrocketing the upper classes income? etc

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
the internet, as much as it has helped with exposure, has harmed the credibility of otherwise legitimate candidates by placing them in the same category as every weirdo who wants to run and has a web site (myself included. i ran for president in 2004 even though neither i nor my running mate were 35 and lost by a landslide. we did get something like 0.00000009% of the popular vote though.).
No it hasn't. The same type of candidates are every bit as popular and "legitimate" as they were before the internet.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
says you. back it up with polls from near the time of the primary election.
The average person already has their views of candidates shaped by the media by the time of the primaries and indeed well before that. I think you'll agree that among conservatives "small government", anti-redistribution, and social conservatism are among their most popular issues. How did someone like Rudy Giuliani, who is "big government", came from a "high tax" state, and mostly socially liberal then end up the front runner in so many polls? Whatever you may think of Ron Paul he was clearly a closer match to conservative values than Giuliani.



Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
youre using the colloquial definition, im using the dictionary defnition.

pop⋅u⋅lar⋅i⋅ty
  /ˌpɒpyəˈlærɪti/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [pop-yuh-lar-i-tee] Show IPA
Use popularity in a Sentence
See web results for popularity
See images of popularity
–noun
1. the quality or fact of being popular.
That's the same definition I'm using. A candidate being popular has little bearing on whether he'll serve the peoples interest or even enact the policies backed by his base.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
you could argue that the people dont really know whats best for them and that killing jews was popular with the german people in ww2, but the fact is that our system of government is based on the idea that popular opinion rules (within the frame of the founder's documents).
It's impossible for people to know what's best for them in a system where their information and opinions are shaped by a small group that has their own interests as top priority.

The only thing you're really saying here is that people get elected because they got the most votes. That really doesn't examine at all whether they're actually reflecting the voters views or whether that's beneficial for society.
Old 12-28-2009, 05:36 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#127  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Because what you think of as conservatives are not actually conservatives. Virtually none of the policies and ideals espoused by the Republican party today fall under the (until very recent) definition of conservative. Conservative does not mean socially restrictive; it describes one's opinion of how much influence government should have in our lives.

Banning gay marriage, wars on drugs and terror, foreign interventionist policies are not conservative.
You're selectively picking what gets defined as conservative. Conservatism by it's definition is preservation of the old order, including in a social sense. The majority of people who self describe as conservative are socially conservative, at least to some extent and certainly more so than self described liberals. All the things you listed there are definitely in the interest of preserving the traditional order of society.
Old 12-28-2009, 05:42 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#128  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil Taylor View Post
say hello to being able to go and get your broken arm fixed without having to pay $100 just to sit down in the doctor's office, more like.

Sadly this bill won't do anything to fix that. It's half step reformist garbage that does nothing to fix the costs or has any sort of price controls. It's also probably the end of any chance for single payer or some form of UHC for a couple of decades.
Old 12-28-2009, 05:46 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#129  

Xayd
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
You're selectively picking what gets defined as conservative. Conservatism by it's definition is preservation of the old order, including in a social sense. The majority of people who self describe as conservative are socially conservative, at least to some extent and certainly more so than self described liberals. All the things you listed there are definitely in the interest of preserving the traditional order of society.

if social conservatives had to carry republicans to the white house they'd never win an election.

"socially conservative" is code word for "discriminatory".
Old 12-28-2009, 07:00 PM Xayd is offline  
Reply With Quote
#130  

chuckybob
Mario raped Peach in her fuzzy spot while twisting and twirling his mustache sexylike
 
chuckybob's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
This isn't new.

And people are plenty willing to back a candidate whos actual policies differ from what they want as long as he has a likable personality or can be convinced by the media that given policies are necessary. Was there a large popular movement for free trade? For war with Iraq? For privatization of the military and government sources? For support of dictators and oligarchs in third world countries? Favor policies that resulted in stagnation of wages for the average American while skyrocketing the upper classes income? etc

with the exception of war in iraq, none of those issues were election issues. and people will not donate money to candidates who dont represent their interests.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
No it hasn't. The same type of candidates are every bit as popular and "legitimate" as they were before the internet.

but politicians running with internet-centric campaigns always lose by a substantial margin.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
The average person already has their views of candidates shaped by the media by the time of the primaries and indeed well before that. I think you'll agree that among conservatives "small government", anti-redistribution, and social conservatism are among their most popular issues. How did someone like Rudy Giuliani, who is "big government", came from a "high tax" state, and mostly socially liberal then end up the front runner in so many polls? Whatever you may think of Ron Paul he was clearly a closer match to conservative values than Giuliani.




Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
That's the same definition I'm using. A candidate being popular has little bearing on whether he'll serve the peoples interest or even enact the policies backed by his base.

candidates do not become popular by chance. their policies are what make them popular. of course theres no guarantee that a candidate will follow through with election promises, but people dont care about that. they just want to hear the politician say that they care about the same things. the rest is left up to hope, and if worst comes to worst, the voters say "fuck it. maybe in another four years.".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
It's impossible for people to know what's best for them in a system where their information and opinions are shaped by a small group that has their own interests as top priority.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob
you could argue that the people dont really know whats best for them and that killing jews was popular with the german people in ww2, but the fact is that our system of government is based on the idea that popular opinion rules (within the frame of the founder's documents).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Patriotic Eagle View Post
The only thing you're really saying here is that people get elected because they got the most votes. That really doesn't examine at all whether they're actually reflecting the voters views or whether that's beneficial for society.

they get the most votes because their interests and opinions most resemble that of the voters'. in this way, a majority of the voters' interests are represented via the electee. at least in theory. worthless electees who are only after their own interests do happen, and we do need to figure out a way to deal with that.


the system works, its just got bugs.
Old 12-28-2009, 10:23 PM chuckybob is offline  
Reply With Quote
#131  

Mandres
 
Mandres's Avatar
 
Marketability has as much to do with winning as policy positions. The television is what destroyed our system.
__________________
e1e957c52409e6daf9ccce4231bf7758 [pornmay.com]
Old 12-29-2009, 03:09 PM Mandres is offline  
Reply With Quote
#132  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
now you made me feel bad
cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Oh so you're saying that the Democratic majority control of the federal government does not mean that progressive liberals are in control? Funny, considering you have numerous times in the past confused the previous Republican control with conservative ideology and pretended there's no difference.

But I guess it only matter when it's about your team, right?
Almost all Republicans describe themselves as conservatives, only about a third or less of Democrats self label as liberal or progressive and even fewer of that are actually progressive in policy. Probably a majority of Democrats are just moderate conservatives who are willing to throw a few token bones to welfare and social freedoms. I'm sure not all Republicans are in actually what you would describe as conservative, but there's not straight analogy here between the Democrats and progressives and Republicans and conservatives.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
And my point remains; that is but one example where the federal government's control over an issue that legally belongs to the states is "anti-progressive" and steps on the right of the people.
Which is why I said I'm willing to support self determination of States (or rather whatever group of people is progressive within a State) when they enact progressive policies and oppose them when they support regressive/conservative policies which I'm sure you know there are plenty of examples of as well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Breaking the law does not mean the law doesn't exist. The Constitution is the law; it's what legitimizes the government in the first place. That's why every oath of office, enlistment and commission refer to it. That's why we hold elections according to its rules. That's why people like you are happy to bring up the 1st, 4th and 5th amendments when discussing Bush's transgressions. You're happy to use it when it's convenient for you but when it's not, throw it out the window.
Sure. It's imperfect and if it gets in the way of progressivism it should be ignored or changed. Arguments about whether something is right or wrong shouldn't focus on the constitution, they should focus on that things actual effects. The constitution should be a guide not an absolute.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
You're the one being "plain dishonest/ignorant" by acting like regressive policies are a staple of states rights advocates or that there's even a singular ideology among them aside from the states rights issue itself.
I'm sure there are individuals who support states rights and could be progressive or whatever, however the overwhelming majority are conservatives and their policies are regressive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
How about the fact that the vast majority of southerners were not as wealthy as the north (which, by the way, was guilty of wage slavery and shitting on what is now called the blue collar worker until labor laws were put in place) nor did the vast majority of whites in the south even own slaves.

But yes, a basic study of the history of the south will support your point. Maybe that's why only morons and middle schoolers form their opinions on a basic study of history.
I never said any of this wasn't true nor even implied it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
States rights, yes, but not fucking slavery and segregation, you imbecile.
If you seriously can't draw the connection between white supremacy and the history of States rights in the South well....I guess you're just the same old Fly Navy!

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
Only the fact that I grew up in them.
Amazing how you turned out then. Just another victim of capitalist and conservative propaganda I guess. What a shame.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
yeah, I buy that
lol

Quote:
Originally Posted by SemperFly View Post
You're almost as bad as cockAZNsensation with this childlike, after-school special view of discrimination. Most people are pretty damn open minded but if you've been so hurt by this cruel and mean world that you can't help but see it everywhere you turn, you have my sympathy. It'll be ok.
+ YouTube Video
ERROR: If you can see this, then YouTube is down or you don't have Flash installed.
Old 12-29-2009, 04:07 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#133  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xayd View Post
if social conservatives had to carry republicans to the white house they'd never win an election.

"socially conservative" is code word for "discriminatory".

That's true but social conservative is just a label for the deeper end of the pool, most Americans are socially conservative to a pretty large extent.
Old 12-29-2009, 04:10 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#134  

Patriotic Eagle
 
Patriotic Eagle's Avatar
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
with the exception of war in iraq, none of those issues were election issues. and people will not donate money to candidates who dont represent their interests.
Yes that's part of the point, politicians are enacting issues considered important or beneficial to a certain class, issues that are against the interests of the average voter, because that's where they get most of their money from, that's typically the class they're from, that's the rhetoric and policies they've been molded to accept.

If you look at the history of the US it's quite clear that people are perfectly willing to elect people who don't have anymore than a superficial interest in the welfare of the average person and are even actively working against it. To use Reagan as an example, many of his policies were devastating in the long run to the American middle and poor classes and his foreign policy was despicable. Yet he remains massively popular with conservatives and even many centrist Americans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
but politicians running with internet-centric campaigns always lose by a substantial margin.
Where did I say otherwise and what does this have to do with anything?


Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
Ok whatever then, you can look up and compare Pauls and Giulianis history for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
candidates do not become popular by chance. their policies are what make them popular. of course theres no guarantee that a candidate will follow through with election promises, but people dont care about that. they just want to hear the politician say that they care about the same things. the rest is left up to hope, and if worst comes to worst, the voters say "fuck it. maybe in another four years.".
Well obviously it's not chance, that's not what I'm saying at all. You're just repeating the same lazy explanation over and over again "Candidate X gets elected because he's popular, the system works" without bothering to examine why he's popular, why certain issues become popular, whether any of this is actually beneficial for the average person.


Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckybob View Post
they get the most votes because their interests and opinions most resemble that of the voters'. in this way, a majority of the voters' interests are represented via the electee. at least in theory. worthless electees who are only after their own interests do happen, and we do need to figure out a way to deal with that.


the system works, its just got bugs.
This is just the same incredibly lazy explanation. If you seriously looking at the state of the United States and concluding the system is working your analysis is critically flawed. We have huge problems that are not being addressed by anyone in the establishment media or government. Politicians may very well get elected because their opinions most resemble that of the average voter, but the publics opinions are massively shaped by the media, and in either case they certainly do not have the voters interests at heart.
Old 12-30-2009, 06:26 PM Patriotic Eagle is offline  
Reply With Quote
#135  

Reply


Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:27 AM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.