Back to reality by SignyM

A good subject to debate, there's another thread on this already.

I do find myself wondering: Can a liberal post a post without an epithet in it?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:39 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

The other thread has a more compelling headline. Talk there.
www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46171
Heck, who WANTS to go back to reality? It's so messed up!

But OOC did I meet the challenge of posting w/o an epithet? I scanned and didn't find one. Am I missing something?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:44 AM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Maybe talking economic reality to scifi fans isn't the smartest thing in the world.

It's precisely the crowd (one of them) you should be talking to. I'm not an economist, most of us aren't, so what we have to rely on for this info are the click-machines, and the money rags, and "tv shows" about the news. Or trusted sources such as yourself.

I wonder about the timing of this 18 person panel and their revelations - like, why now? Got your butt kicked and so now you're going to care? All of a sudden the admin realizes that if we don't do something "we're headed for disaster" ?? Where they been and what else are they sitting on? (I know this panel has been researching "for a while" it's just hard to have faith in the timing)

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.com

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 7:50 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, was that an epithet??? Erk. Sorry.

I only meant that scifi fans' focus is often elsewhere... more on technology or (on this board) politics.

Oh, and to answer your point: I think this is timed to the G20 meeting, to blunt the criticism of the Fed's QE2. Good point.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:24 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Quote:
I do find myself wondering: Can a liberal post a post without an epithet in it?

How ironic. There isn’t a single “epithet” in her post. What were YOU reading? Or wanting to see?

Heavens, DT, to make a statement like that when our most fervent right-wingers here RARELY post anything without an epithet, or a number of them, invariably aimed at the left or the person they’re responding to, is pretty disingenuous.

Aside from which, I’ve posted many, many things with no epithets in them, which makes your comment even more ridiculous.

But on with the discussion, as it's a very valid one which impacts us all...

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:37 AM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A good subject to debate, there's another thread on this already.

I do find myself wondering: Can a liberal post a post without an epithet in it?

You're aware that the word "liberal" has been used as an epithet by conservatives for more than a generation now, right?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:39 AM

The "epithet" DT refers to is the use in the original post of the term "tea bagger". Apparently only tea-baggers can refer to themselves with that term. ;)

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 8:45 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Oh, THAT. I was wondering.... Well, I have a hard time being respectful towards a bunch of tantruming middle-agers who should know better. There are prolly some peeps in the movement who DO know better, but they're overwhelmed by the vast majority of idiots and nutcases. For those here who self-identify with the "Tea party", I'll tone it down to spare your feelings.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:36 AM

Oh, don't tone it down to spare MY feelings, Signy - I'm right there with ya on that one!

I was chatting with an old friend, and he said, and I quote "I thought it was hilarious when that nice young man, Rachel Maddow, coined the term 'tea-baggers' to denigrate the Tea Party movement."

I asked him if he wasn't himself "denigrating" entire groups - women, lesbians, girls with short hair and boxy jackets... :) He didn't get it. He also didn't get that the left didn't "coin" that term; the tea partiers themselves did. And now they don't like it, because we're all laughing at them.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:53 AM

The only tea partier who i've ever known to use the term teabagger was Wulf, and I don't know if he used it self-referentially.

It's just a charisma problem that the left has at the moment. No offense but collectively, it's becoming an issue. For you guys. You should be concerned.

Posts from the left frequently contain:

1. Epithets referring to particular groups
2. Unpleasant imagery (pictures of corpses, feces, etc.)
3. Personal attacks, they're everywhere
4. Hate speech, particularly in signatures at the end of posts.
5. Ugly people. My real analysis of our political system is that its far more simple minded than it seems. Republicans probably won the midterms because they were just hotter than democrats. This probably has something to do with diet.

Okay, I jest but isn't there something to image?

I mean, sure, it's not as if the right looks good when you read their posts, particularly Kaneman's eloquent use of style comes to mine, and of course Pirate News, whereever he is on the political spectrum has a lovely collection of rectal images and references, but seriously, are you guys trying to top them?

My instinctive reaction to any post like this is negative, and it's going to affect my response to its content.

Sure, I try to be objective, but when a post contains words like teabagger, RWA, or many others that I see, has images of defecation on the flag, is followed by spews of venom at ones own fellow browncoats, it not only looks bad, it's hard to see the content objectively, if at all.

It's like last night a friend of mine said "Man, you've really got to watch more South Park. They're so on the money." Are they? I don't know. I've seen the show. But Does Trey Parker have it on the money (and yeah, I don't think he's a liberal, that's not my point) It's that no, sorry, I can't watch more South Park. I can't stomach the constant stomach churning vulgarity.

Maybe the negative reaction you're getting isn't always political, perhaps sometimes it's visceral.

Tell me that just about every one of us hasn't at some point clicked on a pirate news story that had vampires eating people they were ass-fucking with text that read "Nazi Alqaeda jewboys rape america again" or something like that and were unable to see the content of his argument for the vileness of his imagery, both visual and textual?

Even Jon Scrotum Stewart and Steven Colballs are undermining their message. The thing is, okay, sometimes it's funny, but rarely. And usually, it isn't done for that reason. It's done for this reason:

http://blogs.phoenixnewtimes.com/bastard/swastika%5B1%5D.JPG

What is this moron doing? I know what he thinks he's doing. He thinks he's comparing the policies of the Obama Administration to those of the Nazis (Something that lots of people did during the bush years in the same manner)

But what is he really doing? He's marching around carrying a swastika.

It doesn't matter how people react to his argument because they're going to have a negative emotional reaction to a guy carrying a swastika, and just about no one is going to be interested in hearing what he has to say.

Now I'm not up on scrotumography, but I think that Jon Stewart said it was a reference to sucking balls. So sure, Kaneman may say libtard or something equally bad, and gets no exemption for being a certifiable lunatic, it's just that there was a balance here that was out of balance, and I wanted y'all to be aware that your audience was tuning out before they ever heard the text of the message because of the collective imagery that accompanied it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 9:57 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Yes, "Tea Baggers" did coin the term "Tea Bagger" themselves, only to backpedal when its more salacious meaning became known later on. Thanks for reminding me, Kwicko.

Back to the regularly scheduled program.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:01 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

Yeah, they called us dreamers: "teabaggers", "racists" and worse...

But didnt we just sack your whole plan?

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:08 AM

Mike

Here's Olbermann's take

I can't find who said "teabagger" first, but to refer to a group by the equivalent of cocksucker is degrading. Even if this predated Jon Stewart, Steven Colbert or Rachel Maddow calling them "Teabaggers" it is not the same.

Speaking of epithets, my new favorite most ignorant sign ever:

"Send that Niggar slave owner back to Congo."

Get a brain, morans.

Anyway, I think what the left is trying to say is "Faggot" which is very ironic considering what they pretend to believe in.

If you're going to do it, at least be creative. Many people have referred to the tea partiers as having stocky build and also being racists, but no one thought of calling the "big guts"?

Okay, this post is a joke, but the last one was serious. You don't get any point across by the use of this language except what you say about yourself, which broadcasts loud and clear "Here's a hater, a bigot, and someone who has nothing worth hearing."

Christianofascists should take note as well.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:13 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

But rightwing dipshits don't get the same visceral reaction (from you)? Ok DT. Got it. 'Least now I know where you stand.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:16 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

Posts from the left frequently contain:

1. Epithets referring to particular groups
2. Unpleasant imagery (pictures of corpses, feces, etc.)
3. Personal attacks, they're everywhere
4. Hate speech, particularly in signatures at the end of posts.
5. Ugly people. My real analysis of our political system is that its far more simple minded than it seems. Republicans probably won the midterms because they were just hotter than democrats. This probably has something to do with diet.

And posts from the right DON'T?

How can you ever type that with a straight face...?

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:32 AM

Wulf

you said sack. hehe

Kiki et al

No, they didn't. First, Ron Paul didn't say "let's tea bag the govt," some random person did, and he undoubtedly knew what it meant, which puts him a step above me. But no one has provided proof that this was the origin, and it wasn't calling anyone teabaggers. I think Jon Stewart (Maybe Steven Colbert) did it, and quite a while before, I can't remember when.

Anyway, in a thread some time ago, we were talking about the origin of the N_ word. So, I did quite a fair amount of research. The first slaves came from the Niger tribe. They got that name when they were hired by the romans in the Punic Wars. Cato the elder wanted to ambush Carthage from Africa. Romans had been into Subsaharan africa and were quite impressed with the black warriors and their skill at fighting, so he instructed the king of Numidia to collect him a regiment of black warriors. This became the Niger regiment. After the collapse of the empire, they became a tribe, proud of their Roman heritage, and ultimately, all that was left of the western roman empire. The Niger river is named for them as is Niger and Nigeria.

The first major slave trading state was Dahomey, which was surrounded by Nigers on all side. So, they would invade their neighbors, and capture them as slaves, beginning around 900AD, and eventually, selling some to the west. In a couple of recorded cases early on, American traders asked who the blacks were, and they proudly announced that they were the Niger peoples.

That fact is no justification of the manner in which the word is used by whites to refer to blacks with a certain amount of subhuman status.

Epithet is in intent.

The first to call anyone kikes were the jews themselves to refer to illiterate immigrant jews who signed documents with a kikel (circle). The south african epithet for blacks, Cafir, means "Not a muslim." The term Nazi I was actually not used by the NSDAP at any time, nor its members, but already existed as an epithet within the jewish community to refer to lower class easter european khazar ashkenazim, by the upper class moneyed jews who believed themselves,rightly or wrongly, to be descended from the children of israel. By WWII, however, the original meaning was lost, and it just meant "lowlife scum." It was first used by the first escaped jews in the western media.

The point being here, epithet is intent, and when used with intent to demean an entire group, whomever they might be, then it is an epithet. No one is going to defend Nazis, and I see no reason why they should, but how these terms evolve is based purely in hate, and nothing else. There is no justification for it.

It's a free country, and you can say whatever you want, you can even call michael steele and N_ word if you want. Then you can tell him that his people used the term first, and still use it today. It's not going to help you in any sort of political debate to do so. Nor should it.

jes saying is all

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:35 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

"I can't find who said "teabagger" first, but to refer to a group by the equivalent of cocksucker is degrading."

DT - remember the move to "tea bag the White House" ? I even put quotes around it and separated out the question mark to make it easy for you to copy/ past into Google. I'm sure mom and pop middle America didn't know what it meant. But the media types who amplified the message - including (or should I say especially) Limbaugh - for sure did. Maybe they thought they were having a private giggle about a type of oral rape at the expense of Obama, democrats and liberals in general and no one would find out. But find out people did, and the phrase boomeranged.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with the economy. Yes, we are so hosed.

BTW - a native South Afrikan told me the origin of the word kafir (or cafir) is "cattle".

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:39 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Well, I found this:

Quote:
The modern day Teabaggers has its start with Wall Street reporter Rick Santelli going on a rant on the floor of the exchange about the 'Sub Prime' mortgage holders buying houses they couldn't afford with only $500. down and then "expecting tax payers to pay for the cost of adding on a bathroom".

To whoops and applause from traders on the floor of the Chicago Mercantile Exchange, Santelli added "We're thinking of having a Chicago tea party in July."

He struck a nerve and the Conservative fringe on the Right responded with their own brand of activism mimicking the Boston Tea Party which was a directed by colonists in Boston.

The current Tea Party movement initially came up with the 'clever' idea of sending Tea bags to members of Congress. It was in their initial rallys that they started referring to this act of sending their representatives boxes of tea bags as 'TEABAGGING":

Now this may be a generational thing but somebody should have told these people that the term was already in wide use as a term for performing oral sex on a man.

http://realworldpolitics.blogspot.com/2010/01/who-first-used-term-teab
agger.html

When they found out what the term meant, they stopped using it, but it left the door wide open for anyone else to use it as a pejorative. I don't like the term myself, as it's long been clarified, but that's personal feelings; I gave up using Dumbya and stuff like that a while ago, and tho' it's tough sometimes not to use a snarky title, I keep trying to resist.

However, I find your remarks terribly ironic when you refer within them to “Jon Scrotum Stewart and Steven Colballs”.

Quote:
Sure, I try to be objective, but when a post contains words like teabagger, RWA, or many others that I see, has images of defecation on the flag, is followed by spews of venom at ones own fellow browncoats, it not only looks bad, it's hard to see the content objectively, if at all.

You mean like libtards, and all the others I could cite if I felt like taking the time? Or is it only on the left that you see this? Because I find your entire rant directed specifically at the left. I see FAR more of the following in Kane, Wulf, PN, Raptor and Whozit’s posts:

1. Epithets referring to particular groups
2. Unpleasant imagery (pictures of corpses, feces, etc.)
3. Personal attacks, they're everywhere
4. Hate speech, particularly in signatures at the end of posts.

Up against those I will put Mike and Story, who sometimes delve into the same sort of things. But your pointing your finger at the few on one side for such a long rant, while not taking notice of the other side which FAR outweighs that to which you are referring, is to me deliberate bias.

Quote:
It's just a charisma problem that the left has at the moment. No offense but collectively, it's becoming an issue. For you guys. You should be concerned.

That just blows my mind; again, in comparison to posts “from the right”. I’m not sure what kick you’re on, but how about taking THEM to task, just as a thought???

Quote:
are you guys trying to top them?

”We” couldn’t get anywhere NEAR “topping them”, for heaven’s sake...there ARE only two who get in the gutter with them (and even Story not always)...among the rest of us, I rarely see anything equaling what comes CONSISTENTLY from the right!

And yes, it turns me off too...especially when I see a thread devolve into nothing ELSE. I scroll on down when I see “cunt”, “whore”, and all the other TRULY offensive terms used by the right...that you’re noting it on the left just blows my mind. I think I’ll start keeping track of both so MAYBE you can get a more objective view or something.

Let’s start with a recent comment by Kane:

Quote:
11/11/2010: Now, I say what I said before..fuck that stupid nigger. Rap away, Whore out expensive sneakers to the other poor niggers that should spend money more wise-GeneralLEE, live in a suburb and keep on acting street.....I laugh at the plight of the blackman, 'cause it is the other nigger that is his parasite.... http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=46174, he put a “wink” at the bottom, but that negates nothing. It’s PRECISELY the same as telling a derogatory racial joke and everyone laughing.
Quote:
Maybe the negative reaction you're getting isn't always political, perhaps sometimes it's visceral.
No, I think the reaction THEY’RE getting is visceral. I used to respond like that, and it was definitely visceral...now I work hard to tone it down, because I don’t WANT to be like them.

Yup. I’m gonna keep track. I’m good at that. Let’s see what you have to say when you compare the two. This entire post blows my mind it it’s inequality and bias...I didn’t get beyond the last part, it angered me so. Anger is a waste of time, so I’m not reading further. By the way, I despise South Park and wouldn’t be caught dead watching it, either. There are ways to use comedy to make social comments...their way is offensive to me. I don’t care how good the material is, couched the way it is, I’m not interested.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:42 AM

Yes, DT, epithet is in intent.

I pointed out earlier the way the right uses the word "liberal", and that you have used it as an epithet to denigrate an entire group.

Just pointing out that you yourself are in no way immune to it, even though I know you think you ARE above such things. You're not.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 10:50 AM

Story. Sig

I said that already. It was not a defense of the right, but pointing out the self-defeating tactics of the left. The right does it, but at least here on the board, maybe whozit or kaneman, but it's not as much, and also, I'm not the one to call them on it.

See, a few posts back Niki said that all hostile posts came from the right. I said "Only those directed at you, because you're on the left, the receiving end."

So, the same applies here. I'm not a good person to pick out whatever from the right says something offensive unless I see it, which I'm not going to if it only offends the left, see?

I have repeatedly called out Rap on his references to muslims and PN on his references to jews, and the various terms they have both used. That stuff is pretty obvious from a neutral perspective. By I don't know what's offensive to people on the left, but also...

This wasn't addressed to them, it was addressed to you guys who, sorry, can't seem to post without vulgarity, epithets and insults. I saw it because it was overwhelmingly present. I pointed it out because it hurts you case. Every time you post.

Why should anyone listen to an argument that begins "Hey dipshit" or one is just so unpleasant to read or look at that you don't even spend the time to catch the visceral hate inside?

All I'm saying is if you want an audience...

screw it. I'm beating my head against a wall here. It's not about whether or not the right is also shooting itself in the foot in ways I can't see, it's that you guys should be somewhat concerned that you are shooting yourselves in the foot.

Clearly, you're not. You're concerned that someone disagreed with something you said, someone is wrong on the internet.

When you attack and insult people in a degrading manner, why are you stunned and amazed when they're not then hanging on your every word.

Does any of this get through at all?

Just take a second, and look at it in reverse. Clearly you missed me just now using a tea partier as my example of a moron doing exact what I'm talking about with his Obama sign. Click on the link, and tell me if your instinctive reaction is to sympathize with the guy's position and you want to go hear everything he has to say? Or if you instinctive reaction is to not hear anything that he has to say.

I can tell you that Rush Limbaugh lost me at "Envirowhackos" sure, maybe at some point he would have said things I agreed with, he might have even made convincing arguments, and I might have been an audience for that. But when he started hurling Envirowhackos, he completely lost me, and I heard nothing else he said.

I'm not saying you're at the "God Hates Fags" level of people skipping posts, but many posers on this board have edged into South Park territory of "Why would anyone take the abuse necessary to hear what you have to say?"

Maybe if people were just y'know, kind of decently respectful of one another and not grouping people with demeaning epithets, said people might actually listen to what you had to say.

Thats all.

It wasn't a gripe. It was a suggestion. I was trying to be helpful. If no one's listening, maybe there's a reason. It's simple. Just respect people.

If you feel the posters on the right aren't being respectful, don't copy the behavior you find offensive, call them out on it instead.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:03 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

" ... it's that you guys should be somewhat concerned that you are shooting yourselves in the foot."

If we don't use these phrases it won't make a whit if difference. I have seen YEARS of consistently reasonable, thoughtful, and, most important, FACTUAL arguments bounce off the 'audience'. And be replied to with name-calling, personal attacks, and worse.

Your argument doesn't fly, and neither does your double standard.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:10 AM

HKCAVALIER

http://teabagyourcongressman.com/

http://www.americancomedynetwork.com/video.html?bit_id=%2036393

That's where "tea bagger" came from. Folks admonishing others to "tea bag" their congressman. Oh no, I just mean send them a "tea bag!" Hardy, har, har-har!

As the video demonstrates they were fully aware that "teabagger" had an explicit sexual meaning--they just got it backwards, and folks on the left--who were either gay or on good terms with such folks--jumped at the chance to make the "teabaggers" feel mighty foolish.

In the video, please note the demonstration of "tea bagging" begins with a man in a slightly widened stance, with the camera at crotch level so we all know what the subject is, holding a tea bag in front of his crotch and bobbing it up and down somewhat suggestively at 00:25. Then the unctuous announcer instructs the viewer to "hold" the congressman "down." Not exactly an "innocent" image, is it? He then instructs you to "droop a tea bag in his eye sockets," while two tea bags (see, now there are two) are laid across the man's eyes as the victim expresses fear and disgust. Not the sort of feelings that accompany an innocent prank. The culminating indignity is to "drop a tea bag right into their mouth." According to the video, that's what "teabagging" is. Then the announcer suggests you post pictures on the internet and the video shows a picture of the congressman with the tea bag in his wide open mouth, a look of horror on his face, under the headline, "Your Congressman is Teabagged!"

They thought "teabagging" meant putting your scrotal sack into someone's mouth, they thought it was funny as hell and humiliating for the person with balls in his or her mouth. Sadly, for them, "teabagging" actually means the act of, as Eric Cartman so eloquently put it, sucking balls. So what they were unwittingly saying was that they wanted to suck their congressman's balls. Suck the Democrats balls. Suck Obama's salty balls. The "teabaggers" found out too late that they were really making perfect fools of themselves and, you know the rest (by heart): back-peddle, back-peddle, back-peddle, deny, deny, deny, it's the left's fault, the left's fault, the left's fault.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:13 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

So, back to reality.

Why is Soc Sec supposed to be the root of all deficit evil? Wasn't it the abundant till that kept getting robbed to keep the government going? So why pretend that it has to be trimmed and brought under control b/c of its out of control deficit spending?

Oh, DUH! Smack myself in the forehead. Now that it's been depleted by all the robbery, they're trying to bring it back to life. After all, you can't rob from it if it's defunct.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:17 AM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I said that already. It was not a defense of the right, but pointing out the self-defeating tactics of the left. The right does it, but at least here on the board, maybe whozit or kaneman, but it's not as much, and also, I'm not the one to call them on it.

I'm sorry - but this reveals such a... selective recognition of reality I can't be bothered with the rest.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:20 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"I'm sorry - but this reveals such a... selective recognition of reality I can't be bothered with the rest"

LMAO... spoken like a true sheep.

The herd is safe.... ignore the wolf-dogs protecting you from the dark.....they have no use....

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:24 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A good subject to debate, there's another thread on this already.

I do find myself wondering: Can a liberal post a post without an epithet in it?

What's wrong with using an epiteth?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:27 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

SignyM

It's obvious to me that Obama is fiscally in service to the wealthy and corporations (that tap into global resources).

What do you see as the global repercussions of a US financial collapse?

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:28 AM

Goodbye, kind world (George Monbiot) - In common with all those generations which have contemplated catastrophe, we appear to be incapable of understanding what confronts us.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:
"I'm sorry - but this reveals such a... selective recognition of reality I can't be bothered with the rest"

LMAO... spoken like a true sheep.

The herd is safe.... ignore the wolf-dogs protecting you from the dark.....they have no use....

"Hope is a good thing, maybe the best of things, and no good thing ever dies"

Blah blah blah - whatever.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:35 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
maybe whozit or kaneman, but it's not as much

You've just erased any semblance of objectivity from your persona.

Quote:
If you feel the posters on the right aren't being respectful, don't copy the behavior you find offensive, call them out on it instead.

Yanno, I tried that. I really did. It didn't make a hill of beans worth of difference. At this point, there are a few people who I'm routinely rude to; and several that I just out-and-out ignore; and most that I try to be reasonable with. But the right-wing isn't about to be won over by nice words and reasonableness... and if they're dishing it out they see politeness as a weakness, not a strength. Because they REALLY only understand threat and fear, and a gun to the face maybe.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:36 AM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

It's just a charisma problem that the left has at the moment. No offense but collectively, it's becoming an issue. For you guys. You should be concerned.

Well you guys had George W for years, all the charisma of a door knob. And as for Rumsfeld???? It was like having the Grim Reaper in the whitehouse.

Quote:
Posts from the left frequently contain:

1. Epithets referring to particular groups
2. Unpleasant imagery (pictures of corpses, feces, etc.)
3. Personal attacks, they're everywhere
4. Hate speech, particularly in signatures at the end of posts.
5. Ugly people. My real analysis of our political system is that its far more simple minded than it seems. Republicans probably won the midterms because they were just hotter than democrats. This probably has something to do with diet.

Firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with epithets. That is just how our language works, we continually invent names for groups of people. You simply can't compare the word 'teabagger' with 'kike' or 'nigger'. Both of those terms carry with them the weight of history, both of oppression and violence against those people. Teabaggers on the other hand, are a loose political group with no history of being oppressed or suffering violence. It's a slighly mocking term, but really no more than that.

I note that you bandy about the term Socialist with great ease, when referring to anyone who supports or does not disagree with some form of government intervention into any aspect of civilian life. I'd say that the way you use 'socialist' is on a par with how most people use 'teabagger'.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 11:43 AM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

Quote:
The herd is safe.... ignore the wolf-dogs protecting you from the dark.....they have no use....

Ah yes, the Legend in His Own Mind speaks!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, back to reality.

Why is Soc Sec supposed to be the root of all deficit evil? Wasn't it the abundant till that kept getting robbed to keep the government going? So why pretend that it has to be trimmed and brought under control b/c of its out of control deficit spending?

Oh, DUH! Smack myself in the forehead. Now that it's been depleted by all the robbery, they're trying to bring it back to life. After all, you can't rob from it if it's defunct.

kiki

for once, i am in complete agreement.

The problem with charging the fox to look after the hen house...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 12:48 PM

HK

Thanks for the link. It's registered to Joey Calvey, I don't know who that is. That's one problem with the Tea Party.. it's like the peace movement. Every once in a while a moron joins your ranks, and you don't know who he is or where he's coming from or what he stands for. You didn't elect him, or accept him as a leader, he just walked into the crowd. Maybe he's holding a swastika sign, or carrying a gun, or just chanting, as happened with a peace march I was in as a student, that we should all overthrow the govt. and install Lyndon Larouche. And he had a couple hundred students with him. I assume he brought them. But you can see, people are sheep, some will join on board.

Still doesn't alter my point that the intent here is epithet, which is to push people into a class of subhuman.

Quote:
So what they were unwittingly saying was that they wanted to suck their congressman's balls.

I got that this is what they unintentionally meant, and it's pretty funny. It's like back when howard dean was allowed to talk (before he referred to the president as Osama Bin Laden by mistake in an interview and the president had to tell him to STFU) he used to do this sort of thing and Jon Stewart would have to put up a clip saying "I don't think you should use those terms if you don't know what they mean." Hide hte Salami, etc. I see they're keeping a tight leash on Biden.

Anyway, Houston, we have a moron. Thanks.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Magonsdaughter:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
A good subject to debate, there's another thread on this already.

I do find myself wondering: Can a liberal post a post without an epithet in it?

What's wrong with using an epiteth?

Classic. Now that's the Australia I know and love. Maybe that go back to Congo sign from down under ;)

Truly classic

Quote:

Well you guys had George W for years, all the charisma of a door knob.

Hey, the union of doorknobs resents that comparison.

Quote:
Firstly, there is nothing inherently wrong with epithets.

OMG, it wasn't a joke. Or slip, aside from the earlier misspelling of epithet.

Yes, this is an attitude your nation is known for, sort of like the way eastern europe is known for its attitudes toward the Romani.

Oh, and for the record, I do not bandy about socialist with great ease. I carefully apply it to people and statesmen, and their states, who have identified themselves as socialists. No one could possibly construct such an abominable record of disaster by actually trying to select a group of people they disagreed with or didn't like.

That said, I also posted that I voted for a socialist, which I did. That's because the environment is my hot button issue. I'll vote for the environmentalist on the ticket, even if I basically disagree with his philosophy on life.

You could have actually caught me out on one, but it's only mildly derogatory, in the sense that sheeple is, as in "wake up." It doesn't imply intended hostility.

Teabagger is pretty bad. I mean, it's a step below cocksucker. A lot of hostility is meant behind it also.

The hate the left feels for the right here is pretty intense. It's more intense than racism. I will take their word for it that it also goes the other way, but as I said, it's their job to catch that

Story,

Only someone close to the target of an assault can see the true offense. Some are very blatant, like you don't have to be jewish to be offended by Pirate News. But it's the job of the left to point out offensive stereotypes that the right uses.

I'm not aware of Rap using any, but he might, I would just miss them. I don't particularly agree with him politically, but I'm also not the target of his political attacks.

Taking whozit seriously would be very hard.

I think Kaneman would offend everyone if possible.

Wulfie says offensive things a lot, and I call him out on them, but those are obvious ones.

All,

As much as anything, this was a plea for sanity. I caught how many people at the rally to restore sanity and here on the board, on both sides, argued about it as if it was pro-left or anti-tea party. All anyone had to do was watch Jon Stewart's speech to see his message was "Hey, everyone, stop fighting. This is not about us vs. them."

ETA: Ps. I'm still sick, cranky, still working, feel awful, and stopped in to try to apply a little constructive criticism to a group of fellow browncoats who collectively appear to be shooting themselves in the foot to assure that no one reads their posts. At any rate, quite clearly, I blew it.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 1:37 PM

MAGONSDAUGHTER

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Classic. Now that's the Australia I know and love. Maybe that go back to Congo sign from down under ;)

Truly classic

Sorry don't get this reference? Are you trying to insult me?

Quote:

OMG, it wasn't a joke. Or slip, aside from the earlier misspelling of epithet.

Yes, this is an attitude your nation is known for, sort of like the way eastern europe is known for its attitudes toward the Romani.

You think that we are a country of racists? So what happen to us being a right winged paradise? Or do the two go hand in hand?

Epithets are not necessarily abusive, although they can be used that way.

Quote:
Oh, and for the record, I do not bandy about socialist with great ease. I carefully apply it to people and statesmen, and their states, who have identified themselves as socialists. No one could possibly construct such an abominable record of disaster by actually trying to select a group of people they disagreed with or didn't like.

I'm pretty sure you've used the word socialist in plenty of contexts where others may not have used that word. You do see it as the current big world conspiracy, don't you?

Quote:
That said, I also posted that I voted for a socialist, which I did. That's because the environment is my hot button issue. I'll vote for the environmentalist on the ticket, even if I basically disagree with his philosophy on life.

Well that's pretty confusing, given the rant that you made in another thread about the evils of socialism. But people are more complex that the old 'left or right politics'.

Quote:
You could have actually caught me out on one, but it's only mildly derogatory, in the sense that sheeple is, as in "wake up." It doesn't imply intended hostility.

really. Can I just quote your ideas on socialism on another thread.

Quote:
The fellow travelers will bash me for saying this, but it's true. It all starts with socialism.

Socialism is the new religion, it's an offshoot of judeo-christian theology, it's not a political philosophy at all. It is unwilling to debate any of its tenets, even internally, except in "interpretation of the scripture" ways, never in "should we do this or should we do what the opposition wants".

Additionally, socialism accepts no other gods before it. It wants to ban not only all other "religions" but all other political philosophies.

It demands undying loyalty from its members, and is structured in a pyramid of power, with an elite ideological priesthood of think tankers at the top.

Like all religions, it was born in a friendly enclave of true believers, but quickly met harsh resistance from the sane outside. So, socialism mutated and found ways to crawl its tentacles into the everyday life of other systems.

Thus, the who have moved into the private sector and mainstream politics, not as converts, but as corruptors.

They inherited the ideas of the one worlders, early socialist dreamers who thought everyone would accept socialism and there would be world peace, and have twisted it into something even the fellow travelers have trouble coming to terms with.

Global Warming is a cult idea of the NWO. It was created to woo environmentalists under their wing, sort of the way the Roman Catholic Church created holidays to draw pagan festivals into the church.

More than just a little hostility, you're discrediting what you see as socialism as a major threat to the world. And incidentally full of epithets - New World Order - neolibs - neocons - trotsky loyalist communist sect - one worlders

Quote:
Teabagger is pretty bad. I mean, it's a step below cocksucker. A lot of hostility is meant behind it also.

really? I thought it was just a innuendo laiden term of mild derision. But I'm not in the US, maybe I've missed the true viciousness behind the term.

Quote:
The hate the left feels for the right here is pretty intense. It's more intense than racism. I will take their word for it that it also goes the other way, but as I said, it's their job to catch that

the only hate I see on this board is from the likes of PN, who I consider to be a crazy troll not worth reading. Others, such as kaneman only post insults as far as I have seen, and some obvioiusly have long standing disputes with one another and have snarking duels.

Since I've been posting on the internet I have learned that the US is a radically divided nation, with quite polarised views from across the political spectrum, and that contempt is displayed between those spectrums, probably pretty evenly.

I would have said that the Right of politics appears to have moved more to the right in recent years, but that's just how it appears from afar. I could be wrong.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:15 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by 1kiki:
So, back to reality.

Why is Soc Sec supposed to be the root of all deficit evil? Wasn't it the abundant till that kept getting robbed to keep the government going? So why pretend that it has to be trimmed and brought under control b/c of its out of control deficit spending?

Oh, DUH! Smack myself in the forehead. Now that it's been depleted by all the robbery, they're trying to bring it back to life. After all, you can't rob from it if it's defunct.

Social Security isn't part of the budget. It's run on its own tax. That money is then typically "borrowed" (robbed) from Social Security's trust fund to pay for things the President and Congress can't get into the budget any other way (wars, unpopular programs, etc.).

Now they've borrowed it into the breach, and NOW they want us to agree to kill it, since they've already spent all the money we paid into the program. It's not the program that ran out of money - it's the rest of the federal government, which raided that till and then blew the money on handy things like Bush's tax cuts (you DO have to pay for tax cuts if you don't cut spending by an equal amount, Rappy, and Bush never once cut his profligate spending habits!), Bush's two wars, etc.

Both parties have raided it in the past. Some more than others. But blaming Social Security for getting robbed blind is like blaming the rape victim for "asking for it".

Hell, I'm sure Congress will be asking for an apology from Social Security now...

And lest you think otherwise, this was always the conservatives' plan. Borrow a plan into bankruptcy, then crow about how that plan doesn't work. Once you break it, you can then yell the loudest about how broken it is.

And don't forget to keep saying, over and over, "This isn't the time to place blame..." That always helps.

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Storymark:
Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I said that already. It was not a defense of the right, but pointing out the self-defeating tactics of the left. The right does it, but at least here on the board, maybe whozit or kaneman, but it's not as much, and also, I'm not the one to call them on it.

I'm sorry - but this reveals such a... selective recognition of reality I can't be bothered with the rest.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

WHY aren't you the one to call them on it, DT?

How many times have we all been told that if Muslims *really* wanted to convince us that they aren't all terrorists, they'd start policing their own, and denouncing terrorist acts when they occur.

So why isn't it a right-leaning, tea-party-leaning person's place to call out bad behavior on his own "side"?

'Cause I can guaran-fucking-tee you, they sure as shit ain't gonna listen to us calling them on it from the "other side".

So if not you,? If not now, when?

Niki is basically "on my side", yet she makes no bones about calling me onto the carpet about my posts. Frem's pretty much "on my side" (as much as he HAS a side, anyway), yet he's come right out and told me to stop posting.

So if nobody is qualified to referee the tea partiers, what is it that makes you think they're going to start treating others with a modicum of respect? Surely you're not going by their past record!

The modern definition of "socialist" is anyone who's winning an argument against a tea-bagger.

AURaptor's Greatest Hits:

Friday, September 24, 2010
I hate Obama's America. You're damn right about that.

Friday, May 28, 2010 - 18:26 To President Obama:
Mr. President, you're a god damn, mother fucking liar.
Fuck you, you cock sucking community activist piece of shit.
... go fuck yourself, Mr. President.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 2:30 PM

STORYMARK

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:

I'm not aware of Rap using any, but he might, I would just miss them.

Wow.

You sure miss a lot, then.

"I thoroughly disapprove of duels. If a man should challenge me, I would take him kindly and forgivingly by the hand and lead him to a quiet place and kill him."

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 3:44 PM

Mike

Frem doesn't really have a side, but I do call them on that, Rap et al on the anti-muslim nonsense, I call them on it all the time.

I meant I can't call them on what I don't see. If Someone on the right uses a term that's offensive to someone on the left, the left would see it for two reasons:

1) The left knows what offends the left

2) These messages are pretty directed and often personal. I seldom read arguments posted by Auraptor, and I'm much like likely to read them if they being "Mike," or "Niki,"

3) I read first posts. If Rap's first post says "Islamofascist ragheads" then I comment if no one else does, but frankly, it's also gotten old.

4) I'm not on anyone's side either. I've given up on partisan politics, they serve only to divide.

5) It's the bullets cast in my general direction that I have to duck. Particularly here, it was epithets and whether or not they should be allowed.

6) I filter out the nonsense that PN and Kane spout because they're insane, no offense guys. You know it.

7) I thought I was being pro-Left for posting this and that the right would give me a hard time about it. I'm serious here:

You guys have a loaded machine gun pointed at your feet, and it's all in the way you deliver your message.

Here's how a lot of stuff from the left reads, when received:

"Hey fuckhead, yeah, retards over there. We're smarter than you, and will dance on your grave, but we just wanted to tell you why you're wrong. Look, cocksuckers. You'll always lose, because you're just pretending you support civil liberties, but really, you're sick old rich greedy folks, we'll laugh when your dead. So, here's what we think the tax code should look like, you want to debate it, cause we're gonna fucking crush your skulls and use them for eating utensils"

Sorry, it's just sorta how it looks sometimes. It lacks like diplomacy, and class.

Am I saying that Auraptor or Kaneman or Whozit represent the soul of tact? Of course not. I'm not really reading what they have to say most of the time though.

If someone wants to jack off online just spouting their beliefs, then why should I read it? It's a rant about "Hurray for our team" and you know what I mean, and I'm talking about sides here. But some people actually have stuff to talk about, but then they mortally wound their argument by presenting it in such a hostile manner.

I mean seriously, the typical Kaneman post, and I say this with all due respect, because I don't really have a problem with Kaneman, but it basically goes like this:

"Hey, guess what. You're a fag."

You might see why I might ignore that.

Whozit is likely to put forth something like this:

"I'm playing with my food again. With my cock. Oh look republicans won. Yay! Liberals suck."

Now seriously, why am I going to read that?

So Wulfie posts

"Here's a video of an 80s metal hair band that perfectly illustrates my point about why a revolution of a bunch of idiots taking guns against an army that has laser guided robots with diamond saws, and we're going to so kick their ass because we have better songs."

And Auraptor says

"Mike, you're wrong. It doesn't matter what you just posted, I'm sure your wrong."

My apologies to everyone, I'm really irritated and haven't slept in days and I'm still working and I have a head ache and a terrible flu and just found out I'm working all through the weekend from 6AM to 12PM and I feel like hell.

So my apologies to the various people whose posts I'm just kinda skimming, because face it, I don't know what they said because I didn't read it, and it wasn't directed at me anyway, and even if I did read it, I wouldn't see what was offensive about it. Unless it was "Assrapers, I mean democrats, because their symbol is a donkey, an ass, and they're gay, because they support gay marriage, get it?" or whatever because if they did they would be Kane or PN when they posted it. Or possibly Whozit. I haven't read a whozit post in ages.

It's not an us vs. them thing. It's a shooting yourself in the foot thing.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:32 PM

I believe in solving problems, not sharing them.

DT, I'm sorry that you're feeling so sick and you have to work while you're ill. And if I got pissed at you, I'm sorry for that too.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Thursday, November 11, 2010 6:56 PM

CANTTAKESKY

Hope you feel better right quick, DT.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 7:43 AM

FREMDFIRMA

Yanno, it looks to me like a vital point has escaped many people about Social Security...
Like who's money it is in the first goddamn place!

When you get your first aboveboard, taxable, paying job - you are entered into a non-voluntary "contract" with the Government, via the W2/W4 form within which the essential agreement is that should you survive to a ripe old age, or be disabled, that money you put in (and they *DO* assess payout on how much you put in, always rounding it down in any way they can, you better believe it!) will be kicked back to you in order for you to survive, or in much the same fashion as a pension - of course, in a fashion that makes little to no offset for inflation, which means you get back a hell of a lot less than they took, and that's if you don't die from your injuries or medical neglect before you finally bring enough legal might down on them to FORCE them to the contract, in case of injury, or don't expire from other causes before you're old enough to "cash in".

At which point most folk still have to work (and thus pay a lot of that money RIGHT BACK IN), or make other plans in addition to, and severely hindered by, that tax bite, because of the lack of an inflation offset, so there's that as well.

And so, it's really insult to injury when on top of being forced into a very exploitive and financially ruinous involuntary contract, the Gov comes along and says "Ok, we're changing the deal", and screws you some more by not even holding to the original terms.
This on TOP of bailing out the motherfuckers who robbed your 401k and your pension, with even more of your tax money.

How exactly does this not amount to indentured servitude ?

And what RIGHT do any of you fucking have, to have any kind of nerve to bitch about people who got reamed for years and years by this system, WANTING THEIR OWN MONEY BACK OUT OF IT, which if you tally it, you will realize that most of em put far more into it than they'll ever get out, and when your time comes, those who came after you will be trying to prevent YOU from getting back any of the money raped from YOUR paycheck via threat of force/incarceration... cause rather than hold to the contract, the Gov essentially loots it and hands you an IOU while laughing in your face about it - not that a bank is ANY MORE TRUSTWORTHY, remember, I got burned for my entire childhood savings by Old Court Savings and Loan.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Court_Savings_and_Loans
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Savings_and_loan_crisis

Anyhow, this isn't the fucking Governments money, it's that of the people who paid into it, and for that reason, I will *NEVER* support any reduction or shitcanning of the program that does not have as it's FIRST ORDER OF BUSINESS, returning that goddamn money to the people they took it from, period.

Also worth a hard, cold second thought is that if they didn't have to pay that goddamn bite, a lotta workin poor and folk on public assistance wouldn't NEED TO BE, and we could dispense with all them government trough-feeders that collect, count and sort it, and the ones who assess, recount and pay it out, and all the gobbling in between, prolly for a massive net savings.

ETA: Also worth a thought is that despite being an Anarchist, I am a firm believer in Contracts...
(in fact I once pointed out that the Contract-Enforcement-Org/Biz would likely be the closest thing an Anarchist community would have to a mil-police force, did I not ?)
And I am harsh to the point of psychotic on broken ones.

Oh, and if I am offensive to someone, as a rule I try to be explicit and specific to them personally, rather than using a big brush, with the possible exception of general jackboot lickers.

-Frem

I do not serve the Blind God.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 7:55 AM

Nah, I'm sorry. I'm sick as a dog, and still overworked but I got very snappy. I can always tell because everyone is disagreeing with me.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 8:31 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

I think I just figured something out. DT, you are strongly attached to the Tea Party and it’s concepts. I think the term has triggered you into a much more general castigation about “epithets”...because I don’t see it as one, and your COMPLETE focus on the “left” and disregard of the far more egregious TRUE epithets coming from the right makes no sense, until one contemplates that this particular term might offend you so much more than the rest of us that it’s triggered a reaction and you’re not thinking objectively. Just my take on it, but for you to say “teabagger” is a step UNDER “cocksucker” seems to indicate an out-of-proportion response to the term.

Okay, I just hit your last post. I had a LONG response to things you said all down the line, but now it’s irrelevant. I better understand your position, if you ignore all the crap that comes our way. Suffice it to say, it’s myriad, consistent and offensive, and a couple of us respond in kind, some of us manage to ignore it all the time, and some of us (like me) don’t ignore it often enough but try not to climb into the gutter. What you don’t get is that when filth is hurled at you consistently, it’s damned hard to ignore it all and even harder when you DON’T ignore it to respond in any kind of civil manner.

Suffice it to say you miss a LOT of abuse coming our way, on a consistent basis. Sometimes that’s the only responses we GET, and I, for one, am not responding to those when I try to make a point, I am responding “at” them but actually “to” the intelligent people here who have something to say, as well as saying a few things “to” those who are ridiculously asinine. That you miss what I say because my responses to the uglies is your business; I’m sad if that’s so, but I’ve learned here that one has the right to defend oneself or one’s politics right along with making valid points in opposition. To do otherwise would be saintly; I’m no saint.

Sig is absolutely right, from my observations:

Quote:
Yanno, I tried that. I really did. It didn't make a hill of beans worth of difference. At this point, there are a few people who I'm routinely rude to; and several that I just out-and-out ignore; and most that I try to be reasonable with. But the right-wing isn't about to be won over by nice words and reasonableness... and if they're dishing it out they see politeness as a weakness, not a strength.

When I first came here, I found it considerably more civil than the place I was last, and in comparison didn't think it was that bad. Since then it's gotten worse. Initially I tried to be civil...over time I found myself responding to the ugliness that came my way.

I then decided to be at least civil as much as I can; it’s made ZIP difference in how I’m treated. I only do it because it’s a reflection of what I believe in, so I do it for me...if that didn’t matter to me, I’d go right back to responding in the same vein to which I am addressed. It makes no difference and, in the time I’ve been here, never has. Remember Anthony? Unceasingly polite and civil; did anyone on the right ever hear his points??

Kiki, I agree completely:

Quote:
Why is Soc Sec supposed to be the root of all deficit evil? Wasn't it the abundant till that kept getting robbed to keep the government going? So why pretend that it has to be trimmed and brought under control b/c of its out of control deficit spending?

Oh, DUH! Smack myself in the forehead. Now that it's been depleted by all the robbery, they're trying to bring it back to life. After all, you can't rob from it if it's defunct.

As far as I can see, the Republicans want to “privatize” it because that puts profit in the hands of Wall Street and frees the government to spent the money elsewhere (tax cuts for the rich, perhaps?). The only argument ever necessary against privatizing Social Security is what happened to Wall Street, and the result to those who HAD some retirement funds there.

DT, given your subsequent remarks about Australia, I find your castigation somewhat interesting; if that’s not lumping a bunch of people together in a derogatory sense, I don’t know what IS! Magons is right about Socialist, too...if memory serves, you’ve used it to refer to people here, and not just to politicians who have STATED they are Socialists.

Magons, you haven’t missed the “viciousness” behind the term, because of the vast majority of people, it’s not there. Any more than “libtards”, “neolibs” or a number of the others used on the right. It’s partly sarcasm, BECAUSE they called themselves that at first, and for me (if I used it), partly because many of them actually have no concept of what the original dumping of the tea was about. When they said “teabag your Congressman”, who WOULDN’T find it amusing as hell and want to toss it back at them?

Mike, excellent point on Social Security. And yes, there are numerous treatises on the fact that Republicans have been trying for ages to “privatize” as furtherance of their own agenda. That goes waaaay back, if one cares to look it up.

I, too, extend my sympathy that you don’t feel well, as well as that you have to WORK under those conditions (which I think is horrendous!). I hope you feel better soonest and get some sleep.

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, November 12, 2010 8:40 AM

Gettin' old, but still a hippie at heart...

Frem: EXCELLENT!! That's something most on the right ignore when calling us the various names they do because we're receiving some of the money we put in back, and tell us to "get a job". I would fucking get a job IF I COULD, because it would pay enough to keep me alive; I know any number of people with mental illness who life like paupers after decades of paying into the system, because the fact is that Social Security doesn't pay ANYONE enough to survive, much less live decently.

Jim is still working at 72+ because we can't afford him quitting, and he puts every penny of the Social Security he IS receiving into our retirement, because even our combined SSI benefits wouldn't allow us to keep our house and live (even as frugally as we do). Also because our current healthcare system is such that we would long ago have been bankrupted if he had retired and lost his employee benefits...WHICH go down every year with higher copays and the insurance company reducing which medications they will pay for more and more. Medicare helps, but these days even that isn't enough to pay for many things...I can't imagine how we'd ever hope to survive without it.

So to say I'm robbing someone who can still work bothers me--not much because I consider the source--because I worked for DECADES and paid into the system, AND NOW THEY TAX MY SOCIAL SECURITY to boot!

Hippie Operative Nikovich Nikita Nicovna Talibani,
Contracted Agent of Veritas Oilspillus, code name “Nike”,
signing off

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, November 13, 2010 7:31 AM