Anna Ruthven said: »
The topic is George Clinton's presidency, dammit! Discuss!
Edit, paged like a mother ****er, so here's an investigative llama:
Random Politics & Religion #00
Random Politics & Religion #00
Jr or Sr damnit!?
Edit, paged like a mother ****er, so here's an investigative llama:
[+]
Andrew Jackson was the best president ever. Actually had the country not in debt.
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
Andrew Jackson was the best president ever. Actually had the country not in debt.
[+]
Lakshmi.Zerowone said: »
Also Mods found out that OP was a pathological liar and slightly delusional.
Coo coo for cocoa puffs.
That said: Has the trix bunny ever eat his cereal yet?
Why is the Onion making Biden sound like Chaney?
Haha let the fireworks begin.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: »
The topic is George Clinton's presidency, dammit! Discuss!
FINE! GAH! Touchy subject! Just one question. Are you really prepared to improve your interplanetary funkmanship?
I take exception to his passing of legislation where it is mandatory to "wear your sunglasses so you can feel cool."
Is 500K kilowatts of P-Funk power really what is being emitted from the mothership? I don't like the implications of him telling us red-blooded Americans that we should simply "Sit back!" while he "does to us in our eardrums."
No, sir! NO! I don't "dig"!
[+]
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
Haha let the fireworks begin.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
Dissidence will not be tolerated!
[+]
Leviathan.Chaosx said: »
I heard she has brain damage.
[+]
I like comparing her to Palin. The similarities are eerie.
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
Haha let the fireworks begin.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
[+]
Anna Ruthven said: »
Lakshmi.Saevel said: »
Haha let the fireworks begin.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
It's not possible to have a rationale discussion about either politics or religion. Both are belief systems that require the member to develop an emotional reliance on the inherent "correctness" of their belief. So while its possible to discuss the specific details of the faith, questioning the core tenants is blasphemy.
Hence every political "discussion" devolves into the majority attacking the minority dissenters.
Haha. There hasn't been a single "discussion" that involves people from different political beliefs that has ever not devolved into a ***fest. Each side starts acting by acting rational but the moment one challenges a core tenant of the other, gloves come off and emotional attacks begin.
It's pretty simple. Humans make decisions emotionally, we do what we "feel". Afterwards we rationalize our decision. To alter a humans beliefs you have to use emotional manipulation. First to cause a crisis with their old beliefs, then to introduce new beliefs. Religions have perfected this process and socialist progressives have copied and adapted it.
If you want to "win" an argument don't present the other side with facts and counterpoints, instead control the stereotypes and associations of each sides core beliefs. Convince the other sides emotional subconscious first and then their conscious will follow on its own.
[+]
And pleebo comes through nicely. Point proven.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
A proper debate requires at least 2 properly informed positions. The problem encountered into with the "dissenters" is they think their uninformed opinion equals an informed one, and potential debates are reduced down to arguing basic facts (the Mars thread is an appropriate example). It's not all of them all the time, but it's often enough that it makes any actual discussion past page 1 pointless.
No, a problem on these forums is if you don't agree with with the far liberal left side 100% of the time you're automatically discredited regardless if the position is informed or not.
To sum it up: Conservatives on these forums are always wrong, moderates are sometimes wrong, and liberals always correct.
[+]
Keep the victim card in your wallet. My point is demonstrable in almost any P&R thread. Pattern goes:
1) Original topic
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) Someone makes a glaringly fallacious statement
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued using factual information and citations
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
The posters that identify as conservatives who can actually make a coherent argument get labeled as liberals. It's practically scripted.
Edit: Forgot 8) Saevel swoops in with a unnecessarily long-winded word salad declaring how above it all he is.
1) Original topic
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) Someone makes a glaringly fallacious statement
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued using factual information and citations
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
The posters that identify as conservatives who can actually make a coherent argument get labeled as liberals. It's practically scripted.
Edit: Forgot 8) Saevel swoops in with a unnecessarily long-winded word salad declaring how above it all he is.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The posters that identify as conservatives who can actually make a coherent argument get labeled as liberals. It's practically scripted.
Can you actually provide an example of this, or are you just trying to create a false narrative?
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Keep the victim card in your wallet. My point is demonstrable in almost any P&R thread. Pattern goes:
1) Original topic
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) LiberalSomeone makes a glaringly fallacious statement
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued using factual information and citations
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
The posters that identify as conservatives who can actually make a coherent argument get labeled asliberals Crazy. It's practically scripted.
Edit: Forgot 8)Saevel Pleeblo swoops in and takes a massive dump.
1) Original topic
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) Liberal
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued using factual information and citations
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
The posters that identify as conservatives who can actually make a coherent argument get labeled as
Edit: Forgot 8)
Taken a page from Jet's playbook.
ftfy.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Keep the victim card in your wallet.
[+]
Dave Brat the Economics Professor who took out Cantor hasn't a CLUE On Minimum Wage.
OK he understands it in theory, but as to its relevance here and now? 'I Don't Have A Well-Crafted Response'
"well-crafted response"... that means he hasn't researched it as a candidate.
I find it hard to believe a Randian econ prof. has no opinion on minimum wage.
OK he understands it in theory, but as to its relevance here and now? 'I Don't Have A Well-Crafted Response'
MSNBC host Chuck Todd said:
TODD: So should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: Say it again.
TODD: Should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: I don't have a well-crafted response on that one. All I know is if you take the long-run graph over 200 years of the wage rate, it cannot differ from your nation's productivity. Right? So you can't make up wage rates. Right? I would love for everyone in sub-Saharan Africa, for example -- children of God -- to make $100 an hour. I would love to just assert that that would be the case. But you can't assert that unless you raise their productivity, and then the wage follows.
TODD: Sounds like you're making a case against a federally mandated minimum wage.
BRAT: I'm just making the case I just made that you can't artificially make up wage rates, they have to be related to productivity.
BRAT: Say it again.
TODD: Should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: I don't have a well-crafted response on that one. All I know is if you take the long-run graph over 200 years of the wage rate, it cannot differ from your nation's productivity. Right? So you can't make up wage rates. Right? I would love for everyone in sub-Saharan Africa, for example -- children of God -- to make $100 an hour. I would love to just assert that that would be the case. But you can't assert that unless you raise their productivity, and then the wage follows.
TODD: Sounds like you're making a case against a federally mandated minimum wage.
BRAT: I'm just making the case I just made that you can't artificially make up wage rates, they have to be related to productivity.
I find it hard to believe a Randian econ prof. has no opinion on minimum wage.
[+]
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The posters that identify as conservatives who can actually make a coherent argument get labeled as liberals. It's practically scripted.
Can you actually provide an example of this, or are you just trying to create a false narrative?
Altimaomega said: »
Edit: Forgot 8) Saevel Pleeblo swoops in and takes a massive dump.
Bahamut.Ravael said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
The posters that identify as conservatives who can actually make a coherent argument get labeled as liberals. It's practically scripted.
Can you actually provide an example of this, or are you just trying to create a false narrative?
Well, I get called a Liberal all the time despite not personally identifying with liberals in any way except opposition to religious based policy making. (See: Gays aren't people)
And no, I don't consider Climate Change a liberal or conservative issue. It's an evidence based argument.
Garuda.Chanti said: »
Dave Brat the Economics Professor who took out Cantor hasn't a CLUE On Minimum Wage.
OK he understands it in theory, but as to its relevance here and now? 'I Don't Have A Well-Crafted Response'
"well-crafted response"... that means he hasn't researched it as a candidate.
I find it hard to believe a Randian econ prof. has no opinion on minimum wage.
OK he understands it in theory, but as to its relevance here and now? 'I Don't Have A Well-Crafted Response'
MSNBC host Chuck Todd said:
TODD: So should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: Say it again.
TODD: Should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: I don't have a well-crafted response on that one. All I know is if you take the long-run graph over 200 years of the wage rate, it cannot differ from your nation's productivity. Right? So you can't make up wage rates. Right? I would love for everyone in sub-Saharan Africa, for example -- children of God -- to make $100 an hour. I would love to just assert that that would be the case. But you can't assert that unless you raise their productivity, and then the wage follows.
TODD: Sounds like you're making a case against a federally mandated minimum wage.
BRAT: I'm just making the case I just made that you can't artificially make up wage rates, they have to be related to productivity.
BRAT: Say it again.
TODD: Should there be a minimum wage in your opinion?
BRAT: I don't have a well-crafted response on that one. All I know is if you take the long-run graph over 200 years of the wage rate, it cannot differ from your nation's productivity. Right? So you can't make up wage rates. Right? I would love for everyone in sub-Saharan Africa, for example -- children of God -- to make $100 an hour. I would love to just assert that that would be the case. But you can't assert that unless you raise their productivity, and then the wage follows.
TODD: Sounds like you're making a case against a federally mandated minimum wage.
BRAT: I'm just making the case I just made that you can't artificially make up wage rates, they have to be related to productivity.
I find it hard to believe a Randian econ prof. has no opinion on minimum wage.
Why is that so hard to believe? He couldn't even believe he won the primary, don't expect much from this guy. He did his service to the country by ousting a failed majority leader. That will be his biggest accomplishment.
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
1) Original topic
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) Someone makes a glaringly fallacious statement according to specific individuals on these boards.
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued usingfactual information and citationsWikipedia.
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives.
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) Someone makes a glaringly fallacious statement according to specific individuals on these boards.
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued using
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives.
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
FTFY.
[+]
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
Jassik and Ramyrez get called liberals often enough. "With us or against us!"
I'd honestly rather be grouped in with liberals than with the current batch of "conservatives". Fiscally irresponsible, tromping on the bill of rights whenever it suits their personal views, legislating morality... GOP why have you forsaken me!?
Bahamut.Baconwrap said: »
Cerberus.Pleebo said: »
1) Original topic
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) Someone makes a glaringly fallacious statement according to specific individuals on these boards.
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued usingfactual information and citationsWikipedia.
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
2) Reasonable opinions get posted (This step is optional.)
3) Someone makes a glaringly fallacious statement according to specific individuals on these boards.
4) Statement is questioned or counterargued using
5) Poster doubles down on their statement
6) Big meanie head liberals pick on the poor persecuted conservatives
7) Topic falls into obscurity or gets locked by page 9
FTFY.
Pretty amusing considering altima posts wiki links and definitions all the time.
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2024 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.