|
Your continuous donations keep RPGWatch running!
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » What should he get?

Default What should he get?

June 2nd, 2009, 01:52
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
I'm not sure we have that many "party liners" on either side of the aisle in this forum. Rith and I are liberal on most social issues, and occasionally you pinkos do a cranial-rectalectomy and show some fiscal sense. Oxlar and BKruegar might be the closest we've got. Well, mudsling's a pretty orthodox libertarian, too. Not many folks by percentage, so there's a little more tendency for give-n-take in the debate.
Actually I'm not registered with any party. As much as you all want to classify me as a republican, I'd hate to have to dissapoint you by saying that I haven't voted for the Republican's nominee in my entire life time. I'm independent. I'm fiscally conservative and lean towards libertarian view points on government's role and size. Being fiscally conservative does not make me a republican as republicans haven't been fiscally conservative for a long time. I stand on principals, not parties.
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#41

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 01:58
I think we all assume you are a (far, far, far right) Republican because you use far-right buzzwords and descriptors such as "secular progressives" as a perjorative. You also said that university degrees are worthless since they're part of a "progressive scam".
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#42

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 02:01
Originally Posted by magerette View Post
@Oxlar—listen to Rush much? It shows. I disagree so strongly with everything I hear out of you that I am no longer able to avoid responding—but this is the only time. The ignore button is there for a good reason and you are now on ghost mode afa I'm concerned.
Sorry Oxlar, but I feel very much the same way. I wasn't quite as angry, but…what she said, yeah.

Oh, I wish I had a river I could skate away on. But it don't snow here. It stays pretty green. I'm going to make a lot of money, then I'm going to quit this crazy scene. — [Joni Mitchell]
Squeek is offline

Squeek

Squeek's Avatar
connoisseur of tidbits

#43

Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Orange County, California
Posts: 1,807

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 02:14
Originally Posted by Squeek View Post
Sorry Oxlar, but I feel very much the same way. I wasn't quite as angry, but…what she said, yeah.
Please point out to me, as I layed out sentance by sentance what I said, that you find offensive or wrong even?
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#44

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 02:15
Originally Posted by Oxlar View Post
Actually I'm not registered with any party. As much as you all want to classify me as a republican, I'd hate to have to dissapoint you by saying that I haven't voted for the Republican's nominee in my entire life time. I'm independent. I'm fiscally conservative and lean towards libertarian view points on government's role and size. Being fiscally conservative does not make me a republican as republicans haven't been fiscally conservative for a long time. I stand on principals, not parties.
My apologies. You fiscal conservatism is evident and you've shown some pretty strong social conservatism as well in a few threads. I haven't really seen much that would indicate libertarian tendencies, but perhaps that's just a result of the topics you've weighed in on. Cross another off the extremely short "party liner" list, I guess. Not sure we'd agree on republicans being fiscal frauds "for a long time", but Dubya certainly fits the bill.

Sorry. No pearls of wisdom in this oyster.
Dallas Cowboys: *sigh* / / Detroit Red Wings: Took injuries to see them, but how about them youngsters!
dteowner is offline

dteowner

dteowner's Avatar
Shoegazer

#45

Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Indiana, USA
Posts: 11,314

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 02:18
Originally Posted by Rithrandil View Post
I think we all assume you are a (far, far, far right) Republican because you use far-right buzzwords and descriptors such as "secular progressives" as a perjorative. You also said that university degrees are worthless since they're part of a "progressive scam".
Viewing progressivism as a negative ideology is in step with pure libertarianism more than republicanism. Lets not forget that in the opening days of progressivism that it was being professed from both democratic and republican camps.
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#46

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 02:22
Originally Posted by Oxlar View Post
Viewing progressivism as a negative ideology is in step with pure libertarianism more than republicanism. Lets not forget that in the opening days of progressivism that it was being professed from both democratic and republican camps.
And it still is, by some - Huckabee is pretty progressive.

Regardless, you sound pretty close to people like Bill O'Reilly (when he stops trying to fake being a "moderate"), Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh. That is what I mean by the far right of the Republican party.
Rithrandil is offline

Rithrandil

I bent my wookie

#47

Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: VA
Posts: 2,299

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 02:58
Originally Posted by Rithrandil View Post
And it still is, by some - Huckabee is pretty progressive.

Regardless, you sound pretty close to people like Bill O'Reilly (when he stops trying to fake being a "moderate"), Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity, or Rush Limbaugh. That is what I mean by the far right of the Republican party.
I don't really see how Huckabee could be considered progressive. One of his biggest causes is to change the tax system to a consumption based tax and get rid of the IRS, which would make government smaller.

Ann coulter, sean hannity, and rush put their party first and principals second. They are incapable of condeming their own party and are shills because they will defend their party even when its contrary to their professed principals.

I think Bill O' is a closet blue dog dem from the old school dem party.

If I had to pick a commentator or radio show host that I line up with, I would say Glenn Beck is closer than any other. Politically, I feel that there are only a small handful of politicians worth keeping. Ron Paul is as close to my ideal as I will find, which is why I wrote his name in for president when I voted this last election.
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#48

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 06:53
Originally Posted by dteowner View Post
My apologies. You fiscal conservatism is evident and you've shown some pretty strong social conservatism as well in a few threads. I haven't really seen much that would indicate libertarian tendencies, but perhaps that's just a result of the topics you've weighed in on. Cross another off the extremely short "party liner" list, I guess. Not sure we'd agree on republicans being fiscal frauds "for a long time", but Dubya certainly fits the bill.
I just read an essay on American libertarianism a while back. The central argument was that most self-described libertarians are actually only economic libertarians: they've turned Locke into "Government is always the problem and I don't want to pay taxes." None of them protested when Bush's policies eroded civil liberties or pursued a very, very anti-libertarian (interventionist) foreign policy. The Cato institute publishes yearly rankings of countries by economic freedom, but barely even discusses social freedoms. They consider (authoritarian) Singapore freer than (extremely democratic and social-liberal) Denmark, because Singapore has a lower tax rate. And so on and so forth: they've turned into, basically, Republicans who like to smoke dope.

Of course, there's nothing inconsistent about valuing economic freedom more highly than social or political freedom; it's just that it's pretty far removed from the original idea of libertarianism — striving for a society that maximizes liberty for the individual at all levels, economic, political, and social.

In case anyone's interested, here's the essay:

[ http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/lib…-bartlett.html ]
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#49

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 06:55
Originally Posted by Oxlar View Post
Those kids are old enough to know right from wrong. This is the kind of social based rulings that I fear from someone like sotomayor being confirmed. Do the crime, do the time. There is no question that the robbery was a crime. I don't want rulings based off of them being black or living in a poor neighborhood or that they didn't have a father at home. Thats all garbage. Equal justice means equal justice regardless of race, social status, or money.
I think the reason pepole find this "offensive" is that you expect the same from someone whose been raised in extreme poor circumstances and who haven't gotten proper schooling as you expect from someone who's been brought up in wealthier circumstances, even though poverty is The Biggest Factor when it comes to criminality. That strikes me as pretty unsympathetic.

Personally though, my biggest objection is that you think the point of the juridical system is justice. But I fail to see the point of justice. Punishing pepole never seem to do that much good. The only thing it does is keep pepole from harming other pepole for a while, but if that's the point, then why not shoot them right away and be done with it?

‹bereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#50

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 06:55
Originally Posted by Oxlar View Post
I don't really see how Huckabee could be considered progressive. One of his biggest causes is to change the tax system to a consumption based tax and get rid of the IRS, which would make government smaller.
Actually, it wouldn't. It'd just make government run a bigger deficit.

"Strangle the beast" was Reagan's buzzword. It didn't work. It's easy to cut taxes, but it's difficult to cut spending. If you want to make government smaller, then cut spending. Once you've paid off the national debt, *then* cut taxes.
Prime Junta is offline

Prime Junta

RPGCodex' Little BRO

#51

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 8,540

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 07:27
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
I think the reason pepole find this "offensive" is that you expect the same from someone whose been raised in extreme poor circumstances and who haven't gotten proper schooling as you expect from someone who's been brought up in wealthier circumstances, even though poverty is The Biggest Factor when it comes to criminality. That strikes me as pretty unsympathetic.
Well, US inner cities (and an increasing number of poor rural areas) are a tragedy to say the least. I get outraged at these sort of stories, of pieces of shit like that kid getting sympathy, but I understand that they really don't know any better. Dig a little deep into his past and you'll probably find terrible parents (most likely just the mother, no sign of dad) a shit school filled with kids with the same problems he has. His self esteem was probably next to nothing. In fact, much of "black" culture today is based on trying to show the world that you're not a scared, pathetic, insecure little boy that needs to brandish weapons when someone makes fun of your sneakers, or fuck as many women as you can to prove you're not gay. Just watch just about any rap video.

Can you rehabilitate them? Maybe… though at the cost of billions of dollars, time, effort, and the support of the community and even then it's no guarantee. Not to mention the fact that once these kids leave whatever counseling they've been court mandated to, they return right back into the shit storm they call a life, with the drugs and violence. And on top of that, it doesn't take a majority of failures to cause the whole lot to fall. Add a few bad apples to any community and the rest tend to fall or move away. You think the few blacks that manage to survive, say Newark, stay there to improve it? Nope, they get the fuck out and I don't blame them.
Thoth is offline

Thoth

Thoth's Avatar
Sentinel

#52

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 354

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 08:22
Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
Well, US inner cities (and an increasing number of poor rural areas) are a tragedy to say the least. I get outraged at these sort of stories, of pieces of shit like that kid getting sympathy, but I understand that they really don't know any better. Dig a little deep into his past and you'll probably find terrible parents (most likely just the mother, no sign of dad) a shit school filled with kids with the same problems he has. His self esteem was probably next to nothing. In fact, much of "black" culture today is based on trying to show the world that you're not a scared, pathetic, insecure little boy that needs to brandish weapons when someone makes fun of your sneakers, or fuck as many women as you can to prove you're not gay. Just watch just about any rap video.
Even though they go through that hell you don't sympathise with them? That also strikes me as quite unsympathetic.

Originally Posted by Thoth View Post
Can you rehabilitate them? Maybe… though at the cost of billions of dollars, time, effort, and the support of the community and even then it's no guarantee.
Well, the alternative is putting them in jail which also costs billions of dollars. Or, well, catch them young so you won't have to rehabilitate them. It's easier to strangle the criminal in development when this development is in it's cradle (meaning age 13-15) than to do it at age 18 when the guy's a drug addict with no schooling and know no other way to live his life.

‹bereil

For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.

H. L. Mencken

The Chaos Cascade
Ubereil is offline

Ubereil

Ubereil's Avatar
Keeper of the Watch

#53

Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 1,263

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 08:44
Originally Posted by Ubereil View Post
I think the reason pepole find this "offensive" is that you expect the same from someone whose been raised in extreme poor circumstances and who haven't gotten proper schooling as you expect from someone who's been brought up in wealthier circumstances, even though poverty is The Biggest Factor when it comes to criminality. That strikes me as pretty unsympathetic.

Personally though, my biggest objection is that you think the point of the juridical system is justice. But I fail to see the point of justice. Punishing pepole never seem to do that much good. The only thing it does is keep pepole from harming other pepole for a while, but if that's the point, then why not shoot them right away and be done with it?

‹bereil
According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

"I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God."


I rest my case.
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#54

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 08:48
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
I just read an essay on American libertarianism a while back. The central argument was that most self-described libertarians are actually only economic libertarians: they've turned Locke into "Government is always the problem and I don't want to pay taxes." None of them protested when Bush's policies eroded civil liberties or pursued a very, very anti-libertarian (interventionist) foreign policy. The Cato institute publishes yearly rankings of countries by economic freedom, but barely even discusses social freedoms. They consider (authoritarian) Singapore freer than (extremely democratic and social-liberal) Denmark, because Singapore has a lower tax rate. And so on and so forth: they've turned into, basically, Republicans who like to smoke dope.

Of course, there's nothing inconsistent about valuing economic freedom more highly than social or political freedom; it's just that it's pretty far removed from the original idea of libertarianism — striving for a society that maximizes liberty for the individual at all levels, economic, political, and social.

In case anyone's interested, here's the essay:

[ http://www.forbes.com/2009/05/28/lib…-bartlett.html ]

If I were a libertarian, I might be offended. Not sure if that was your intent for the post or not.
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#55

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 08:51
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
Actually, it wouldn't. It'd just make government run a bigger deficit.

"Strangle the beast" was Reagan's buzzword. It didn't work. It's easy to cut taxes, but it's difficult to cut spending. If you want to make government smaller, then cut spending. Once you've paid off the national debt, *then* cut taxes.
Different argument. It would make it physically smaller. Although I'd like to see your thesis on why the deficit gap can't be bridged depending on how you implement it. But your right about cutting spending to make the government smaller, something I'm all for.
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#56

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 08:55
Anyways, back on topic. I saw an interview with this guy who shot the kid tonight. Watching that interview, I think its safe to say he has some major developmental problems which are both physical and mental. So, since there is so much sympathy for the young kid who got killed because of his 'background and life experiences', will there be any sympathy for this guy if he goes to jail with his disabilities? Or does being poor and black trump everything?
Oxlar is offline

Oxlar

Watchdog

#57

Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 163

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 09:11
There's only one problem with the ignore function—it tempts you to peek at the hidden posts. Alright Oxlar, in the interests of giving you a fair hearing, I'll respond and explain why I took offense, but I hardly think you and I are ever going to understand each other.

Originally Posted by Oxlar View Post
WTH? Let me break down what I said and try to find out what it is that upsets you so much that you feel the need to put me on the ignore list and try and besmirch my opinion by equating me to a fan of Rush.

There is no question that the robbery was a crime.

You don't think the robbery was a crime? Maybe its just a couple of kids playing cops and robbers?
I think the robbery was a crime. The pharmacy is in a bad neighborhood. It's been robbed before. It will be robbed again. You can shoot all the black teenagers you want, but you won't change that until you change the reasons it's happening.

Those kids are old enough to know right from wrong.

You some how find it offensive that someone would think a 15 year old kid would know right from wrong?
More debatable, but I didn't find this assertion offensive, just oversimplified.

Do the crime, do the time.

You must then believe that some people should be allowed to do 'the crime' without being held accountable? This statement is offensive to you?
Must I then believe that? I don't think so.
Your interpretation of what I said is totally twisted. You'll not find one word in any of my posts that says I think people should commit crimes and not be held accountable. What I said was I thought it was hard to say the boy deserved to die because he went into a pharmacy with a gun he never fired. (I also said the druggist had a clear right to defend himself, btw.)

And while being killed in the execution of a crime by a civilian is a consequence of the kid's action for which he has certainly been held accountable, it's completely different from being convicted in a courtroom and serving a sentence('doing the time.') But I wasn't offended by the illogic of the terms as the gist was understandable.

Equal justice means equal justice regardless of race, social status, or money. I don't want rulings based off of them being black or living in a poor neighborhood or that they didn't have a father at home. Thats all garbage.

So you don't believe in the oath taken by supreme court justices? This is what the lady of scales represents in our justice system. She is blind and should apply the law with no regard to such factors.
Where did I ever say the law shouldn't be applied regardless of color or whatever? I do find the words ending in"That's all garbage" to be judgmental and offensive, and that's where I started to get mad, yes. Are you saying a teenager being shot down by a druggist is a case of our justice system applying blind justice? Because vigilanteism is not the rule of law, it's the rule of the jungle.

This is the kind of social based rulings that I fear from someone like sotomayor being confirmed.
Fear, indeed. I'm sure you do. Since this is pretty much a straight Limbaugh quote, and the talking point of every right wingnut blog and talk show, I think I can be excused for my reference. And this is where I began to get extremely offended.
This happens to be a very relevant topic right now.
Yes, it is, but not to this thread. But since you started it…
You started espousing reprocations based off of social, educational, economic, and racial status. This is the ideology that Judge sotomayor has implied exists via her own words or actions.
No, I didn't. (WTF is a reprocation? Whatever it is, I can't recall espousing one.) And no, it isn't. There's not one shred of proof that Sotomayor has made legal decisions due to an identity politics ideology. To the contrary:
From a piece by Tom Goldstein on the SCOTUSblog(My bold)
Iíve now completed the study of every one of Judge Sotomayorís race-related cases that I mention in the post below. Iíll write more in the morning about particular cases, but here is what the data shows in sum:

Other than Ricci, Judge Sotomayor has decided 96 race-related cases while on the court of appeals.

Of the 96 cases, Judge Sotomayor and the panel rejected the claim of discrimination roughly 78 times and agreed with the claim of discrimination 10 times; the remaining 8 involved other kinds of claims or dispositions. Of the 10 cases favoring claims of discrimination, 9 were unanimous…Of those 9, in 7, the unanimous panel included at least one Republican-appointed judge. In the one divided panel opinion, the dissentís point dealt only with the technical question of whether the criminal defendant in that case had forfeited his challenge to the jury selection in his case. So Judge Sotomayor rejected discrimination-related claims by a margin of roughly 8 to 1.
Link to full article
But of course, to those who are demonstrating the knee-jerk negative response, her actual rulings in 96 cases, how she applies the laws, etc aren't as important as a gaffe she made 8 years ago.
And somehow, I am equated to someone who you feel has negative social connotations. Well I don't like rush, never have.
Glad to hear it—hard to tell from your remarks, which as I said, are almost word for word Limbaugh or other winger quotes. There's no one out there you could find that has more negative social connotations to me.
But just because I have an opinion that differs from you does not mean that you hold a trump card on my relevance.
No indeed, and I uphold your right to freedom of speech. Your views would be the trump card regarding your relevance, which to me is nonexistant, but I defend your right to hold them regardless. I just don't find it productive to try to talk people out of mindsets that diverge so dramatically from mine, and my blood pressure is an issue these days, hence the ignore thing.
Should I assume that your a student of William Ayers because of your views? No. That would be preposterous.
Correct. I never had the money to attend the University of Illinois and study under Professor Ayers.
I'm stunned that you would take offense to those things I said.
Somehow I doubt that. I think the point of what you said was to get my goat.

The only thing I can think of is that your a HUGE obama fan and feel you must attack anyone who doesn't fall in line with his agenda. Thus when I say I disagree with the sotomayor appointment, you went all ape nutz on me. ….
It has nothing in particular to do with Obama, though I do like him. I'm more a huge fan of keeping an open mind and keeping in touch with reality. I dislike race, class and gender bias intensely. It's a hot button for me, and it's on obvious display in the "empathetic, activist, racist" criticisms of Sotomayor, whether you can see it or not. There may very well be genuine reasons why Sotomayor isn't the right person for the job, but gender-biased accusations of "emotional, social based" rulings are not one of them. Your disdain for her is far more revealing of you than her—you can't even bring yourself to capitalize her name.

And that's enough off-topic for me, and enough explanation.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#58

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 09:26
Originally Posted by Oxlar View Post
Anyways, back on topic. I saw an interview with this guy who shot the kid tonight. Watching that interview, I think its safe to say he has some major developmental problems which are both physical and mental. So, since there is so much sympathy for the young kid who got killed because of his 'background and life experiences', will there be any sympathy for this guy if he goes to jail with his disabilities? Or does being poor and black trump everything?
He's a veteran with major problems. He's getting sympathy out the ying yang here, and from people like you all over the country. I'll be very surprised if he's convicted of murder one in a jury trial. I don't think it's misplaced to have sympathy for him—and believe me, I'm in the minority for having even a slight bit of sympathy for the dead kid. I don't know where you get the idea that the whole world is up in arms to defend the "poor black" kid; it never is, especially here. A few civil rights groups will speak up for him, and his mother, but if the disturbed druggist hadn't gone back and gut shot him 5 additional times when he was unconscious with a separate gun, he wouldn't even be facing a murder charge. If you want to make this guy your hero, you go for it. You won't be alone.

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#59

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929

Default 

June 2nd, 2009, 09:37
Originally Posted by Prime Junta View Post
I just read an essay on American libertarianism a while back. The central argument was that most self-described libertarians are actually only economic libertarians: they've turned Locke into "Government is always the problem and I don't want to pay taxes." None of them protested when Bush's policies eroded civil liberties or pursued a very, very anti-libertarian (interventionist) foreign policy. The Cato institute publishes yearly rankings of countries by economic freedom, but barely even discusses social freedoms. They consider (authoritarian) Singapore freer than (extremely democratic and social-liberal) Denmark, because Singapore has a lower tax rate. And so on and so forth: they've turned into, basically, Republicans who like to smoke dope.
A crazed hippy I once knew used to say; "Just because you do drugs, doesn't mean you're hip."

Interesting article, especially the Cato institute stuff and the point about taxes and happiness:
Since low taxes are taken as the sine qua non of a free society, one would therefore expect the happiest countries to be the lowest-taxed countries. In fact, this is not the case. Based on a recent study by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, most of the world's happiest countries are high-tax countries.
Could it be because people in high tax countries have a higher quality of life-like better education, enough to eat, more time to enjoy their lives, a social safety net and a more stable society?

Where there's smoke, there's mirrors.
magerette is offline

magerette

magerette's Avatar
Hedgewitch
RPGWatch Team

#60

Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 7,929
RPGWatch Forums » General Forums » Politics & Religion » What should he get?
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 +2. The time now is 22:34.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright by RPGWatch