Page 4 of 5

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:03 am
by Lathander
McCain is a Ford type of person. Someone that is not really part of the brand, but he's probably the best chance to win the White House. I was pretty ambivilent on McCain myself until Russia invaded Georgia. I just can't see Obama standing strong against the Russians. Also, the Palin pick gives us someone that might be the new Ronald Reagan. She's different, and who know, maybe we'll be voting for her in 2016 or 2012 if McCain only serves for one term.

*making his Palin 2016 signs*

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:18 am
by Sarvis
Lathander wrote: I just can't see Obama standing strong against the Russians.



Really? Really? The same tired tricks from the last election?

Well, I guess they worked. :roll:

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:23 am
by Lathander
Have you heard Obama say what he would do to get the Russians out of Georgia and protect our friends in the Ukraine?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:15 am
by Ragorn
Lathander wrote:Here's part of an interview with ABC by Obama. Very interesting!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3qotHTtr ... re=related


OH MY GOD HE'S A SECRET MUSLIM

Where have you been for the last couple days, Lath? This thread has been a real joy :)

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:17 am
by Ragorn
Lathander wrote:Have you heard Obama say what he would do to get the Russians out of Georgia and protect our friends in the Ukraine?

Why would we want to get our Russian friends out of Georgia? George is a nation gripped by a totalitarian government run by a small minority, oppressing the people and destabiling the region. It is Russia's duty to step in, replace their government, station troops there for 10-15 years to ensure stability, and slowly transition the Georgian people into their own government.

Right?

Isn't that how powerful nations help ensure world security?

Isn't it, Lathander?

Why would we want them to leave?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:35 am
by Lathander
Let's see, the Russians for centuries have subjugated other countries like Georgia, the Ukraine, and other countries. These people have fought the Russians when the Western world abandoned them after WW2. Finally, after the Evil Empire fell, they (the former Eastern Bloc countries and former Soviet satellites) gained their independence and freedom. Today, a Russia bent on reassembling their empire is starting with Georgia. In addition, the one pipeline out of central Asia that doesn't go through Russia is through Georgia down to Turkey. Russia wants to make sure to control all the energy coming from Asia to Europe.

There is a big difference between that and Iraq and if you can't see that, it's simply because you'd rather try to win some liberal brownie points.

Now I don't know if you were trying to be funny Rags, but do you really think we should abandon Georgia to the Russians?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:45 am
by Ragorn
Lathander wrote:In addition, the one pipeline out of central Asia that doesn't go through Russia is through Georgia down to Turkey. Russia wants to make sure to control all the energy coming from Asia to Europe.

Oh, I get it now.

A nation known for traversing the world and exercising its military might unilaterally has occupied a country, under the guise of instituting "regime change" designed to depose a tyrannical ruler. The invaders, it should be noted, also have a vested energy interest in the occupied country, though you'd have to catch them on a cold day in hell before they'll admit that energy is a motive in the occupation. The rest of the world protested the invasion, but the invaders insist that troops are necessary to secure the peace, prosperity, and security of the region.

Yes, I completely understand how this is different from our own invasion and occupation of the soverign nation of Iraq. A nation we invaded under false pretenses, with false information, and have continued to occupy in order to secure our own energy interests.

My mistake.

Palin 2016! The troops should be just about ready to come home by then...

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:56 am
by Lathander
You are indeed mistaken. Only a patsy for the Russians would call Georgia a totalitarian regime. The liberals among us always did have a soft spot for their communist comrades. Sadly, things haven't changed. That's why Libs usually lose because they can't be count on to uphold our capitalist ideas in the face of communism.

Another thing is this mistaken moral equivalence that liberals always try to pull to say the US is a bad country. This is another reason why liberals lose, they always make the US the bad guys. When I read the book on Lincoln, "Team of Rivals", I was struck by a quote from someone back in the 1840's. He was asked about the American/Mexican war in the 1840's. His quote was very memorable:

No, I opposed one War [the War of 1812]. That was enough for me. I am now perpetually in favor of war, pestilence and famine.
Justin Butterfield

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:08 am
by Ragorn
True, true. I find, however, that conservatives more closely identify with the fascist governments whom they strive to emulate. Why, Heramnn Goring himself is practically a case study in modern American conservativism. While on trial at Nuremberg, he said:

"Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America."

Now, that's true enough. The common people in America don't want war... at least, the rational and civilized ones. The bigots and blood-seekers, we'll get to them in a minute. But of course, peace interferes with the ideology of the modern conservative party, so a solution must be found. Goring's speech continues:

"But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along."

Naturally. The Republicans need only vault themselves to power somehow, and then it becomes a simple matter to distract the people while they enact their agenda. But luckily for the modern Republican, Goring isn't done:

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

This simple paragraph has given the modern Republican party the bulk of their political strategy for the last seven years. Convince the people they are under attack from some ethereal army that can never be beaten, that they are at war with an enemy who has no leaders and no country, that they and their families can never be safe again. Fear is an easy emotion to manipulate. It can be directed at any country the leaders choose... Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, North Korea, Russia, it doesn't matter. All the leaders have to do is pick a country, label them anti-American (or evil, it's shorter and the people understand that), and then launch the ships. While the populace is busy watching CNN for news of Oceania's inevitable victory, the leaders can slowly tax them into poverty.

But what of the bigots and the blood-seekers? What part do they play? Their job is to convince the people to eschew common sense and free thought in favor of the party's goals. Their role is to ridicule the best and brightest among us, to tear down the professors and the scientists. It is the job of the bigots and blood-seekers to convince us that intelligence is a stigma, that preachers know better than teachers. It is a subtle job, but an important one. But where do they find their motivation?

"Whenever I hear the word culture, I reach for my Browning."
- Hermann Goring.

This is why we must strive for change. This is why we need a leader who will rule not with fear, but with reason. We must hope to overthrow the bigots, we must cast out the blood-seekers. This is why the fascists must be resisted... or before long, you will find yourself without rights, without choice, bound by laws with names like Patriot and Freedom which ensure that you will never threaten the elitest regime again.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:49 am
by Corth
Just a factual point, but Georgia is not even close to a "Totalitarian Regime". Its a representative democracy. Its most recent presidential election was transparent without any insinuations of foul play. Moreover, its seeking entry into NATO and the European Union, neither of which exactly condone totalitarianism among its member states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgia_(country)#Government_and_politics

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:44 am
by Ragorn
Corth wrote:Just a factual point, but Georgia is not even close to a "Totalitarian Regime".

Proof that the surge is working!

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:10 pm
by Kifle
Lathander wrote:Corth,

Thanks for posting that latest poll. BTW Kifle, it's "poll" not "pole".

Americans are smart enough to see that Obama is wrong for America and by Change, we want positive change for the country. With Obama, all we'll have is change left in our pockets after taxes. In the end, Americans get it right!


Thanks, Lath! I've always confused the too because I'm knot smart. See what I did there? Did you know you're supposed to italicize or surround Change with quotation marks? But, hey, since we're writing formally, I'll go through the rest of your posts and point out any grammar or spelling errors -- even if you were in a hurry.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:21 pm
by Kifle
Lathander wrote:McCain is a Ford type of person. Someone that is not really part of the brand, but he's probably the best chance to win the White House. I was pretty ambivilent on McCain myself until Russia invaded Georgia. I just can't see Obama standing strong against the Russians. Also, the Palin pick gives us someone that might be the new Ronald Reagan. She's different, and who know, maybe we'll be voting for her in 2016 or 2012 if McCain only serves for one term.

*making his Palin 2016 signs*


Improper conjugation in the last line of the paragraph. See if you can catch it too! And just to keep on the topic of the thread: How am I not suprised that you would vote for Palin in a presidential election? It always amazes me how people with actual intelligence can say such stupid things at times.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 1:40 pm
by Ragorn
Kifle wrote:Improper conjugation in the last line of the paragraph. See if you can catch it too! And just to keep on the topic of the thread: How am I not suprised that you would vote for Palin in a presidential election? It always amazes me how people with actual intelligence can say such stupid things at times.

Because, if you haven't noticed, the moment Lath rejoined the thread it devolved into sheer absurdity :)

The Grammar Naziing is a nice touch :)

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 2:56 pm
by Xisiqomelir
Someone get Lathander to specify what he means by "Liberals", because I'm getting the impression it's a definition which wouldn't be easy to find in most political glossaries.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:13 pm
by avak
Ragorn. That was one of the best posts I've ever read on here. Thanks. It is also terrifying.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 3:40 pm
by Corth
Wow, that represents a low for political discussion on this bbs. Comparing Republicans to Nazis. My grandmother was carted off to Aushwitz where she was forced for years to build German munitions until her hands bled, meanwhile living off of bread and soup with glass in it. She was the only member of her family to survive. 12 brothers and sisters didn't. Its utterly ridiculous to compare the events resulting from 9/11, which was NOT an imaginary attack (no "convincing" necessary), with Nazi propaganda.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:08 pm
by Kifle
Wow, this thread is confusing the crap out of me. Are you being serious, Corth? What Rags posted was (not) suprisingly similar to the current administration's actions. And, keep in mind I don't speak for Ragorn, the imaginary attack, if you want to draw direct similarities and not strawman the argument like you just did, was the supposed link between Saddam and Bin Laden. It was an imaginary link, made believable by the manipulation of fear, and supported by "bad intelligence" -- otherwise known as purposefully misleading the public.

Also, weren't the Bushes in business with the Nazis before and during the war? Didn't you vote for Bush?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:21 pm
by Xisiqomelir
Kifle wrote:Also, weren't the Bushes in business with the Nazis before and during the war? Didn't you vote for Bush?


You can't really hold GHW and GW responsible for Prescott's smuggling and profiteering.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 4:42 pm
by Sarvis
Corth wrote:Wow, that represents a low for political discussion on this bbs. Comparing Republicans to Nazis. My grandmother was carted off to Aushwitz where she was forced for years to build German munitions until her hands bled, meanwhile living off of bread and soup with glass in it. She was the only member of her family to survive. 12 brothers and sisters didn't. Its utterly ridiculous to compare the events resulting from 9/11, which was NOT an imaginary attack (no "convincing" necessary), with Nazi propaganda.



Unfortunately all you're saying is that Republicans haven't gone as far as the Nazis did. I'd like to think they never could... but there was that one time we rounded up all the Chinese into internment camps.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:16 pm
by Corth
You mean Japanese internment camps. And the Republicans are getting blamed for that too? It was FDR who signed the executive order authorizing those camps. Should I compare Democrats to Nazis? I guess Democrats were almost as bad but not quite as bad as the Nazis. They didn't gas the Japanese. Just left them in squalor and illness. Evil evil democrats.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:25 pm
by Sarvis
Corth wrote:You mean Japanese internment camps. And the Republicans are getting blamed for that too? It was FDR who signed the executive order authorizing those camps. Should I compare Democrats to Nazis? I guess Democrats were almost as bad but not quite as bad as the Nazis. They didn't gas the Japanese. Just left them in squalor and illness. Evil evil democrats.


Way to miss the point, dude. We, AS A SOCIETY, have let it happen before under similar circumstances. What makes you think it wouldn't happen again? Republicans are currently engaging in tactics SIMILAR to what Nazi's used. What makes you think it won't happen again?

Moreover, why are you DEFENDING their actions, when you KNOW what it has led to historically.

I wouldn't support any party who tried to control the populace through fear. Why are you?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:48 pm
by avak
What a Nazi said was relevant to the discussion. That's a long way from comparing the two groups in the way you are suggesting. I doubt that is the only time in history such a sentiment has been spoken either. The fact is, there is an even more important undercurrent in the quotation. I'm half German; my father's side of the family all have strong ties to Germany. The country was manipulated by what Goering so concisely summarized. The Nazi leadership tapped in to the very fears and doubts of their country and exlpoited them to create a monstrosity. Now, merely a handful of decades later, it is a different country completely. That is an entirely relevant point and I think they way Ragorn framed it to apply to our current discussion was very insightful.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:57 pm
by Adriorn Darkcloak
You mean how society is being controlled by fear (by liberals) to believe the global warming hysteria? You mean how blacks have been controlled by the Democrats for years to suit their own agenda? You mean how many buses were mobbed and/or "bricked" by "radical leftist activists" at the RNC? You mean how the MSM (liberals) uses fear to tune people in constantly during hurricanes or other potential natural disasters? You mean how anyone who speaks out against Obama, Wright, Sharpton, or their ilk, is immediately branded as "racist" by many in the MSM and the Democrat Party?

Fear is a tactic used by anyone who wants to control the populace, not by a particular party. Both can disguise their use of fear very well, to the point that supporters of either side sometimes fail to see it. Just ask Saul Alinsky and his supporters.

And if we're talking about actual history and the Russians, why not do a check of how many MILLIONS have died under communist ideology and leadership.

And Avak, if Germany is a different country today altogether it's because we beat the living shit out of it in WWII in a WAR. Sometimes war IS the only answer, sad as the case may be.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:00 pm
by Ragorn
Ok, let's step back a bit because I think this thread is about to go in a bad direction.

I assumed that Lathander was kidding/trolling with his post comparing liberals to communists. Maybe he wasn't, in which case I need to reconsider whether I want to get into a political discussion with someone who actually holds those opinions. But I made the assumption that Lath was being cheeky on purpose, so I responded with a wildly exaggerated post comparing Republicans to fascists.

So, back up a step. You're not supposed to agree with me that the current administration is fascist. While the Republicans have run on a platform of fear and intimidation for the last seven years (and at various points before 9/11), there are several orders of magnitude between the Patriot Act and Auschwitz. The Nazis were also not the first or only political party in history to utilize fear tactics for political gain, but the image of Goring on trial at Nuremberg is a pretty shocking illustration of these techniques.

However, Corth, I want you to understand the link is not entirely fabricated. We are currently "at war" with an imaginary enemy, without no country and no leader. The Bush administration (including George W. McCain) has used the "terror" buzzword to spearhead their initiatives against countries that had absolutely nothing at all to do with 9/11. We've established offshore prison camps, where our prisoners are deprived due process and basic human rights. Our leadership has come out and endorsed acts of torture, justified them as being necessary to "ensure security." We invaded Iraq under the guise of WMDs, when our government knew that no such weapons existed. We continued our invasion and occupation even after it became clear that we knew all along that our reasons for invading were imaginary.

We're tired of this.

Lathander was right about one thing... we've gone so far that even American citizens are starting to wonder if we really are the good guys in this war. However, the rational thinker understands that questioning your own government is an act of patriotism, not treason. I wonder what kind of person can look upon these actions with pride... and then accuse those who ask questions of immorality.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:12 pm
by avak
I'm not even sure how to respond to the "well, they use it too" tactic. I guess I can chuckle a little at the backdoor admission that the whole neocon agenda is based on fear, uncertainty and doubt.

I happen to think that the "hope" inspired by Obama stems directly from his aversion to using those very tactics.

Like Biden said, what do you talk about when you don't have anything to say?? You talk about the other guy. You go negative. Just watch the Obama/Biden reactions to Palin and you'll see exactly what I mean.

edit: Adriorn, I completely agree with your assessment of the last great war. I'm no pacifist, but I am entirely opposed to unjust wars waged for political gain.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:20 pm
by Sarvis
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:You mean how society is being controlled by fear (by liberals) to believe the global warming hysteria? You mean how blacks have been controlled by the Democrats for years to suit their own agenda? You mean how many buses were mobbed and/or "bricked" by "radical leftist activists" at the RNC? You mean how the MSM (liberals) uses fear to tune people in constantly during hurricanes or other potential natural disasters? You mean how anyone who speaks out against Obama, Wright, Sharpton, or their ilk, is immediately branded as "racist" by many in the MSM and the Democrat Party?


You... you're kidding, right? GLobal warming? When has Obama claimed that if he doesn't get elected you might die in the next year? Republicans claimed frequently in the last election that electing Kerry would result in death because he was "weak on terror." A sentiment being echoed again by Lathander with regards to the Russia/Georgia situation.

There is a FAR cry between informing people of an issue we can act to change and telling them death is imminent unless you're in control.

How are blacks "controlled." How is it not racist to imply they are so easily controlled? How do people angry enough at Republicans to throw bricks say ANYTHING about Democratic leadership using fear? It doesn't, it shows anger... not fear. You want to talk about the racist card? How many hours was it between Palin's nomination and Lathander, Teffie and various Republican talking heads screaming sexism? I even called that one ahead of time!

In the end, none of that was used to start a war. 9/11 was. Fear of terrorism was. We're now in a perpetual war on Drugs, or was it on "Terrorists," Or was it the Middle East, or was it Eurasia? Maybe Eastasia?


Fear is a tactic used by anyone who wants to control the populace, not by a particular party. Both can disguise their use of fear very well, to the point that supporters of either side sometimes fail to see it. Just ask Saul Alinsky and his supporters.

And if we're talking about actual history and the Russians, why not do a check of how many MILLIONS have died under communist ideology and leadership.


Oh damn, I forgot how we were supposed to be afraid of the Reds. Only Reagan can protect us from the cold war!

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 6:50 pm
by Vaprak
How to win an argument on the internet:

1) Start an argument.
2) Compare the oposing party's argument/ideas to Hitler/Nazis.
3) Win.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:03 pm
by Kifle
Vaprak wrote:How to win an argument on the internet:

1) Start an argument.
2) Compare the oposing party's argument/ideas to Hitler/Nazis.
3) Win.


How to win an argument on the internet without looking at context:

1) Think of something witty.
2) Realizing #1 is impossible, assert Godwin's Law even when it doesn't apply.
3) Win (at least in your own mind).

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 7:22 pm
by Kifle
Corth wrote:You mean Japanese internment camps. And the Republicans are getting blamed for that too? It was FDR who signed the executive order authorizing those camps. Should I compare Democrats to Nazis? I guess Democrats were almost as bad but not quite as bad as the Nazis. They didn't gas the Japanese. Just left them in squalor and illness. Evil evil democrats.


Not to mention there was a democrat majority in congress as well (which I believe are the ones that used the executive order to legislate the internment camps as the order itself, while obvious, was very broad). I'm not sure on the Justices that held Korematsu and hirabayashi to be constitutional though. But, the dems did finally apologize monitarily for it though -- that's cool, right?

Anyway, it would be appropriate to compare those dems to the Nazis -- why not? The behavior is comparable -- meaning similar, able to be compared, alike, synonomous. As touchy as the subject may be, the actions of Germany under Hitler are as fair game as any event in history for one to draw comparisons to. Sadly, it is one of those subjects that turns off peoples' intelligence and replaces it by turning on their overly defensive switch -- which, in most cases means they completely miss the point. It happend earlier in this thread with sexism and in other threads with racism.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 9:35 pm
by shalath
Kifle wrote:
Vaprak wrote:How to win an argument on the internet:

1) Start an argument.
2) Compare the oposing party's argument/ideas to Hitler/Nazis.
3) Win.


How to win an argument on the internet without looking at context:

1) Think of something witty.
2) Realizing #1 is impossible, assert Godwin's Law even when it doesn't apply.
3) Win (at least in your own mind).

How exactly does Godwin's law not apply?

Godwin's Law is very simple. It states that:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.


This thread has simply grown the body of evidence that Godwin's Law is correct.

In addition, how exactly is Vaprak "asserting" Godwin's Law here? He is simply stating a sequence of actions which evoke thoughts of Godwin's Law, not asserting anything really...

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:01 am
by Adriorn Darkcloak
avak wrote:edit: Adriorn, I completely agree with your assessment of the last great war. I'm no pacifist, but I am entirely opposed to unjust wars waged for political gain.


Agreed. The problem arises when one side sees the 'war' as political, and the other sees at as 'necessary'. In certain cases, I think both sides agree that the only possible course of action IS war. Then you have the special group: that's when the uber radicals, the hippie-leftovers, the "I'm a citizen but I haven't contributed a single thing to my country" (basically the part of society that needs to be different in order to have self-esteem), come out of the woodwork and shine in all their sad apathy.

Kifle wrote:...the actions of Germany under Hitler are as fair game as any event in history for one to draw comparisons to.


Now try to understand, Kifle, why people look at what Islamic extremists/sympathizers are doing in Europe and elsewhere and maybe you can understand why some of us are worried. You might disagree, but we see in them the very same mentality as in Nazi Germany. P.S. Is it just me or has Kifle seemed more rational in many of his views lately? Some, but still...grats. :)

Sarvis, however, has not :(

Sarvis wrote:Oh damn, I forgot how we were supposed to be afraid of the Reds. Only Reagan can protect us from the cold war!

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:05 am
by Kifle
shalath wrote:
Kifle wrote:
Vaprak wrote:How to win an argument on the internet:

1) Start an argument.
2) Compare the oposing party's argument/ideas to Hitler/Nazis.
3) Win.


How to win an argument on the internet without looking at context:

1) Think of something witty.
2) Realizing #1 is impossible, assert Godwin's Law even when it doesn't apply.
3) Win (at least in your own mind).

How exactly does Godwin's law not apply?

Godwin's Law is very simple. It states that:

As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.


This thread has simply grown the body of evidence that Godwin's Law is correct.

In addition, how exactly is Vaprak "asserting" Godwin's Law here? He is simply stating a sequence of actions which evoke thoughts of Godwin's Law, not asserting anything really...


Got Godwin and Strauss mixed up... my bad. Insert Strauss' brand of reductio ad absurdum in for Godwin. Are you happy, now: Champion of Vaprak? Jesus, what is up with people trying to correct my l33t rushed typing skills and brain farts?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:17 am
by Sarvis
Adriorn Darkcloak wrote:
avak wrote:edit: Adriorn, I completely agree with your assessment of the last great war. I'm no pacifist, but I am entirely opposed to unjust wars waged for political gain.


Agreed. The problem arises when one side sees the 'war' as political, and the other sees at as 'necessary'. In certain cases, I think both sides agree that the only possible course of action IS war. Then you have the special group: that's when the uber radicals, the hippie-leftovers, the "I'm a citizen but I haven't contributed a single thing to my country" (basically the part of society that needs to be different in order to have self-esteem), come out of the woodwork and shine in all their sad apathy.

Kifle wrote:...the actions of Germany under Hitler are as fair game as any event in history for one to draw comparisons to.


Now try to understand, Kifle, why people look at what Islamic extremists/sympathizers are doing in Europe and elsewhere and maybe you can understand why some of us are worried. You might disagree, but we see in them the very same mentality as in Nazi Germany. P.S. Is it just me or has Kifle seemed more rational in many of his views lately? Some, but still...grats. :)

Sarvis, however, has not :(

Sarvis wrote:Oh damn, I forgot how we were supposed to be afraid of the Reds. Only Reagan can protect us from the cold war!



Yeah, right. I'm being irrational because I pointed out how the decade long threat of war that was held over our heads is similar to the current threats of war, terror and drugs being held over our heads.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:44 am
by shalath
Kifle wrote:Got Godwin and Strauss mixed up... my bad. Insert Strauss' brand of reductio ad absurdum in for Godwin. Are you happy, now: Champion of Vaprak? Jesus, what is up with people trying to correct my l33t rushed typing skills and brain farts?


You mean, "why do people keep correcting me when I am wrong?". Welcome to the internet.

(By the way usually when referring to Strauss the term "Reductio Ad Hitlerum" is used to remove confusion).

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 3:43 pm
by Xisiqomelir
$3000 Obamabet GET!

Image

My man's first unofficial act as President will be to buy me a 60" Kuro Image

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:55 pm
by avak
What did you do to win that load of cash in the first place?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:02 pm
by Xisiqomelir
avak wrote:What did you do to win that load of cash in the first place?


Poker is easy.

Image

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:25 pm
by Kifle
shalath wrote:
Kifle wrote:Got Godwin and Strauss mixed up... my bad. Insert Strauss' brand of reductio ad absurdum in for Godwin. Are you happy, now: Champion of Vaprak? Jesus, what is up with people trying to correct my l33t rushed typing skills and brain farts?


You mean, "why do people keep correcting me when I am wrong?". Welcome to the internet.

(By the way usually when referring to Strauss the term "Reductio Ad Hitlerum" is used to remove confusion).


No, I actually meant what I wrote that time. You can cut the pretentious attitutde as the only corrections that were made were of a mistake caused by being rushed and one from confusing two overly leaned-on arguments that are constantly used out of context. Seriously though, hang from my balls anymore and you may get one to the eye. Not that I'll be complaining much though. Giving someone the gonzo is great fun.

(By the way, use a comma after a prepositional phrase [also known as an introductory element]; if you don't, people might think you're just being a dick when attempting to correct other people's mistakes)

(Also by the way, when referring to Strauss, I can also use "his brand of reductio ad absurdum" as "reductio ad hitlerum" is a play on words of the original fallacy "reductio ad absurdum" -- which is what I wrote. But, I guess you'd need other sources besides wikipedia or you'd look like a retard trying to correct somebody on something you know very little to nothing about)

P.S.

Did I mention getting off my nuts? I can't remember, but if I didn't: get off my nuts, please.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 11:12 pm
by Xisiqomelir
This is my predicted EC map:

Image

How about you guys?

Re: VP picks

Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 12:34 am
by Kifle
Hrm, not sure Indiana will go red this year. The climate I've noticed has been fairly pro Obama; however, even rock-jocks are promoting McCain. Picking red would be a fair assessment though.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 1:12 pm
by Ragorn

Re: VP picks

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 2:57 pm
by Corth
I think what the Republican administration is doing to address the financial crisis is a cynical attempt to influence the results of the election. I gotta call it as I see it, and I'm quite frankly disgusted. This so-called conservative administration has done more to make this a socialist country than a liberal one could do in its wildest dreams. $4.00 gasoline is going to seem like a bargain in a couple of years after the dollar cliffdives and I'm not even factoring in peak oil.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 3:39 pm
by Xisiqomelir
Ragorn wrote:http://www.gallup.com/poll/110473/Gallup-Daily-Obama-48-McCain-44.aspx

Guess the GOP 9/11 bump is over.


Animated is better!

Image

Re: VP picks

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:24 pm
by Vaprak
Should be interesting to see what happens in Texas:
http://www.bobbarr2008.com/press/press- ... om-ballot/

Re: VP picks

Posted: Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:40 pm
by Vaprak
Chuck Norris's stance on the issues:
http://townhall.com/columnists/ChuckNor ... revolution

I'd say Chuck is a Libertarian. What I don't understand is why Chuck Norris doesn't just roundhouse kick the current Governement out, implementing a chucktatorship, and then restore liberty to the people.

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:42 pm
by Xisiqomelir

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 3:46 pm
by Ragorn
Cute, but a little tasteless don't you think? :P

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 4:16 pm
by Xisiqomelir
Ragorn wrote:Cute, but a little tasteless don't you think? :P


So long as Team Badguy is officially putting out things like this, I think I can still claim the moral high ground!

Re: VP picks

Posted: Tue Sep 23, 2008 7:06 pm
by Kifle
Xisiqomelir wrote:Hey Ragorn, check out my new shirt:

http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y56/Xi ... CN1182.jpg


That is beyond awesome.