Quote from DeadWolfBones :

There's no context necessary for those quotes.

Explain to me how people like Michael Moore dont just try to find every excuse to attack the US?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Scaly animals, yes. But let's not confuse two disturbing issues here.

disturbing indeed. enough not to to take him serious in this matter

or any matter actually..

Quote from lizardfolk :

Explain to me how people like Michael Moore dont just try to find every excuse to attack the US?

I don't think anyone's going to deny that Moore has a chip on his shoulder toward the US government and social system. Furthermore I don't think most people would deny that he gets a bit creative with the editing of footage and interviews, for dramatic/comedic purposes. However, what he's doing is social criticism and it shouldn't be discouraged. It gets people to discuss important issues that they'd otherwise ignore, and for that reason I think he provides a valuable service. You shouldn't implicitly trust everything he says, obviously, but you can't deny that he's provocative. And he's certainly right about some things.

Every monolithic institution needs to be attacked in order to keep it on-course. A state with no internal critics is a fascist/totalitarian state.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I don't think anyone's going to deny that Moore has a chip on his shoulder toward the US government and social system. Furthermore I don't think most people would deny that he gets a bit creative with the editing of footage and interviews, for dramatic/comedic purposes. However, what he's doing is social criticism and it shouldn't be discouraged. It gets people to discuss important issues that they'd otherwise ignore, and for that reason I think he provides a valuable service. You shouldn't implicitly trust everything he says, obviously, but you can't deny that he's provocative. And he's certainly right about some things.

Yes, ok, he's a good filmmaker, and yes he can shed light on certain things. However, the problem with him is that people are starting to believe EXACTLY what he said.

If you've ever been to a filmmaker's board or the democratic board you'll notice people who constantly praise him as if he's some sort of prophet.

Nevermind Fahrenheit 9/11. Look at "Sicko". He advocates universal health care strongly. But there's a major problem with this in the US. Just read my most recent post:

Quote from lizardfolk :

Both conservatives and liberals never disagree on the good intent behind universal health care as Hilary champions it in her campaign. The real issue is the economic side of the program and whether it is the most efficient way to manage it by government. Unfortunately, most government-managed health care programs create inefficiency. Yes, it may work in some countries having a well rounded socialist infrastructure. But it is extremely doubtful to be successful in America. Hilary pushed out the program the first time when Bill was in office and it failed miserably. Even Democrats had doubt about its viability at that time.

The second argument is what constitutes essential needs that government needs to take care at the expense of taxpayers’ money should not be health care. If it should be, then food should be ahead of it. But government does not cover the food you put on your table. Yes, US government does have food stamp program to subsidy poor people and those programs also include free health care such as SSI and the state sponsored medical program such as Medicaid in Hawaii. The whole thing defeats the whole concept of Universal Health Care.

Obama's "patriotic corporations policy" is a joke. Why? I'll explain here. He wants to bring back the jobs into US and while that's a good thing, it's as simple as labeling corporations as "patriotic". Except socialist country like North Korea, Vietnam or old USSR, ideology needs to be supported by its economic viability. Outsourcing is a complicated issue since it became a trend in the late 80’s. Since ALL profit seeking companies in any part of world need that part of financial engineering to maximize shareholders’ value. The outsourcing is simply inevitable. Taiwan is facing a huge outsourcing problem, same as US. As most of manufacturing jobs go to China. But it is the natural progression for any industrial country. U.S, Taiwan and most other industrial countries simply evolve from the manufacturing economy to a service-oriented one. What the US does not have is its adequate level of skill sets that most of work can be converted to meet the challenge of being a service-oriented value chain. If you are a GM worker putting a screw into a wheel for 30 years without knowing anything else, then why should an evolving economy needs to take care of your deficiency when your skill level does not worth the value you put in for the economy. It is a natural progression that old skills get phased out and left behind. Job training and planning ahead might be the direction the public and private sectors need to work together. Blaming on corporations that follows economic model of making sound decisions is only self deceiving, It wouldn’t work in the US or any part of world.

The concept of so called patriotic company in Obama’s mind is only fantasy of his own and can never exist on his term. Such thought reflects his lack of basic knowledge and experience as to how private factor functions. In this sense, this shortcoming is fatal to the formation of his programs. You cannot expect the companies to just say "ok screw the giant benefits of outsourcing because we need to open jobs in the US for the good of the US citizens regardless that it cost millions more"

But let me humor you. Lets say that companies actually DO become "patriotic" and do not outsource for the "good of the citizens". Foreign companies would outsource regardless of US policies (obviously) and since that domestic companies would stay only in the US, the foreign market would just overtake ALL domestic companies that do NOT outsource and as a result this would plummet our economy further from Europe and elsewhere. As a result, nothing we ever produce will ever be valuable and we cannot compete against foreign companies. Remember, this is a GLOBAL MARKET. Economy is not as simple as Obama thinks it is. Obama calls for 228 billion dollars additional to our current spendings (the most of all the candidates)...as if our deficit is not enough

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Every monolithic institution needs to be attacked in order to keep it on-course. A state with no internal critics is a fascist/totalitarian state.

True, but there's no reason to blame America for EVERYTHING that has happened is it? People are even saying that the moon landing didn't occur :rolleyes:

People have been saying the moon landing didn't occur since the moon landing occurred. These people are idiots and always have been. And as I already stated further up the thread, your average self-identifying liberal would be horrified to be identified with these people. They're mostly misguided libertarians. Same as the Alex Jones acolytes.

I'm having a difficult time puzzling out what your actual argument is in the huge post you re-posted, because it doesn't seem to actually address the subject of universal healthcare or Sicko at all, and seems to be devoted to a screed against Obama. After doing a bit of research on the "Patriotic Corporations" bill, it seems that the general idea is to give tax breaks to a corporation which:

Quote :

(1) produces at least 90% of its goods and services in the United States; (2) does not pay its its management-level employees at a rate more than 10,000% of the compensation of its lowest paid employee; (3) conducts at least 50% of its research and development in the United States; (4) contributes at least 5% of its payroll to a portable pension fund for its employees; (5) pays at least 70% of its employees' health insurance costs; (6) maintains a policy of neutrality in employee organizing drives; (7) provides full differential salary and insurance benefits for all National Guard and Reserve employees who are called to active duty; and (8) has not violated federal regulations, including regulations relating to the environment, workplace safety, labor relations, and consumer protections.

Honestly, I don't see a huge argument against this. The companies who operate under these conditions are probably either a) smaller or b) making less money than those who outsource heavily, or violate the other terms of the bill. Operating under those conditions will undoubtedly help the ground level employees of the given corporations, and help the US economy in general.

The only real problem with the bill is the name. Labeling a corporation as patriotic or unpatriotic is an idiotic thing to do, and is frankly something I would expect to come from the other side of the aisle in congress, but monkey see/monkey do, I guess.

Anyway, none of this relates directly to healthcare, which was the main topic of your post. Care to try again?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

These people are idiots and always have been.

The choice of word, 'idiots', is interesting if you relate it to the original (ancient Greece) meaning of the word. I agree to such a reading, and I agree to the 'always have been', although I can't be sure about the future.

As I like to remember, I'm a part time adept of the humorous de-evolution theory which was the basis of Devo's music. Raw intelligence seems to be rising where IQ tests are conducted (phenomenon known as Flynn effect), but nonetheless the state of the education is really worrying in some modern Western Countries, including (but not limited to) the USA.

The Flynn effect seems to be tied to a widespread higher education, and there is some evidence (although not definitive) that the effect vanishes when constant advances in education have vanished.

This is a very interesting phenomenon that has a strong connection to past deterministic theories that portrayed mankind as determined by the surrounding environment, and consistent with evolutionary theories too.

There's nonetheless a significant shift from old determinism and an approach similar to that of new determinism (aka ecologism), which connects the development of the environment to human activities, hence establishing a biunivocal relationship formerly not present in old determinism. For instance the IQ debate related to race seems to shift from racial characteristics to the environment surrounding the individual, no matter the race. A summary can be found in this commentary (replete with final correction, amen to that!).

So the world, it seems, is becoming smarter, or so has become in the last years, maybe coming to a stall now. Unfortunately if the Flynn effect is really tied to education I see a grim future.

There's an additional factor, though. When I was in my teens I had an English teacher who believed that the world, starting from the States where he lived for a lot of years, was moving to specialised idiocy: you have lots of people who are particularly smart at some task with a remarkably high raw IQ, yet they fail completely at making sense in seemingly obvious stuff. They don't lack the ability, they lack the will.

I really don't know what the future will be, but I don't think that the future will look like Idiocracy. And I don't even think it's going to be worse: most of the times I hear people complaining that the past had more freedom and that moral corruption is on the rise.

I don't think so. I'm a middle class worker and I have a good life: I don't overwork, I don't struggle for food and I have all the time I need to experience various aspects of life, although time never seems to be enough for all the things I deem interesting; but then again, ten or twenty lives wouldn't suffice, knowledge differs a lot from the one diffused in Europe during the Middle Ages, and the cultural approach is totally different.

If I go back for a less significant amount of time (say, a century) I find myself working twelve to fourteen hours a day, no holydays and almost no time or occasion to gather information that could help me keep a systematic approach to my philosophy of life and thought. I don't believe we're living in the dark ages. As I said before sometimes I doubt it, but I happen to think - overall - that the availability of information has given birth to significant advances in the quality of life of the masses. Nevertheless I still think that specialised idiocy is a looming danger, one that cannot be underestimated. Whether the US is a forerunner in this trend, I don't know, but still I am totally convinced that one of the first steps to undertake would be improving the quality of the environment (not only in a purely environmentalist meaning), which is often designed to mortify people into the dullness of waking up, working, eating, blindly absorbing TV and sleeping.

Apologies for the long and sometimes trivial post. There's a high degree of simplification, but I can clarify later if needed.

:munching_

Quote from Osco :

weren't you the guy with an above normal interest in and affection for fluffy animals, aswell as identifying yourself with them...?

And this has to do with what? GTFO if all you can do is give idle insults and stereotyping

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

Scaly animals, yes. But let's not confuse two disturbing issues here.

HYPOCRACY there. You yourself has applauded this statement:

Quote from T.Kaneda :

It's a variant of the argumentum ad hominem and is a fundamentally lazy and intellectually dishonest form of argument. Sadly, it has become increasingly prevalent in political discourse over the last several years as politics has become increasing polarized and divisive. It's probably best to just ignore those who resort to using it.

Then you yourself turned around and stereotyped lizard because "all furries are sexually attracted to animals"...WHAT HYPOCRACY!!!

Quote from STROBE :

Sorry, I haven't anything constructive to add to this topic. I just wanted to gather all these quotes together to highlight a) the hilarity and b) the inconsistency.

Lizardfolk, if only the world was as black and white as you seem to enjoy labelling it.

I included the last quote just to demonstrate your naivety.

You are an idiot. America IS as polarized as lizard said in terms of politics. Conservatives and liberals are at each other's throat constantly. It is YOUR naivety that is laughable.

You Europeans think you know everything, but SHUT UP if you know nothing about American politics because America is the most polarized political country there is. Of course the good majority of the public is moderate, but in terms of political leaders and activates they cant BE MORE POLARIZED.

You have the constant american attacking liberals at one extreme (think Michael Moore and Berkeley hardcore hippies) then you have the racist evangelical conservatives on the other extreme. It IS that polarized although this is something you dont see unless you have a clear understanding of American politics.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

People have been saying the moon landing didn't occur since the moon landing occurred. These people are idiots and always have been. And as I already stated further up the thread, your average self-identifying liberal would be horrified to be identified with these people. They're mostly misguided libertarians. Same as the Alex Jones acolytes.

I'm having a difficult time puzzling out what your actual argument is in the huge post you re-posted, because it doesn't seem to actually address the subject of universal healthcare or Sicko at all, and seems to be devoted to a screed against Obama. After doing a bit of research on the "Patriotic Corporations" bill, it seems that the general idea is to give tax breaks to a corporation which:



Honestly, I don't see a huge argument against this. The companies who operate under these conditions are probably either a) smaller or b) making less money than those who outsource heavily, or violate the other terms of the bill. Operating under those conditions will undoubtedly help the ground level employees of the given corporations, and help the US economy in general.

The only real problem with the bill is the name. Labeling a corporation as patriotic or unpatriotic is an idiotic thing to do, and is frankly something I would expect to come from the other side of the aisle in congress, but monkey see/monkey do, I guess.

Anyway, none of this relates directly to healthcare, which was the main topic of your post. Care to try again?

GET OUT OF YOUR CAVE. Extreme liberals have been saying that "we never landed on the moon it was all a government conspiracy to boost moral at that time" and that "Bush bombed his own world trade center just to make an excuse for Iraq" and crap like that ALL THE TIME, are you EVEN politically active? It seems that NO one here has a good understanding of the politics in America.

Plus what lizard said was that we cant afford healthcare, which you should have know if you actually READ his post :rolleyes: Lizard ur an idiot for thinking we cant pay for healthcare. We have all the resources in the world to do go.

Hey, who opened the cages?

We can all agree not to respond to this voidone guy, right?

Quote from voidone :

.

Quote from lizardfolk :

Social programs are advocated by liberals in the US.

doesnt make them the slightest bit liberal as pointed out by a whole bunch of others on the topic of how right the supposed liberals actually are

Quote from voidone :

You just completely contradicted the major liberal policy and thinking in America....good job....do you even know what you are talking about?

give me at least one reason why i should even consider talking to someone who barges in here ass first and calls everyone retarded to start off with

Quote from J.B. :

Yeah, it does seem a bit worrying how opposed to technology this country is getting. One recent example I can think of is that with two HDTV channels shutting down, Germany now has less HDTV channels than Albania and I think we are the only country in Europe that won't be showing the football Euro in HD.

tbh i couldnt care less about the number of hd channels in germany and i dont think that the attractiveness of a medium known mostly for its abilities to dumb people down is an accurate measure of intelligence and tech savvyness

Quote from Albieg :

There's an additional factor, though. When I was in my teens I had an English teacher who believed that the world, starting from the States where he lived for a lot of years, was moving to specialised idiocy: you have lots of people who are particularly smart at some task with a remarkably high raw IQ, yet they fail completely at making sense in seemingly obvious stuff. They don't lack the ability, they lack the will.

in the words of my favourite cartoonist:
most ignorance is willful

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

We can all agree not to respond to this voidone guy, right?

Why would we? It's obvious that anyone who disagrees with him simply doesn't understand American politics.

He's got this debating lark truly nailed.

What's obvious is that any troll who bursts into a mostly civil disagreement, shouts "idiot" at people in bold type and then screams accusations of "hypocracy" at others should probably, at the very least, learn to spell "hypocrisy" correctly. It would be hypocritical, perhaps even idiotic, to do otherwise.

Quote from voidone :

America IS as polarized as lizard said in terms of politics. Conservatives and liberals are at each other's throat constantly. It is YOUR naivety that is laughable.

You Europeans think you know everything, but SHUT UP if you know nothing about American politics because America is the most polarized political country there is. Of course the good majority of the public is moderate, but in terms of political leaders and activates they cant BE MORE POLARIZED.

You have the constant american attacking liberals at one extreme (think Michael Moore and Berkeley hardcore hippies) then you have the racist evangelical conservatives on the other extreme. It IS that polarized although this is something you dont see unless you have a clear understanding of American politics.

Well, I'm not a European so that gives me full permission to comment.

It must be difficult to be polarised when both your major parties stand for exactly the same thing - money.

If you check out some of my other posting ( use the search tool ) you'll see me making the point that your whole political system is corrupt, all three of you most likely candidates are up on a variety of charges ranging from fraud, to fraud, to corruption, back to fraud then a brief trip for two of them for sexual impropriety. ( the thirds husband was up for that )

They all stand for the same ( lack ) of values and seem to display equal amounts of integrity ( none )

They all seem to display a remarkable consistency when it comes dishonesty and their ability to lie.

There you go, please claim what I'm saying is wrong cus I have all the details ready to post - LOL - I just love US politics.

Albieg, I'd tend to agree with you, the theory I've heard is that IQ test's have led education and therfore, because of the way people look at life, it means that people get better results at these types of tests.

It's not that people are becoming more intelligent, merely that the test's themselves are flawed in that they only measure a remarkably small area of what intellect really is.
http://www.npr.org/templates/s ... tory.php?storyId=11702932

And certainly, on many levels for many of us, this is the most exciting, free, and affluent time to live. Just think - FLUSH TOILETS & LOO PAPER. Not to mention technology.

The real aim of the 21st century will be sustainable power ( NO - not nuclear ) and ensuring that all humanity has access to the same levels of education and affluence that all members of the forum have now.

My concerns are both a lack of interest in knowledge, see my earlier post, and the subversion of equal rights by those who's only craving is money and personal power.
Whether or not people like those who rock the boat, Alex Jones, David Icke, and to a lesser extent Michael Moore and others like them is irrelevent.
The fact is that they are prepared to stand up and say what they think, to object, in a non-violent way, to a wrong that they see and to let others see it too and let YOU make YOUR own choices regarding the rights or wrongs of the subject.

In Germany, they came first for the Communists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Communist;
And then they came for the trade unionists, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a trade unionist;
And then they came for the Jews, And I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew;
And then . . . they came for me . . . And by that time there was no one left to speak up."

Quote from Shotglass :

doesnt make them the slightest bit liberal as pointed out by a whole bunch of others on the topic of how right the supposed liberals actually are

Ok, in the united states, if you advocate social program and reform IN THE UNITED STATES the automatic assumption (noticed I used the word assumption) is that you are a liberal. Liberals in Canada, Europe, Australia or where ever else are not included in this. Yes, social programs doesn't automatically make a person (in INTERNATIONAL eyes) liberal. But in the states, the democratic party is hard on in advocating a socialistic economy and many (but not all) democratic supporters (called liberals in the United States) supports this.

Are there exceptions to this OF COURSE, this is a general assumptions about liberals (American democratic party supporters). But they are not all like that just like not all liberals are like Michael Moore.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

We can all agree not to respond to this voidone guy, right?

NOT!! (kidding)

Quote from Hankstar :

What's obvious is that any troll who bursts into a mostly civil disagreement, shouts "idiot" at people in bold type and then screams accusations of "hypocracy" at others should probably, at the very least, learn to spell "hypocrisy" correctly. It would be hypocritical, perhaps even idiotic, to do otherwise.

really...you call this argument civil when you Shotglass calling me a redneck and DeadWolfBones/Osco saying that whatever I say should automatically be nullified based on the "stereotype" of furries?

Still...I understood your point that despite the personal attacks shelled out...both sides did not resort to trolling.

If you'll re-read, what I said was that I find both your furrydom and your political opinions disturbing, but that the one (furrydom) does not relate to the other.

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

If you'll re-read, what I said was that I find both your furrydom and your political opinions disturbing, but that the one (furrydom) does not relate to the other.

You state this as if I shove my affinity in other people's faces

I've only mentioned that a few times and the only thing that'll relate me to furries is the avatar. (when people hear or see my name they usually assume it's from Dungeons and Dragons or from some fantasy novel because a lizardman is a real mythical creature)

I'm not more of a furry (or proclaim more often that i'm a furry) than DragonCommando or DieKolkrabe

I stated it because someone else brought it up and erroneously tried to use it as justification for not paying attention to your political opinions.

What I personally feel about your proclivities has no bearing on this thread.

However, neither of the other guys you mentioned started a thread to justify/explain that proclivity. So compared to them, I guess you do shove it in people's faces. I personally don't feel bothered by it, but let's not try to pretend like you haven't permanently marked yourself with that thread.

Quote from lizardfolk :

really...you call this argument civil when you Shotglass calling me a redneck

1) redneck istn nescessarily an insult (at least not in the way i understand the word)
2) your views on liberals (medium rights) being anti american was about as southern and bible bashing as it gets

and on the broader topics at hand
what americans usually refer to as liberal is social liberalism which oddly enough isnt really catered by any of the rather limited number of parties

in the context of your posts you describe liberalism as social democratic which is neither liberal nor remotely far enough to the right to even be anywhere on the american political spectrum at all

Quote from lizardfolk :

you call this argument civil when you Shotglass calling me a redneck and DeadWolfBones/Osco saying that whatever I say should automatically be nullified based on the "stereotype" of furries?

Still...I understood your point that despite the personal attacks shelled out...both sides did not resort to trolling.

Well, I meant to say "mostly" civil I've no real opinion toward furriness, one way or the other. I'm one of those "whatever you do is fine as long as noone gets hurt - unless they want to get hurt" kind of people that infuriate the shit out of conservatives, so you'll find no beef here. However - and I don't condone any sort of bigotry or prejudice here - noone asked you to reveal it and not everyone's as open minded as, say, well, me, as has been proven right here. It's not like you mentioned it in passing either, you started a thread about it on a forum which is about as far removed from a furry community as you can get. I'm not going to say "shut up about it", just realise that people aren't understanding about non-mainstream pasttimes everywhere you go, especially on the good ol' anonymous internets where men are men, boys are 15-yr old Japanese girls, insults are many and consequences are few. Hell, I wouldn't even mention my stamp collection at this place

That being said, if people choose to concentrate on your hobbies in an effort to discredit or score points off you instead of attacking the substance of your arguments, as far as I'm concerned they've done more harm to themselves and their own credibility. As my coach used to say: attack the ball, not the man.

I probably would've continued arguing in this thread had it not turned so frickin ugly overnight. Once people hit caps lock & start trolling and hurling insults around I tend to leave the room, grab a drink and organise my stamps. Got a great one from Yemen with Sir Jack Brabham on it, unused & mint condition, gotta see if there are any more in the series on ebay ...

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I stated it because someone else brought it up and erroneously tried to use it as justification for not paying attention to your political opinions.

What I personally feel about your proclivities has no bearing on this thread.

However, neither of the other guys you mentioned started a thread to justify/explain that proclivity. So compared to them, I guess you do shove it in people's faces. I personally don't feel bothered by it, but let's not try to pretend like you haven't permanently marked yourself with that thread.

That was merely an opinion poll thread. That was hardly a "furry proclamation" announcement where it's "I'M A FURRY LOVE ME OR DIE". I dont understand why this kind of thing is so prevalent. It's one lousy thread

Quote from Shotglass :

1) redneck istn nescessarily an insult (at least not in the way i understand the word)
2) your views on liberals (medium rights) being anti american was about as southern and bible bashing as it gets

and on the broader topics at hand
what americans usually refer to as liberal is social liberalism which oddly enough isnt really catered by any of the rather limited number of parties

in the context of your posts you describe liberalism as social democratic which is neither liberal nor remotely far enough to the right to even be anywhere on the american political spectrum at all

I think there's some misunderstanding here. What I mean by liberals (and it may or may not be different from european liberalism...idk) is generally people who support the Democratic party in the United States. Conservatives are people who support the Republican party in the United States. The US is the only democracy where there's only two power house parties. Other very minor parties such as Green Party, Reformist Party, etc. Do not really share a spot light. As far as many Americans are concerned, there's only two parties: Democratic/Republicans.

The Democratic party candidates generally support a large health care system and a socialist economy. They want a larger government with more tax. Therefore, people who support the policies presented by Democratic candidates (universal health care, high tax bracket, larger government, etc) are generally labeled as liberals. On abortion rights (which is a giant issue in the US) liberals are generally "pro choice"

While the Republican party is almost opposite in views. They would like to see a smaller government and tax breaks. On abortion issues Republicans are generally "pro life". They are also pro business and are sometimes weary when environmentalist get in the way of their economic policies. Supporters of the Republican parties are generally called conservatives.

There stereotype for liberals (as this is normally closely associated with extreme liberals) is heavy criticism of the American government (which can and can't be a good thing depending on the situation IMO), tree huggers, and open minded to the point where some would even side with islamic extremist when they kidnap/torture/kill random people. Michael Moore is a great example.

Now, I dont believe I've said that all liberals are like what I've just described and if that is what I wrote I'll recant that. But like DeadWolfBones said: some liberals are appalled by the behavior of these "extreme liberals".

Stereotypes for "extreme" conservatives are a totally different story. But since that's not the subject here I'll skip the explanation.

Because of the polarized nature of our political system, studies have showed that this actually brings people closer together and this forms a "moderate" group. But there are a small percentage that fit stereotypes of each side and these are called "extreme liberal" or "far left"/"extreme conservatives" or "far right". But a good majority of Americans are actually moderate and the all time high in ticket splitting proves this. So yes, I'll admit I have been unfair to liberals when I say that they are all like Michael Moore ("extreme" or "anti-american")

Where I come from, if you are called a redneck it is generally a derogatory slur. But Hawaii is a poor representation of the US so idk if it is also derogatory in the mainland (but I would assume so since it's used in correlation with "low intelligence" I'll leave Wolf to answer that)

Quote from Hankstar :

That being said, if people choose to concentrate on your hobbies in an effort to discredit or score points off you instead of attacking the substance of your arguments, as far as I'm concerned they've done more harm to themselves and their own credibility. As my coach used to say: attack the ball, not the man.

Ya...the fact that a good portion of the people who participated in this thread applauded this statement:

Quote from T.Kaneda :

It's a variant of the argumentum ad hominem and is a fundamentally lazy and intellectually dishonest form of argument. Sadly, it has become increasingly prevalent in political discourse over the last several years as politics has become increasing polarized and divisive. It's probably best to just ignore those who resort to using it.

Backs up your post.

Quote from lizardfolk :

I think there's some misunderstanding here. What I mean by liberals (and it may or may not be different from european liberalism...idk) is generally people who support the Democratic party in the United States. Conservatives are people who support the Republican party in the United States.

This is a drastic reduction promulgated by the mass media sources and swallowed by the sheep who consume them. It's not true in any real sense. But if you want to accept easy labels, alright.

Quote :

The Democratic party candidates generally support a large health care system and a socialist economy. They want a larger government with more tax. Therefore, people who support the policies presented by Democratic candidates (universal health care, high tax bracket, larger government, etc) are generally labeled as liberals. On abortion rights (which is a giant issue in the US) liberals are generally "pro choice"

While the Republican party is almost opposite in views. They would like to see a smaller government and tax breaks. On abortion issues Republicans are generally "pro life". They are also pro business and are sometimes weary when environmentalist get in the way of their economic policies. Supporters of the Republican parties are generally called conservatives.

There's not really any need for this grade school breakdown of the parties' stereotypical platforms. Everyone is well aware.

Funny, though, that the greatest expansion of the federal government in recent times has come under the Republican leadership in place over the last eight years. Go figure.

Quote :

There stereotype for liberals (as this is normally closely associated with extreme liberals) is heavy criticism of the American government (which can and can't be a good thing depending on the situation IMO), tree huggers, and open minded to the point where some would even side with islamic extremist when they kidnap/torture/kill random people. Michael Moore is a great example.

As you said, this is a stereotype (and one generated by the extreme right) and has very little basis in fact. Care to introduce me to someone you've met in your daily experience who would seriously side with a terrorist who kidnaps/tortures/kills innocent bystanders? Yeah, that's what I thought.

Quote :

Now, I dont believe I've said that all liberals are like what I've just described and if that is what I wrote I'll recant that. But like DeadWolfBones said: some liberals are appalled by the behavior of these "extreme liberals".

That's not at all what I said.

I said that the people you mistakenly identified as liberals are not liberals, but rather misguided libertarians/idiots. I said that true liberals would be horrified to be identified with them, not that they are horrified that they are also liberals. Which they are not.

(The word "liberal" is losing all meaning to me at this point.)

Quote :

Stereotypes for "extreme" conservatives are a totally different story. But since that's not the subject here I'll skip the explanation.

Mhm.

Quote :

So yes, I'll admit I have been unfair to liberals when I say that they are all like Michael Moore ("extreme" or "anti-american")

...

Quote :

I dont believe I've said that all liberals are like what I've just described and if that is what I wrote I'll recant that.

Yes, I see... please go on...

Quote :

Where I come from, if you are called a redneck it is generally a derogatory slur. But Hawaii is a poor representation of the US so idk if it is also derogatory in the mainland (but I would assume so since it's used in correlation with "low intelligence" I'll leave Wolf to answer that)

Whether it's taken as derogatory is largely down to perspective and cultural identification. Here in Georgia it's not uncommon to see a big ol' truck bearing a windscreen sun strip proudly proclaiming "Redneck." Nor is it uncommon to see the same truck flying an outsized Confederate flag. (Side note: I'll never get over the irony of seeing a truck bearing both "The South Will Rise Again!" and "God Bless America" bumper stickers.) So for people with an education and a sense of history, the term "redneck" tends to carry an association with poor education, yokelism, racism, and as Albieg put it, general willful ignorance. But there are plenty of "rednecks" I've known who are intelligent, well-spoken people who just happen to live a rural life and have a long drawl.

Quote :

Ya...the fact that a good portion of the people who participated in this thread applauded this statement:

[T.Kaneda's statement]

Backs up your post.

I think you must have misunderstood Kaneda's post, because it's pointing out your own ad hominem attack. Instead of discussing the article's content you chose to attack the newspaper that published it. You then decided to moan about people attacking your character rather than discussing your arguments. See the hypocrisy here?

Quote from DeadWolfBones :

I think you must have misunderstood Kaneda's post, because it's pointing out your own ad hominem attack. Instead of discussing the article's content you chose to attack the newspaper that published it. You then decided to moan about people attacking your character rather than discussing your arguments. See the hypocrisy here?

I've always known that Kaneda posted that in regards to me. Please...you insult me by stating otherwise.

I do know the irony of me referring to that post, but it is hardly hypocritical considering that I've already admitted that what I did (in regards to the Times) was erroneous in nature. (And in case I haven't I'll do so now)

Alright, I'm out of this thread. See you next time.