Forum archives » Fights Go Here » This is why I spout off here

Spankling
August 2, 2005 5:55 PM

Has anyone studied whether the street-level marketing of ideas actually results in an acceptance for those ideas? I would argue that more often than not it has a negative impact. For example, a lovely young lady stopped me on my lunch break today (library, grab protean, back to work, got no time) and asked if I was aware of Cheney�s push for war. I said I was and that I was doing what I could and kept trotting, not wanting to be late.

She hoots after me, �Oh really?� with the disbelief implied. �Well have you read that blah blah blah�?�

Instantly I detested that we were on the same side of this issue. I stopped and came back. �Are you working for the republicans?� I asked. She gave me a WTF look. �Because I�ve never heard anything as likely to make me vote republican than your self righteous street ranting. Don�t you think people may be on the side of good but not have time to decipher your home-grown cherry-scrotum flavored manifesto?�

She was ready. �blah blah snork blah blah pizzle morflank blah!� She shouted back. (I may be paraphrasing). Suffice it to say, we didn�t exchange phone numbers and she did not let me into her pants.

That�s why I spout off here. I�m not breaking into anyone�s lunch hour. I�m easily ignored. And it still vents my spleen.

Post #184098link

choadwarrior
August 2, 2005 6:12 PM

When I was a kid, my mom told me not to talk to strangers. I haven't since.

Post #184101link

biped
August 2, 2005 6:42 PM

You should've said to her: "Please...join me in an eternal shut-up."

Post #184102link

possums
August 2, 2005 7:09 PM

quote:
I�m not breaking into anyone�s lunch hour.

This speak�s to me.

Post #184103link

DragonXero
August 2, 2005 7:25 PM

I've experienced this with Libertarians and Republicans at different times in my life as well. Sometimes, I just have to wonder how hard these people have to try to be SO extreme.

Oddly enough, the most recent ones are on the same issue, and the same idea behind it. Taking the gun control issue WAY too far for me. Both people, Republican and Libertarian, espoused the idea that americans should be able to buy M-60s if they want, or hell, they should be able to make thermonuclear weapons if they want! That way we can have everything the government has!

Yeah, except numbers, training, experience, money and a "get away with murder" card.

But hey, who's gonna let a tank stop them? Certainly not these people. Then again, they have a point, look how successful Iraqis are at going mano-a-tanko with the american military.

I suppose if all else fails, these revolutionaries could just blow up the military guys while they're on busses or trains, like the terorists do. That would like, totally work dude.

Post #184107link

Spankling
August 2, 2005 9:49 PM

quote:
quote:
I�m not breaking into anyone�s lunch hour.

This speak�s to me.

Sorry - ' troubles.

Post #184117link

HCRoyall
August 2, 2005 9:55 PM

Libertarians are, by definition of their stance, Conservatives with a few Liberal leanings. They want the Federal Government to have as little power as possible and still function as such, and want the States to have power over themselves, barring certain circumstances.

Believing in a cause is all well and good, but Zeal only makes matters worse for those trying to recruit.

Post #184118link

Screendummie
August 2, 2005 11:14 PM

quote:
Both people, Republican and Libertarian, espoused the idea that americans should be able to buy M-60s if they want, or hell, they should be able to make thermonuclear weapons if they want! That way we can have everything the government has!

Fuck that M-60 (by the way, they don't use them anymore, I think, in the military). I want a M1A3. I should have the legal right to park it on my neighbor's lawn. He gives me shit, I give HP (high explosive) for my parking space.

Why can't I own a tank, barring the fact I have no money? Its like a car or tractor or whatever, but as my huge imaginary penis that blows up stuff. So what if I get one gallon a mile? Fuck the environment too. I'll be dead anyways. Why should I save it for my offspring? They're just gonna waste it anyways.

Nothing wrong with guns. I think the government should make subsidies for gun ownership. The less morons living, the less they can hose me on the taxes that I sometimes, if maybe never, pay. It would end welfare because everyone would be their own personal robin hoods looting each other.

Maybe I'm not making any sense. But my case is sound. Nothing wrong with guns. I love the smell of cordite in the morning. Especially after I blast my neighbor's rat dogs. Now I'm hungry. Gonna eat some weiners now.

--S. Dummie

Post #184128link

HCRoyall
August 3, 2005 1:32 AM

quote:
Fuck that M-60 (by the way, they don't use them anymore, I think, in the military).

They're still in use, but they've been mostly replaced with .50 cal machine guns.

Post #184131link

DragonXero
August 3, 2005 8:05 AM

quote:
Libertarians are, by definition of their stance, Conservatives with a few Liberal leanings. They want the Federal Government to have as little power as possible and still function as such, and want the States to have power over themselves, barring certain circumstances.

Believing in a cause is all well and good, but Zeal only makes matters worse for those trying to recruit.


Technically, a Libertarian is essentially progressive in all social ways, so long as that progressiveness doesn't infringe upon rights such as free speech. There's a reason that's our first amendment. It's arguably the most important amendment.

Where Libertarians are more "conservative" is in taxation and government spending. The idea of censorship is abhorrent and tax-consuming. The FCC oversteps its boundaries every time it fines Howard Stern for saying "FUCK YOU" on the radio.

I think socially, a Libertarian is a lot like an Anarchist in some ways. Go ahead, off your fetus, burn those bibles, throw the switch on a killer, shoot some fuckhead who comes into your house with a .50 cal, fuck and marry who you want, when you want, how you want and put whatever various substances you want into your body. It's your fucking life, why should the government or anyone else have any say in how you live it?

I think that bleeds into the liberatarian economic stance as well. It's your money, your time, your hard work, why is the government assumed to be better at spending it than you are? Sure, there are essential functions of the government. We need our military, for homeland defense anyway. We need our roads and our public libraries. We need law enforcement. Basically we need people to help us keep the right to smoke some weed, fuck our ten partners and burn some bibles all while we swear on live TV using whoever has the balls to show all that. We also need someone who will call us on our shit when we do something to affect another person's life while we're enjoying our own.

As for other policies that are typically discussed... we need better environmental controls, more free trade (the very idea of an organization that controls free trade is a conflict of terms) and I think the thing that seperates Libertarians from Democrats and binds them to Republicans is the idea of becoming more isolationist, at least in policy and military affairs. Trade should be free, policy in other countries should be kept to ourselves.

Fuck, the English know more about our politics than we do most of the time, and that's sad. Our schools are failing, doesn't look like the government is doing a good job there.

I dunno, I'm a Libertarian because I see it as a party of freedom, responsibility and removing hypocrisy from the government and society. Hell, I agree that I'd like to see a lot of idiots in this country gunned down, but I still think unprovoked killing is wrong. Part of why I would like to see our troops come home to protect our borders, not "our" oil, the Iraqis' "freedom" and losing their lives. I support just wars, and the troops who serve in any war. I just think this battle is one we shouldn't have chosen.

Let the giant go back to sleep, we need our rest.

Post #184142link

mandingo
August 3, 2005 8:29 AM

i think libertarianism is probbly the most consistent political ideology out there. true liberalism would be too, there just aren't (m)any people out there with the balls enough to express their pure liberal tendencies, partly because they know the country doesn't lean that way, so why not bullshit them and ram jam it down their throats when they aren't looking. i hate both republicans and democrats. thats why i don't debate politics much. its like if your anti death penalty, why debate lethal injection versus electric chair. their both wrong to you

Post #184146link

DragonXero
August 3, 2005 5:25 PM

I think a good, solid liberal would be a consistent ideology. I just couldn't agree with it. Same with a pure conservativism. It could be very consistent, just not in practice. I see Libertarianism as being a party that can be in practice, mostly what it is on paper. There are exceptions, of course, but a lot of it is very logical, reasonable ideas. Not just a bunch of dreams and wishes for a better, utopian society.

Post #184195link

Zaster
August 3, 2005 5:30 PM

IMHO, Libertarianism is consistent mainly in its refusal to acknowledge that private entities (corporations) are as capable of trammeling individual happiness and liberty as governments are, even without recourse to tanks and guns. I've been reading Kenneth Davis' Don't Know Much About History and it's been a real eye opener. Some of the arguments I see floated by Libertarians as some startling new formula for limited government turn out to be nearly a century old. They were once used to defend a status quo of robber barons and company stores.

For my own part, I'm hoping that the Singulatarians turn out to be right, and that the eventual advent of an artificial intelligence superior to our own will make our current political and economic theories seem as quaint as crayon drawings hanging on a refrigerator door.

Post #184197link

Spankling
August 3, 2005 7:40 PM

quote:
IMHO, Libertarianism is consistent mainly in its refusal to acknowledge that private entities (corporations) are as capable of trammeling individual happiness and liberty as governments are, even without recourse to tanks and guns. ........ They were once used to defend a status quo of robber barons and company stores......
Ed-zactly! One of the jobs of government is to protect the masses of powerless from the handful of greed-mongers that run everything. Not that this is proving to be what government does...

Post #184207link

areallystupidguy
August 3, 2005 9:23 PM

I officially dub this thread "Pictures Of Spouts".

Post #184223link

Splunge
August 3, 2005 9:52 PM

A couple of reality checks here.

The M-60 is a fine weapon. The only problem that it had in my day was the ability to put the gas piston in backwards. This would allow you to fire one, and only one, round. The action wouldn't cycle and you were in deep shit.

As far as it being replaced by the .50 cal... No sorry. The .50 cal is a heavy weapon. The M-60 is is a medium support weapon. It uses a 7.62mm round while the M-2 uses a much larger round. The M-60 has since been replaced by the M240B 7.62mm medium machine gun.

The "ma duce" (M2 .50cal) is still used as a heavy weapon. It can pierce stone walls and is used as AA (anti-air) as well as a ground interdiction weapon.

Yeah. I know nobody else cares. Whatever.

Post #184229link

DragonXero
August 3, 2005 10:14 PM

I was going to post a big long reply, but fuck it. I don't feel like dragging politics into another thread. Have fun with your big government.

I like freedom, personally.

Post #184232link

HCRoyall
August 4, 2005 12:58 AM

quote:
As far as it being replaced by the .50 cal... No sorry. The .50 cal is a heavy weapon. The M-60 is is a medium support weapon. It uses a 7.62mm round while the M-2 uses a much larger round. The M-60 has since been replaced by the M240B 7.62mm medium machine gun.

The M60 uses a bigger round than the 240B. The 240 is identical to the 249, save only the slightly larger round. Other than that, I really don't care, nor will I claim to know. I'm not Infantry. It's not my job to know the intricacies of every weapon utilized by the military. All I know is that the M60 is almost never used anymore.

Oh, but I so wish I could get my hands on an M4 Carbine, and under Conservative gun-control policies I could. I don't want one because I feel threatened, I want one for recreational purposes; target shooting and all that.

Post #184238link

Zaster
August 4, 2005 2:20 AM

quote:
Have fun with your big government.
Oh, I will. I plan to get my big government together for a game of sandlot baseball today if it isn't too hot out. Then we'll all stop somewhere for lemonade and hot dogs.

Post #184240link

mandingo
August 4, 2005 9:38 AM

just because theres problems with libertarianism doesn't mean it isn't ideologically consistent. libertariansm is less government. liberalism is more government. republicans and democrats are just different mixtures of those two imo. good example: republicans are less government except for military, democrats are more government except for military. neither have a singular consistency to them, their more outcome based

quote:
Oh, I will. I plan to get my big government together for a game of sandlot baseball today if it isn't too hot out. Then we'll all stop somewhere for lemonade and hot dogs.
shotgun!

Post #184267link

kaufman
August 4, 2005 9:47 AM

quote:
just because theres problems with libertarianism doesn't mean it isn't ideologically consistent. libertariansm is less government. liberalism is more government.
Uh, no. Paternalism, authoritarianism, totalitatianism are more government.

Liberalism and conservatism are both inbetween -- liberalism believing in less government on personal and often defense issues, but more on "social engineering" issues, and conservatism vice versa. As you yourself add:

quote:
republicans and democrats are just different mixtures of those two imo ... neither have a singular consistency to them, their more outcome based
Don't distort the meaning of "liberalism" the way Fox News wants you to.

Post #184268link

mandingo
August 4, 2005 10:21 AM

quote:
Uh, no. Paternalism, authoritarianism, totalitatianism are more government.
i was speaking within the framework of american politics

quote:
Don't distort the meaning of "liberalism" the way Fox News wants you to.
thats why i was saying pure liberalism or true liberalism. i just dropped the prefix since i assumed people would still know thats what i was referencing, and so i didn't have to interject socialism and marxism into a discussion right when we were about to go for lemonade and hot dogs

Post #184280link

DragonXero
August 4, 2005 12:33 PM

quote:
Oh, but I so wish I could get my hands on an M4 Carbine, and under Conservative gun-control policies I could. I don't want one because I feel threatened, I want one for recreational purposes; target shooting and all that.
Actually, I think most Libertarians would say that a burst fire/single fire M4 would be quite fine. I wouldn't mind having one myself. Would be kinda fun for just target shooting. I don't think I'd want one for defense though. Would be a little too hard to use for home defense. I'd rather just have a 1911A1 Colt .45. Easier to get to and one shot should be enough.

Post #184294link

jes_lawson
August 5, 2005 4:20 AM

quote:

Fuck, the English know more about our politics than we do most of the time, and that's sad.

We do? Maybe, I dunno. What grabs me about this is that UK politics is becoming more presidential, which I disagree with. And I notice Bush overruled the senate on something controversial recently (help me out). Blair did a similar thing and invoked the Parliament act to overrule the Lords on the fox-hunting ban.

Which they both, by their respective county's laws, are entitled to do, but it's like one of those superpowers that it is a bit wrong to use. Like Superman using X-ray vision to check out the locker room at Vasser or something.

Post #184355link

HCRoyall
August 5, 2005 4:51 AM

quote:
Like Superman using X-ray vision to check out the locker room at Vasser or something.

That's about the only reason to even have X-ray vision.

And both Blair and Bush are nimrods who shouldn't be given authority over a mop and bucket, let alone entire countries. Bush has gone abso-fucking-lutely batshit with power since he got re-elected, and Blair's just following along. It's about this time that even being French looks appealing.

Post #184356link

niteowl
August 5, 2005 9:07 AM

quote:
And I notice Bush overruled the senate on something controversial recently (help me out).
He appointed John Bolton as U.N. ambassador during the Senate's recess.

Post #184374link

mandingo
August 5, 2005 10:07 AM

quote:
It's about this time that even being French looks appealing.
lets not go crazy now

Post #184392link

DragonXero
August 5, 2005 12:05 PM

quote:
quote:
And I notice Bush overruled the senate on something controversial recently (help me out).
He appointed John Bolton as U.N. ambassador during the Senate's recess.
Hey, at least it wasn't Michael Bolton.

The musician. Not the office worker.

Post #184417link

ivytheplant
August 5, 2005 1:26 PM

quote:
they should be able to make thermonuclear weapons if they want!

And what's wrong with that?

*hides unfinished thermonuclear hydrogen bomb behind her back*

Post #184424link

Forum archives » Fights Go Here » This is why I spout off here

stripcreator
Make a comic
Forums
featuring
diesel sweeties
jerkcity
exploding dog
goats
ko fight club
penny arcade
chopping block
also
Brad Sucks