Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
![]()
My point was more that "sex gets people to read" and was basically sort of sexist bait to attract readers by putting that directly in the title, instead of mentioning the other problems that come with climate change.
Well, they may not like being called anarchists, considering most anarchists are more likely to be actually liberal, but their policies and MO pretty much end up with a lot of the same results when they're trying to deliberately make government as ineffective as possible.
![]()
What? Oh no you didn't, biatch. The Tea Party has more in common with the corporatarchist "anarcho"-capitalists than with actual anarchists. Real anarchists tend to protest the end of welfare systems and the like because we tend to prefer the state to corporations (though we dislike both). Real anarchists hate the shit out of the Tea Party.
Also, I don't know where Reid went to college, but most actual anarchists avoided violence whenever possible. It was always a minority that believed in the Propaganda of the Deed, and many were outright pacifists, avoiding all violence, such as Leo Tolstoy.
Allegedly, stopping that kind of bullshit is what Comissars were for:
Yeah, as an anarchist I would be insulted by the comparison to the Tea Party as well.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I can't believe I found Tea party defenders in the comments. Yes everyone who isn't Tea Party is a lazy douchebag who wants a million dollars for their unemployed friends or just a Republican to afraid to say what your all thinking.
Got nothing to do with the racism, the fact that their are people who need welfare and other social services, homophobia, or anything like that. The comparison to anarchists was wrong, the vast majority are better than the Tea Party, (though it isn't hard to do) I really hope they lose their power in politics.
Going back a bit, it seems to me that "stop and frisk" would inherently violate Constitutional rights — specifically the protection against search and seizure without a warrant or probable cause. It doesn't improve things if the probable cause in question is "being black".
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I don't think the NYPD cares very much about that for the most part.
Hugging a Vanillite will give you frostbite.Well, they're kind of supposed to care about that. If not, the courts are supposed to make sure that they care. You know, because we have a Constitution and a Bill of Rights... those are supposed to matter all the time, not just when they are convenient.
edited 3rd May '13 7:14:27 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"I've noticed that, at least in the United States, politics seems to be seen as a "separate thing" from daily life. It's like, there's daily life, and then there's politics, which is what some people (such as us politics geeks) do, but is taboo as a topic on a general basis.
Yet, from the looks of it, this comes at a time when we ought to be more active than ever before in taking ownership of our society. It's never about oneself and oneself alone; if you think like that then you're neglecting the infrastructure, the economy, the environment, and everything else around you. We live in a world where our decisions (whether or not to vote, among many, many others) affects those around us all the time, and the decisions of those around us affect us, and if we're going to deal with that in a meaningful way that's not a blind free-for-all, then we need to have a good, honest conversation about policy — specifically one where we the participants are not blinded by ideology-pushing.
Ironically, the tea-partiers have it half-right: they stress the point of personal responsibility. But personal responsibility doesn't just end at the effects of one's actions on oneself. It also extends to the effects of one's actions on others.
edited 3rd May '13 7:29:41 AM by GlennMagusHarvey
@GMH: I agree entirely. In fairness, history shows that most of the time, most people don't care about politics. It's only during times of crisis or major change that the majority stands up and takes notice, and often does so on the basis of half-truths and misinformation.
Changing this is a laudable goal but I'm not sure that it's a practical one.
edited 3rd May '13 7:23:28 AM by Fighteer
"It's Occam's Shuriken! If the answer is elusive, never rule out ninjas!"Nancy Pelosi: 'I pray that Hillary Clinton decides to run for president'
Justice Thomas: Obama is president because he’s approved by ‘elites’
Eric Cantor promises House vote to repeal ObamaCare soon
Everyone who's been president for the last hundred years or so has been approved by elites, or is Teddy Roosevelt or LBJ. Maybe FDR. It's how the system works. The trick is to appeal to them without dancing on the strings shamelessly, like the republicans blatantly do. And to appeal to the "elites."
What the fuck is an elite, anyway? I have a feeling our definitions don't match up.
Don't get me wrong, though. A truly populist president has the potential to be wonderful. (They also have the potential to be terrifying.)
Mrs. Pelosi could use to step down to another Speaker candidate if they really want to take the House back in 2014.
Also, Thomas could use keeping his political opinions in the closet. Or a least provide proof of his claim.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanYou mean Clarence Thomas? Weird it doesn't look like his page in The Other Wiki says anything about Monsanto. Anyways I never actually kept track of the justices . But one who used to be a lawyer for Monsanto, of all corporations, is just scary. Why don't we elect justices instead of them being appointed ?
edited 3rd May '13 11:04:03 AM by Xopher001
@Dr Tentacles,...You telling me Jimmy Carter wasn't Populist?
And as for Thomas,...does anyone give him credit after the Anita Hill bullshit?
edited 3rd May '13 11:07:35 AM by terlwyth
