Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/27/14 05:21 PM, Xenomit wrote: liberal social views and conservative political views

Fuck, I meant economic views. Conservative economic views.

At 5/27/14 05:21 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 5/27/14 05:13 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

Not really, no.

Everytime he gets political he acts like TheKlown, at least from what I've seen.

He wasn't the best debater in this thread, but only because what HeavenDuff said was so absurdly retarded. Libertarian is just another way of saying you have liberal social views and conservative political views, and that's about as logical and reasonable as you can get. Being liberal or conservative or anything else is just plain retarded, because every established party is gonna have some good political views, and some really really shitty political views.

Any other time, he's as rational as it comes.

In terms of of the US political spectrum I consider myself Liberal.

- I support equal minority rights
- I support equal marriage for all
- I'm anti-war ( I think it's a waste of money in the long-run, when we could use that money for scientific development, or in many southern states, better infrastructure)
- I support free health care
- I support welfare
- I support strong government
- I support prison reformation toward rehabilitation, not as a scare tactic or for punishment
- I could give less of a shit about guns, the three main demographics of people I see that like guns are:

1; nerds on the internet who obsess over them and know ever specific type of model of gun ever
2; people in tin-foil hats that think the government is after them
3; people who like to hurt animals for sport

I don't fit into either 3 of those categories.

What's so bad about being cynical? The world is bad and you won't be able to change it because everybody else ignores it since they don't experience many problems.

Just because you have problems in life/ see everything as shitty and have a hard time experiencing joy, doesn't mean you have to try and make other people feel shitty. Even if someone says something dumb, that's still not a good reason to tear them apart and make them feel like shit just because you feel like shit. Being a cynical asshole is societally, just about one of the worst kinds of people you could be. Below cynical assholes are psychopaths, serial killers, child molesters, and rapists. They're just above that lot.

But if everybody in the world felt the exact same positive way toward issues in society. We could all be motivated to work toward a common goal to make the world a better place for everybody. Yet it seems as long as people are in their little bubbles watching Despicable Me 2 with their non-dysfunctional family and eating good quality restaurant/home-cooked food. They don't seem to care.

At 5/27/14 05:40 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: In terms of of the US political spectrum I consider myself Liberal.

I don't consider myself anything, that's kinda the point. I don't label myself with a term and hunker down with my own beliefs, I judge each issue individually. With that said, when it comes to social politics, liberals tend to have all the right ideas. I'm not saying liberals are right, I'm just saying a lot of their political standpoints are solid, logical, and common sense. When it comes to economic politics, conservatives tend to have all the right ideas. I'm not saying conservatives are right, I'm just saying a lot of their political standpoints are... solid. Although I agree with a lot of conservative beliefs on economics, republicans tend to be... less than rational. Often times, they're more of the "I'm right and I know I'm right so we're doing it this way and that's that" type of people.

1; nerds on the internet who obsess over them and know ever specific type of model of gun ever

Actually, people who know every specific detail of every gun ever made don't tend to be the kinds of people who visit the internet a lot. Not to mention these are the people who you could usually trust with a gun. It irks me that conservative guntards make everyone think that guns should be entirely banned by being retarded about gun laws. All we ask for right now are strict and thorough background checks and they throw the biggest shitfit ever about that, I don't wanna even imagine what they'll do if people try actually restricting the kinds of guns you can get.

But if everybody in the world felt the exact same positive way toward issues in society. We could all be motivated to work toward a common goal to make the world a better place for everybody. Yet it seems as long as people are in their little bubbles watching Despicable Me 2 with their non-dysfunctional family and eating good quality restaurant/home-cooked food. They don't seem to care.

You could say cynical assholes make the world better, I could say that's a load of bullshit. You can see problems with the world and strive to fix them without being a massive asshole that thinks everyone and everything is shit. In fact, cynical people tend to not even care that everything's shit, they just think that the world is a piece of shit and there's nothing anyone can do to change it so they don't care if it changes. That's one of the most toxic people you can have in a civilization, it makes other people feel like shit and generally slows down social progress.

At 5/27/14 05:02 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: and lemoncrush isn't?

Nope, sure not. All I did was point out facts. Richard basically said "no, these proven facts are wrong because you said them, la la la"

At 5/27/14 05:40 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

At 5/27/14 05:21 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 5/27/14 05:13 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote:

Not really, no.

Everytime he gets political he acts like TheKlown, at least from what I've seen.

He wasn't the best debater in this thread, but only because what HeavenDuff said was so absurdly retarded. Libertarian is just another way of saying you have liberal social views and conservative political views, and that's about as logical and reasonable as you can get. Being liberal or conservative or anything else is just plain retarded, because every established party is gonna have some good political views, and some really really shitty political views.

Any other time, he's as rational as it comes.

In terms of of the US political spectrum I consider myself Liberal.

- I support equal minority rights
- I support equal marriage for all
- I'm anti-war ( I think it's a waste of money in the long-run, when we could use that money for scientific development, or in many southern states, better infrastructure)
- I support free health care
- I support welfare
- I support strong government
- I support prison reformation toward rehabilitation, not as a scare tactic or for punishment
- I could give less of a shit about guns, the three main demographics of people I see that like guns are:

See, the thing is, aside from strong government, Liberal politicians don't line up with liberals like yourself. Liberal politicians are anti-minority rights, anti-free healthcare, pro-war, anti-equal marriage, etc.

So someone needs to change their titles. Because you say liberalism is one thing, liberal politicians for the past several decades are doing the exact opposite. So which is the actual liberalism here?

At 5/27/14 05:40 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: 2; people in tin-foil hats that think the government is after them

But they are. Unless you have another explanation for arresting people for harmless things like smoking pot, or something as innocent as having acne scars on your face..

At 5/28/14 03:16 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

So someone needs to change their titles. Because you say liberalism is one thing, liberal politicians for the past several decades are doing the exact opposite. So which is the actual liberalism here?

what

are you sure you're not thinking of conservatives, because im sure conservatives are way more vocal about it then some liberals are ( conservative = traditional)

At 5/28/14 11:58 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: are you sure you're not thinking of conservatives, because im sure conservatives are way more vocal about it then some liberals are ( conservative = traditional)

Let's take war as an example.

When you look at wars of the past 100 years? Who was at the helm? Democrats.

Democrat heroes like FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Obama...terrorist, warmongering pieces of shit.

So I'm wondering where you get the notion that Liberals are anti-war.

At 5/27/14 05:23 PM, Xenomit wrote:

At 5/27/14 05:21 PM, Xenomit wrote: liberal social views and conservative political views

Fuck, I meant economic views. Conservative economic views.

Falling under one of those political philosophies does not mean that you identify with the political party that is in power that identifies themselves as belonging to that philosophy. It is possible to be liberal without being a democrat, and conservative without being republican.

At 5/28/14 03:10 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/27/14 05:02 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: and lemoncrush isn't?

Nope, sure not. All I did was point out facts. Richard basically said "no, these proven facts are wrong because you said them, la la la"

Actually you stated a bunch of anecdotal based opinions and asserted them as fact. You also attempted to assert your opinion of a highly controversial opinion on a subject that has equally meritable sides, as fact.
Who the fuck cares if any one person who identifies with a political party thinks "X dude is coolest guy evar lololol". That surely doesn't stand for everyone's viewpoint, and if you think it does, it only proves that you are a generalizing silly person.
Nuke japan? No. We did not use nuclear weapons on Japan. We did use ATOMIC weapons however. And in any case....40,000 japanese, or 40,000 Americans....Particularly since Japanese troops had proven previously several times that they were willing to fight to the last man without the smallest inkling of surrender in their minds, thus forcing even more casualties. An invasion of Japan would have been catastrophic to US forces. Which were largely made of draftee civilians. Everyday joes like you and myself forced to fight.

At 5/29/14 03:37 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/28/14 11:58 AM, GrizzlyOne wrote: are you sure you're not thinking of conservatives, because im sure conservatives are way more vocal about it then some liberals are ( conservative = traditional)

Let's take war as an example.

When you look at wars of the past 100 years? Who was at the helm? Democrats.

Democrat heroes like FDR, LBJ, Clinton, Obama...terrorist, warmongering pieces of shit.

So I'm wondering where you get the notion that Liberals are anti-war.

Disregard Nixon, George Bush Senior, and George Bush Junior. Especially since Obama wasn't the one who pined for the start of the war, but was left to clean up after it. FDR a war mongering piece of shit? Oh pardon him for declaring war in response to thousands of US servicemen and citizens being killed in an unprovoked attack. Such a war mongering piece of shit. Clinton a war mongering piece of shit? Yeah dude. Deploying peace keeping forces in an effort to curb PROVEN genocide is definitely terrible war mongering. He's such a piece of shit.

You're a nutbar. Remove the tin foil hat.

At 5/30/14 06:46 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Disregard Nixon, George Bush Senior, and George Bush Junior.

This isn't about Republicans though. The premise I'm debating is the, eh, "peaceful" tendencies of democrats. I'd also like to add that nuking civilians, and the Vietnam debacle are about 1000 times worse than anything Bush or Nixon did.

:Especially since Obama wasn't the one who pined for the start of the war, but was left to clean up after it.

Cleaning up means starting more wars and deploying more troops and forces to existing battles? That's an interesting take. Tell me about how dropping bombs on and murdering civilians is "cleaning up"

:FDR a war mongering piece of shit?

Absolutely.

:Oh pardon him for declaring war in response to thousands of US servicemen and citizens being killed in an unprovoked attack.

Unprovoked attack? Are you retarded?

:Deploying peace keeping forces in an effort to curb PROVEN genocide....

Is this serious? Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Lione, and Iraq. Death, famine, disease...yep, real fucking peaceful. Oh, and let's not forget he's trying to currently convince Obama to invade Syria.

If Xenomit starts arguing with Lemon Crush his thread will go on for another 40 pages.

At 5/31/14 03:44 AM, Clamstuffer wrote: If Xenomit starts arguing with Lemon Crush his thread will go on for another 40 pages.

If I'm not mistaking, why would they fight? I thought they both had similar stances toward the government.

The problem with libertarians is people think they want as much freedom as possible so therefore libertarianism is the best answer. That's failing to see the big picture. I'm all for the personal freedoms of the individual. If you want to cook meth and sacrifice goats with your ten wives in your basement I don't care as long as you're not bothering anybody else. The problem is extending these liberties to corporations because you don't think the government should regulate them.

The short sightedness of libertarianism is in saying "the market will regulate itself". The market will regulate itself alright, those involved in the most ruthless practices will rise to the top as those with any integrity will go under. I don't want to live in a world where as long as you got the money you can dump your toxic waste, chop down every tree, destroy renewable resources with unregulated overconsumption, monopolize, buy up everything to price gouge and fuck the poor. If you don't trust the government to do the right thing, why on earth would you trust corporations to? The government isn't perfect, but they at some level at least have some sense of preserving some of your interests. Corporations don't.

Clamstuffer has his opinion right on the money. I can understand why libertarians think like they do but I see communism coming to fruition faster than pure capitalism/anarchy

I feel like such a moron for not noticing that stupid was spelled "stup" in the title. That still doesn't mean you're much smarter than non South Park fans (I am one, BTW).

@TheKlown, so you watch South Park, eh?

At 5/31/14 03:35 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 5/30/14 06:46 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Disregard Nixon, George Bush Senior, and George Bush Junior.

This isn't about Republicans though. The premise I'm debating is the, eh, "peaceful" tendencies of democrats. I'd also like to add that nuking civilians, and the Vietnam debacle are about 1000 times worse than anything Bush or Nixon did.

Let's forget the fact that Nixon definitely was a huge proponent of Vietnam.

Especially since Obama wasn't the one who pined for the start of the war, but was left to clean up after it.

Cleaning up means starting more wars and deploying more troops and forces to existing battles? That's an interesting take. Tell me about how dropping bombs on and murdering civilians is "cleaning up"

Tell me about what wars Obama started and the increasing numbers of troops that he deployed. Oh wait. He didn't start any further wars, and he pulled nearly all the troops out.

FDR a war mongering piece of shit?

Absolutely.

With of course, nothing to back that statement up. Typical of you.

Oh pardon him for declaring war in response to thousands of US servicemen and citizens being killed in an unprovoked attack.

Unprovoked attack? Are you retarded?

No. But it's obvious that you are based on your responses that don't provide any context to your answers.

Deploying peace keeping forces in an effort to curb PROVEN genocide....

Is this serious? Yugoslavia, Somalia, Sudan, Sierra Lione, and Iraq. Death, famine, disease...yep, real fucking peaceful. Oh, and let's not forget he's trying to currently convince Obama to invade Syria.

Clinton had nothing to do with Iraq. But that's nice. Somalia? Oh wait. That's right. UN was attempting to drop off food and couldn't do so without warlords assaulting/murdering them. Can't have any forces deployed in an attempt to maintain safety for those peacekeepers. Same crap was going on in Sudan and Sierra Leone. Convince Obama to invade Syria. Sometimes the means justify the ends. If one military death prevents 100-1000 civilian deaths, I'd say it's an even trade. Nevermind the fact that the syrian government is bombing the hell out of it's own civilian populace right now. Yugoslavia? Genocide.

You're not only a nutbar, but it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of what you are talking about. Not only that, but you're wearing a full blown tin foil hat. You aren't using any facts or historical context. You're just saying 'THIS IS WHY AND THAT'S HOW IT IS". Nope. Logic and argument does not work that way dude.

Because the show has violence/bathroom/sex jokes.
The show itself is great, but the fanbase is mostly people who don't get the deeper meanings of each episode.

relevant to thread

At 5/31/14 06:04 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Let's forget the fact that Nixon definitely was a huge proponent of Vietnam.

This has literally NOTHING to do with this debate. The point was brought up that DEMOCRATS support PEACE. Therefore, Republicans are completely irrelevant to the discussion

Especially since Obama wasn't the one who pined for the start of the war, but was left to clean up after it.

Tell me about what wars Obama started and the increasing numbers of troops that he deployed. Oh wait. He didn't start any further wars, and he pulled nearly all the troops out.

Actually he started wars in Libya and Yemen, and escalated the pre-existing wars in Somalia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and Iraq. We also have the not-quite-as-bad-but-still-pretty-fucking-evil acts of selling weapons to terrorist dictatorships in Saudi Arabia and Egypt, planned $330 Billion spent for nuclear weapon manufacture and development, sending troops to Poland to "counter Russian aggression", announced support for military action against Syria, and supported the war Iraq. Not to mention the 20,000 drone strikes in his first term. BTW, that 20,000 is more than Bush's drone strikes of his entire presidency.

With of course, nothing to back that statement up. Typical of you.

World War 2....you've heard of that, right?

No. But it's obvious that you are based on your responses that don't provide any context to your answers.

It's obvious.

Clinton had nothing to do with Iraq.

ACTUALLY, during his presidency, he issued many embargoes and sanctions against Iraq, causing death and famine for the population

:Somalia? Oh wait. That's right. UN was attempting to drop off food and couldn't do so without warlords assaulting/murdering them. Can't have any forces deployed in an attempt to maintain safety for those peacekeepers. Same crap was going on in Sudan and Sierra Leone.

You do know that Clinton protected and backed those warlords, right? That he fully supported Charles Taylor and the Revolutionary United Front? In your view, destroying a pharmaceutical factory is Sudan, on the suspicion (which turned out to be false) of making WMD's was an attempt to "maintain safety for peacekeepers"? Tell me, how does destroying a medicine factory help that cause?

:Convince Obama to invade Syria. Sometimes the means justify the ends. If one military death prevents 100-1000 civilian deaths, I'd say it's an even trade.

Oh. Well, that's completely terrifying. So you support war as long as you agree with it? Did you feel this same way when Bush made his invasions?

:Nevermind the fact that the syrian government is bombing the hell out of it's own civilian populace right now.

Which has exactly ZERO to do with America whatsoever (except that we sold Syria the weapons in the first place).

:Yugoslavia? Genocide.

I know the propaganda SAYS that, but in reality, it was Clinton's bombing that caused displacement of the people of Kosovo.

You're not only a nutbar, but it's obvious you don't know anything about the history of what you are talking about. Not only that, but you're wearing a full blown tin foil hat. You aren't using any facts or historical context. You're just saying 'THIS IS WHY AND THAT'S HOW IT IS". Nope. Logic and argument does not work that way dude.

Actually I'm not. Everything i've posted is an actual fact. You don't have to accept it, because regardless of if you do, it doesn't change anything. Democrats are every bit evil as any republican. in in many cases, even more so.

South Park is still a funny and relevant show.

Everybody's dumb. Except for me. I'm more smarter.

their writers have been doing whatever the new thing is for years now they used to come up with their own ideas but i think it's finally time for it to die.let kenny die.

At 6/2/14 03:44 AM, LemonCrush wrote: A whole bunch of garbage with no peer reviewed citation.

Nice dude.

At 6/2/14 07:15 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Nice dude.

Wow. You're non rebuttal really convinced me.

Basically, you just admitted defeat. Everything I said is a fact, and either you're too lazy to try to refute it, or know I'm correct and can't refute it.

Either way it means the same thing, doesn't....

Or maybe YOU'RE right. Maybe the political party responsible for millions of innocent deaths and multiple wars, and the corporate takeover america is the "peaceful, good guys". Maybe the party who sends blacks to seperate schools, sends minorities to prison for non-crimes, and doesn't hesitate (and in fact gloats) over killing civilians and children, and "criminals"...yeah, maybe those are the beacon of peace and justice.

just seeing the possibility of lemoncrush's posts relating to the government about it being evil make me really fucking depressed, and generally make me know that nothing will ever change, except for the worse, at least in america.

there is no hope, the republicans might as well as take the 1st amendment away soon time soon

At 5/20/14 09:49 PM, GrizzlyOne wrote: -id

I mean if it's anything I noticed around here, I noticed all the south park fans are really biased libertarians, and believe that liberals are the evil and they can spur various insults like the n word for instance, and when somebody calls them out it, they spur something like "MU FREEDOMS" or " I STARTED THIS BUT SOMEHOW YOU ARE THE BIGOT FOR NOT RESPECTING MY FREEDOM".

Oh because you know the MLP fanbase isn't annoying at all with all there brony shit and rule 34 illustrations.
You will respect my authoritah!

At 6/4/14 03:51 AM, LemonCrush wrote:

At 6/2/14 07:15 PM, TyrionLannister wrote: Nice dude.

Wow. You're non rebuttal really convinced me.

Basically, you just admitted defeat. Everything I said is a fact, and either you're too lazy to try to refute it, or know I'm correct and can't refute it.

Then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it with reliable objective articles that don't derive from a tin foil hat wearing nut case.

At 6/5/14 03:52 AM, TyrionLannister wrote: Then I'm sure you will have no problem proving it with reliable objective articles that don't derive from a tin foil hat wearing nut case.

Well see, that's the issue with people like you. Every source or anything contrary to the propaganda you're consuming is "tin foil".

Anything that opposes your pre-made opinion is somehow a conspiracy theory. I mean, this who thread is evidence of it. You're currently asking for proof that the United States nuked Japan, and that Clinton implemented sanctions against Iraq...

I mean, step back for a second and look at how ridiculous that seems

These are things that a 6th grader knows, and is pretty well documented by everyone, ever....you seem to be the only person disputing it...it'd be like me saying that Obama was elected in 2008....it's pretty well documented universally...but you need further proof.

Do you see how silly it is to ask someone to prove that WW2 happened?

At 6/5/14 04:06 AM, LemonCrush wrote: Cherry picking

Nope. I'm asking for peer reviewed sources to prove the blatant idiocy that you are spouting. Not such obvious things as the US dropping ATOMIC weapons on Japan or the Clinton administration sanctioning Iraq.

You're a complete tool bag.