Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 5/18/03 03:48 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: .....I never compared O'Rielly to Savage. @_o' O'Rielly is an extremist, and Savage is more of an extremist. And I truly hope that you don't base your opinions on someone just by comparing them to someone worse. @_o'

Honestly, I don't exactly lebel extremeists based on comparisons. I just see O'Reilly on the level of Rush Limbaugh which I see as the common conservative view. However, what you've told me of O'Reilly sounds extremeist, but I missed those or don't have the sources to think so.

It surprises me that you would call O'Reilly's behavior a little "out there" for a right-wing individual. I wouldn't think that you'd want the rest of the world to associate your party with that man, since he's probably the worst example of level-headedness I've seen in a long time, and a bad example of any intelligent and "down to earth" right-wing individual. Nor would I think that you'd want want us to assume that that's next to normal behavior for all right-wing individuals. @_o'

I said "out there" only based on what I have known and seen of him rather than what you've told me.

At 5/18/03 09:21 PM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

At 5/18/03 03:41 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:
Uh, do you realize that the right and left-wing points of view don't revolve around economics only, right? @_o'

umm yes they do, right-left is economic. libertarian-authoritarian is social. they are not the same

"Uh, do you realize that the right and left-wing points of view don't revolve around economics only, right?" @_o'

You are correct about the economic stances of the left and right wings, but I assure you that those are not the only grounds that the two parties have stances on. It goes way behond economics, even to the point of absurd things, like abortion, capital punishment, etc.

If you really do think that economics are the only differences between the two parties, then how do you explain the stances on this war taken up by both parties? Or abortion, for that matter?

OSC:

OK, that's fine. ^_^ If you are interested in some of the examples of O'Reilly's behavior I mentioned, though, I do have one solid example that I can give: It's article where he freaked out on a man who told him that America contributed to the attacks on 9/11.

If you are interested, I could type out the entire speech.

Here's what happens, basically, they brought a man on the show whose father died in 9/11 (sad -_-). Well, he signed this petition along with a large group of the families of 9/11 victims who also blamed "America" for the attacks on 9/11. Well, O'Reilly at first was a little defensive of America, naturally. Well, then the man told him why he partially blamed "America" for the attacks.

Here's the story (the man didn't tell all of it, but I read about the issue in other places, so I know more about it now):

Basically, when Bush Sr. was head of the CIA, him and his administration were the ones who actually put the Taliban in power (to combat the Zuraki government in Afgahnistan at that time), and Bush Sr. himself gave millions and millions of dollars to fund and train the exact terrorists who became the Taliban/Al Queda and he even was the one who first gave them much of their weapons. In fact, "terrorism" in Afgahnistan was created thanks in part to the involvment of the US, who sent money and weapons to train men to be terrorists (since there were so few willing to fight against the Zuraki government, they needed more stratigic ways of fighting with little man power. Hence, comes terrorism).

Well, this is important, because the creation of the Taliban wasn't really needed. They were originally just put in to be pro-America (ironically), so that trade in that area would become good again (basically, it was an important area to get good relations with because of the administration's plan for an oil-pipeline to run through Afgahnistan into Central Asian Oil whose trade was owned by Russia----it would be much cheaper to get this oil ourselves than to have to buy it through Russia, who we were having difficulties with in that time anyway......but that's another story).

Anyway, then the administration made the mistake of going over and screwing with Palestine, which greatly pissed the Taliban off (that, plus the US turned their back on them once the dirty work was done for them). So, the man's point was that the US shouldn't have been tampering in such "dangerous territory" simply for reasons surrounding trade and oil control, because the results are frequently bad. Also, his point was that the Bush Sr. administration should definetely not have been financing the Taliban or training and giving weapons to terrorists in a country that had high hatred of the US (obviously, a bad idea), especially when it was for just financial reasons (trade, etc) only.

Without Bush Sr. and his administration's envolvment, the Taliban would not have been created nor would they have had the ability or funding to attack the US on 9/11.

That's the story.

Well, O'Reilly got extremely angry at the man and blamed the Afghan people for the attacks, and not America (the man countered that the Afghan people had nothing to do with it, since they hate the Taliban too, and the Taliban isn't even made up of anyone from Afghanistan anway----mostly Libenese, Egyptian, etc). Well, then O'Reilly got even angrier and said that the man was "a discrase to his father and America, and he's just glad that his dad wasn't there to see him" and that "he hopes his mother isn't watching this," and towards the end, he was getting so pissed off at him that he simply told him that he was wrong (and some other violent things, I forgot), and he told them to "cut his mike" and after the man tried to leave the studio, he said that "if he ever came in his studio again, he would rip him to F#$% shreds."

@_o' Anyway, there's more to it than just that, but I can't remember the whole speech right now.

So, if you're interested, I could try to type out the speech for you here. ^_^ Though it may take a while since it's pretty long. Just let me know.

There's no link for that incident? Curious as to how you found out about it.

At 5/19/03 05:15 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: stuff

that's republican and democrat, right and left wing are not parties but rather political definitions

How did this turn from a discussion of Weapons of Mass Destruction to defining that "Left" and "Right" are not political parties?

And since when were the Democrats considered "Left Wing", considering their best attempts to be the Republicans?

At 5/20/03 11:58 AM, D2KVirus wrote: communism is right wing

*calls the hospital on D2KVirus*

At 5/20/03 01:46 AM, OSC wrote: There's no link for that incident? Curious as to how you found out about it.

Link to what incident? The O'Reilly one? I read about it in a literary magazine. @_o' They basically had this section where they printed out a bunch of "speeches" that were never shown to the public (on random tv shows, net chat rooms---where some guy died on live web cam @_o' , and administration speeches).

You can find information in other places than on the internet, ya know. @_o' In fact, the internet isn't always the most reliable source of information.

At 5/20/03 01:58 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

At 5/19/03 05:15 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote: stuff

that's republican and democrat, right and left wing are not parties but rather political definitions

.....yes, I know. @_o' That's wasn't what I was saying.

I'm saying that the left and right wings are the general groups that make up the economic beliefs, social beliefs, and parties, of all political groups. Republicans fall under the "right wing" and the Democrats and Liberals fall under the "left wing." The "wings" are just the names for the sides of the spectrum where these theories, beliefs, and parties lie.

At 5/20/03 11:58 AM, D2KVirus wrote: And since when were the Democrats considered "Left Wing", considering their best attempts to be the Republicans?

It's true. The Democrats did start edging their way over to the right side during the last presidential election (that's one of the reasons Gore lost so many of his votes to the Green Party, which resulted in his loss----see above for that information). Now, however, the Democrats are starting to jump back to the left side, having learned their lesson from the defeat (look at Gore again, for example).

That would explain why you were only offering to transcribe. Had a feeling you found it in a hard copy format, but I had to satisfy the curiousity. Sorry, but while hard copy format can be more reliable, the internet is far easier to access info. The reliability depends on what you view. You can't just trust anything.

At 5/20/03 09:37 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

I'm saying that the left and right wings are the general groups that make up the economic beliefs, social beliefs, and parties, of all political groups. Republicans fall under the "right wing" and the Democrats and Liberals fall under the "left wing." The "wings" are just the names for the sides of the spectrum where these theories, beliefs, and parties lie.

no they aren't, they have nothing to do with social beliefs AT ALL. they are pure economic concepts totally free of anything non-economic

At 5/20/03 02:27 PM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

At 5/20/03 11:58 AM, D2KVirus wrote: communism is right wing

*calls the hospital on D2KVirus*

Two point.

1.) When did I say that, in context? Taking quotes out of context isn't particularly endearing, before we even consider intellectual.

2.) You might notice somebody agreeing with me. Ever happened with you? No? What a surprise...

At 5/21/03 02:55 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

no they aren't, they have nothing to do with social beliefs AT ALL. they are pure economic concepts totally free of anything non-economic

Um. No. @_o' The "wings" are just the names for different sides of the "political wheel." And many issues fall under those names. The "political wheel" doesn't just cover economics.

The "wings" are just the names that describe what ever issue (economic or not) in association to the groups that make up the bearers of those beliefs.

That's why Democrats are called "left wing" and it's why Liberals are also called "left wing."

That's why you can say that someone's social beliefs are "more left wing," or that someone's economic beliefs are "more left wing."

You can say that someone's stance on abortion is "left wing" or that someone's stance on America-world relations is "left wing."

Example: "That guy's stance on environmental safety is more 'left wing' than mine."

Meaning: "That guy's stance on evironmental safety falls further on the left side of the political wheel than mine does."

The "wings" are just broad terms to cover the placement of political beliefs. They don't really mean much in themselves, sense they are so general. But I know that the terms don't cover economics only. If the terms really did imply such a narrow meaning, then they wouldn't be used so often or as broadly in, say, this forum. For example, I have been called a "lefty" (meaning: of the "left wing"). by someone on this forum for my particular social beliefs, though I never discussed anything economical. Similarly, I have seen others being called "righties" (meaning: of the "right wing") on this forum while discussing nothing that had to do with economics.

So you see, the terms are much broader than that.

At 5/21/03 11:39 AM, D2KVirus wrote: why am i retarded?

hell if i know, you were probably born that way

ninja - no, they are strictly economic. authoritarianism and libertarianism are the social counterparts. they are not tied together at all

What's sadder: Balsac changing text, or Balsac changing text, then having in-depth conversations with it?

Face it, You Are Wrong. Don't be surprised.

At 5/22/03 07:16 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote:

ninja - no, they are strictly economic. authoritarianism and libertarianism are the social counterparts. they are not tied together at all

*sigh* Once again, libertarianism is the social political beliefs, and democtratic is the economical political beliefs. Both are found on the same side of the political wheel (that's why, generally speaking, liberals are usually also democrats).

Then, authoritarianism is the social political beliefs, and republican is the economical political beliefs. Both are found on the other side of the political wheel (that's why, generally speaking, authoritarians are usually also republicans).

The different sides of the political wheel are both called "wings" or "sides." As in "left side" and "right side" or "left wing" and right wing." "Wings" meaning like the different sides of a building (example: "the left wing of the mansion," etc.). We had to learn all this in high school to help us remember it. @_o'

They're just broad terms to cover where political beliefs lie (whether they be social or economical). That's why you can call someone a "lefty" without basing that opinion on his economical beliefs only. Those who are concerned about the environment or are "tree huggers," for example, are frequently called "lefties," yet, please note, that the environment has nothing to do with economics, either.

Now, it's true that the party names, democrats and republicans, also imply other theories that the parties try to cover (such as abortion, capital punishment, etc). However, their true meaning is based on ecomical beliefs only.

That's what I believe you were trying to convey when you said, "democrats are close to communism," and "republicans are close to facism." However, also note that both the extreme theories, although based on ecomonics, also involve the changing of authority control in a social structure to obtain the desired economical system or effect. Both "social changes" involve the amount of control the government and authority figures have (communism=none, and facism=all). This is what I was discussing earlier. So, regardless whether you are talking about social or economical beliefs, they still involve a pretty much similar social system to get their desired effect (whether or not that effect is a social or economical one).

*sigh* Will anyone back me up on this? @_o'

Frankly, though, even if you were right, why is this detail so important to you when it wouldn't make any difference in my argument, since, like I mentioned, both the economical and social beliefs involve changes in the amount of power authority figures have?

At 5/20/03 11:07 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: How did this turn from a discussion of Weapons of Mass Destruction to defining that "Left" and "Right" are not political parties?

i wish i knew......someone changed the subject, but luckly i'm too lazy to go back and find blame.....

At 5/22/03 09:27 PM, Jiperly wrote:

At 5/20/03 11:07 AM, JudgeMeHarshX wrote: How did this turn from a discussion of Weapons of Mass Destruction to defining that "Left" and "Right" are not political parties?

i wish i knew......someone changed the subject, but luckly i'm too lazy to go back and find blame.....

Hell, as long as wer'e not talking about yu gi-oh.

At 5/22/03 10:07 PM, mrpopenfresh wrote:
Hell, as long as wer'e not talking about yu gi-oh.

i dunno.....that Yu-Gi-Oh is kinda good......and it makes good political statements.....like how to win a war with cards....

OK, how have I managed to miss this Yu-Gi-Oh crap?

Hm...I've never had a Yu Gi Oh experience, and don't plan on it. However, waging war with cards and playing on a big RISK board would save a lot of American lives.

At 5/22/03 09:09 PM, Ninja_Scientist wrote:

stuff

no republicans are no authoritarians, neither are democrats, there both moderately libertarian on the social scale(albiet in different ways). right wing represents lack of economic law, whereas left wing represents the presence thereof. likewise with libertarianism and authoritarianism. you can look it up if you want to. as for why it's so important to me? you're calling republicans authoritarians and it's simply not true. not, period end of sentence. it's like calling the sky green, it isn't true not matter how much you say it

(yes i know it's been nearly a year, but i'm currently browsing my NG posts after a LONG absence)

At 4/14/04 01:40 AM, Anarchy_Balsac wrote: (yes i know it's been nearly a year, but i'm currently browsing my NG posts after a LONG absence)

That's good. I just made a mental note that you're a poster from a time long past. And sometime it'll be interesting to look through a thread about WMD's from a year ago.

Or, actually... Probably not..