ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
Call me "out of the loop" (or stupid, whichever you prefer), but...who the fuck is Michael Savage and why am I supposed to care what he says?
:dunno:
:dunno:
Why America is Finished
- Thread starter Bloodshot Scott
- Start date
You seriously don't know who MS is? I thought he was bigger than that, but I guess not. He's like the most inflamatory conservative radio talk show host in the whole damn country. He gets death threats relentlessly.
ChefChiTown
The secret ingredient? MY BALLS
He might be well known, but I'm one of those people who hardly ever listens to the radio. :dunno:
Not too long ago, the majority of people believed the Earth was flat. Since the majority is always right, I guess there was some major landscaping done on the planet a few hundred years ago.
Subjective governance, like any death penalty in modern times. It serves no practical purpose, and there's really no reason why one crime deserves it while another doesn't, except the personal opinion of whoever decides.
I was making fun of you. Or rather, the ability to take a statement and build straw men from it (as you so kindly illustrated in the post I just quoted), which you also share with the original poster. I considered doing it earlier, but it'd be sort of silly to do so after I had just said I was going to ignore him, while your post was just too juicy to pass on. I could have excluded the word "conservatives", but it served the purpose I intended; to illustrate the fallacy more explicitly. Use of labels is idiotic, plain and simple, but instead of arguing the issue people throw around "socialism" and whatnot like they mean anything.
Fact of the matter is, at no point did I suggest that anyone is thrown in jail for anything or that all liberals believe in anything in particular. What I have suggested is that a) the guy in the clip is a tool, b) the original poster is a troll (I hope), and c) thanks to this post, that I'm against the death penalty.
don't seek for justice with leftists, they will always say that you are wrong.
Will E Worm
Conspiracy...
I'm going to ignore the rest of the conversation, as it's really none of my bussiness, but this is just bullshit...
Europe has a population density of Density 70/km² (181/sq mi)
While the US has a population density of Density 31/km2 (80/sq mi)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_density
Of the 238 countries listed, you're on a nice 180th place, so no, the US isn't full at all...
WE'RE FULL. What part of that don't you understand? Did you not see the BACKLASH of the American citizens when crooked hill tried to pass immigration reform? Never had the American masses been so proactive, i.e. outraged. You want all the illegals in your neck-o-the woods, take 'em then.
and Obama is a radical? no way he is a moderate... U.S.S.R. America come on!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism_Is_a_Mental_Disorder
Mr. Savage lost me when he made the statement the he was a "moderate" conservative.
I actually enjoy listening to him on occasion. It's good to keep tabs on how far out there some people are.
I guarantee a lot of it is showmanship: You know, just say all kinds of shit to razz up the populations and cause controversy. He does have a large following though. Obama is gonna make him even more famous because so many people can't stand him - me included.
Ok, I couldn't get by this thread without grazing this discussion. And there's a lot to say, so if you want to read this, read it properly and take it in, before you rant about anything I wrote.
@Bloodshot Scott
You know, it's pretty obvious that you are one of those people who have absolutely no idea, what they're talking about. Mindless repetition of unsubstantial phrases. America is full? Excuse me, but that's a load of bull. A really big load of bull. America still has enourmous potential. Just because most of the money and ressources are misused in (and on) the part of the country that's still running, doesn't mean that one can't evolve and enhance the country. You just have to shift to politics and economy that have lasting effects and achive sustained success. Countrys like Japan (127 million people on 377864 square kilometers), Germany (83 million people on 357023 square kilometers), or Great Britain (60 million people on 242910 square kilometers) still evolve and still let immigrants in. And you want to tell me, that America with just 288 million people on a huge landmass of 9809155 square kilometers is full? I can't even laugh about that statement...
And about that:
How about you get your terms and abstract concepts right?! There is no "ultra-liberal". That just doesn't excist. The term "ultra" in front of a characterization of political preference indicates, that you're near the verge or the fringe of this political orientation. Liberals are in the middle between right and left. Either you're a conservative/right wing/... liberal or you're a socialist/left wing/... or you're a moderate liberal (that means in the middle), but you can't be an "ultra-liberal". And by definition liberals cannot, I repeat cannot be fascists, because fascism means "anti-liberalism", "anti-communism" and "anti-conservatism". Fascism is a political current and concept of its own.
And a militant liberal in the American democracy? Come on! I mean, seriously, what's that supposed to be? Liberals have been one of the driving factors of democracy, especially capitalistic democracies like the US. If in a democracy a liberal has to become militant, how much of the democracy is left there? Wouldn't that statement of yours be a rather bad testimony for the American democracy?
And one more thing: there are no "anarchist communist types" amongst liberals. Your either a communist or a liberal. You cannot be both. And you can't be an anarchist and a liberal at the same time either. Communists strive to abolish private property of the means of production as well as the state as its protector and the upholder of the class society. There is no state, no money and no capitalist industrial complex controlling the process of production and consumption in a communist state. Anarchists on the other hand just want to abolish hierarchy, domination and private property in the capitalist sector. There are still collectives or councils, but they are made from the people and not around or above the people and they regulate the distribution of money and work. Now, Liberals want private property in all its forms. The liberal state is constructed from the people, for the people and around the people and its sole purpose is to provide rules and security. For example it provides the right to have private property and is bound and obliged to protect your property. Whether you have work or not is your own problem. Whether you're rich or poor is your own problem. Social responsibility and fair distribution of work (so important in an anarchy) would be totally irrelevant in a purely liberal state.
@Bloodshot Scott
You know, it's pretty obvious that you are one of those people who have absolutely no idea, what they're talking about. Mindless repetition of unsubstantial phrases. America is full? Excuse me, but that's a load of bull. A really big load of bull. America still has enourmous potential. Just because most of the money and ressources are misused in (and on) the part of the country that's still running, doesn't mean that one can't evolve and enhance the country. You just have to shift to politics and economy that have lasting effects and achive sustained success. Countrys like Japan (127 million people on 377864 square kilometers), Germany (83 million people on 357023 square kilometers), or Great Britain (60 million people on 242910 square kilometers) still evolve and still let immigrants in. And you want to tell me, that America with just 288 million people on a huge landmass of 9809155 square kilometers is full? I can't even laugh about that statement...
And about that:
How about you get your terms and abstract concepts right?! There is no "ultra-liberal". That just doesn't excist. The term "ultra" in front of a characterization of political preference indicates, that you're near the verge or the fringe of this political orientation. Liberals are in the middle between right and left. Either you're a conservative/right wing/... liberal or you're a socialist/left wing/... or you're a moderate liberal (that means in the middle), but you can't be an "ultra-liberal". And by definition liberals cannot, I repeat cannot be fascists, because fascism means "anti-liberalism", "anti-communism" and "anti-conservatism". Fascism is a political current and concept of its own.
And a militant liberal in the American democracy? Come on! I mean, seriously, what's that supposed to be? Liberals have been one of the driving factors of democracy, especially capitalistic democracies like the US. If in a democracy a liberal has to become militant, how much of the democracy is left there? Wouldn't that statement of yours be a rather bad testimony for the American democracy?
And one more thing: there are no "anarchist communist types" amongst liberals. Your either a communist or a liberal. You cannot be both. And you can't be an anarchist and a liberal at the same time either. Communists strive to abolish private property of the means of production as well as the state as its protector and the upholder of the class society. There is no state, no money and no capitalist industrial complex controlling the process of production and consumption in a communist state. Anarchists on the other hand just want to abolish hierarchy, domination and private property in the capitalist sector. There are still collectives or councils, but they are made from the people and not around or above the people and they regulate the distribution of money and work. Now, Liberals want private property in all its forms. The liberal state is constructed from the people, for the people and around the people and its sole purpose is to provide rules and security. For example it provides the right to have private property and is bound and obliged to protect your property. Whether you have work or not is your own problem. Whether you're rich or poor is your own problem. Social responsibility and fair distribution of work (so important in an anarchy) would be totally irrelevant in a purely liberal state.
Oh for gods sake :rofl::rofl2: Are you kidding me?
Obviously not
Exactly :hatsoff:
Obviously not
Exactly :hatsoff:
Similar threads
