Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

you're reading a lot more into my post than I'm reading into yours (as in: drawing false conclusions).

All I read into that was someone doesn't like the Tea Party so they draw up a comic to make people laugh, point, and share it elsewhere for whatever reason... furthering the sentiment of the original author even if it's not the same as their own.  If we stopped regurgitating the opinions of those that hate the opinions will go away.  Re-posting it, however, supports the idea that the entire movement is "fail."  (make sense?) 

[Leafsnail]

All I read into that was someone doesn't like the Tea Party so they draw up a comic to make people laugh, point, and share it elsewhere for whatever reason... furthering the sentiment of the original author even if it's not the same as their own.  If we stopped regurgitating the opinions of those that hate the opinions will go away.  Re-posting it, however, supports the idea that the entire movement is "fail."  (make sense?) 

Yes Andir, that's how political comedy works.  So uh... what's the problem with it?

[ChairmanPoo]

I have nothing against the Tea Party, some of their ideals I can sort of agree with, I just have a minor vendetta against certain members of theirs. Don't hate on the group, hate on the person, etc.

should not it be the other way around?

[Lysabild]

you're reading a lot more into my post than I'm reading into yours (as in: drawing false conclusions).

All I read into that was someone doesn't like the Tea Party so they draw up a comic to make people laugh, point, and share it elsewhere for whatever reason... furthering the sentiment of the original author even if it's not the same as their own.  If we stopped regurgitating the opinions of those that hate the opinions will go away.  Re-posting it, however, supports the idea that the entire movement is "fail."  (make sense?)

The first choice was the right one, don't start this discussion and leave it as you "intended". There is no discussion to be had, you're making this up for no reason at all.


Anyway, my nitpick was just that it's tiresome to keep reading about how unfair everything is towards women, when I'd pick the womans social role any day over mine but can't because I'm a fat ugly dude nerd, worth shit because I'm not shorthaired and earning cash and attracting women.

Yeah I'd switch gender if I got the choice. :/

[Nadaka]

The actions of the Tea Party are damning.

If someones car has brakes that fail and they drive their car into a bus full of kids and kills them all in an inferno... It is a tragic accident, and maybe people should get their brakes checked more often.

If someone gets drunk and drives their car into a bus full of kids and kills them all in an inferno... It is a tragic case of negligence, and maybe that person should be in jail.

If someone says "Hey I am going to drive my car into that bus full of kids" and does it, killing them all in an inferno... Then you have a sick fuck, who is beneath your contempt, and makes you consider going christian just so that you could believe he burns for all eternity in hell.

And no, ignoring something horrible will not make it go away, it exists and affects the world in its own maleficent glory without regard to you paying attention to it or not.

[Kay12]

Male has traditionally been the heroic sex in fiction - it's a cultural aspect that's unlikely to change soon, although it does have a bright side as well: at least for me, the abundance of male heroes highlights the few strong heroines.

My favorite one is probably Dors from Isaac Asimov's prequels to his Foundation series. Granted, she is technically not female (I won't spoil it further) but she exhibits really cool traits - she is intelligent and strong. Also, Seldon's daughter whose name I just forgot is a smart girl... and has special abilities that very few people have. These abilities are important in the prequels and the series itself... again, no more spoiling. And to further add scifi stuff, Frank Herbert's Dune has Bene Gesserit - a badass sisterhood whose members have abilities that are like magic to outsiders.

[freeformschooler]

I have nothing against the Tea Party, some of their ideals I can sort of agree with, I just have a minor vendetta against certain members of theirs. Don't hate on the group, hate on the person, etc.

should not it be the other way around?

Why? If I hated on the group itself for being this way or that, I would be making mindless generalizations. Better to pick out certain people and say "hey, I don't agree with them" rather than say "hey, I don't agree with this vast expansive group". The latter has helped lead to the us against them, fully separative partisanship that destroys otherwise workable personal relationships that I dislike so much.

[ChairmanPoo]

Because arguably respect to the person comes before respect for ideas. I might find the ideas behind the tea party reprehensible, but this wont mean that individual tea party partisans are generally bad people.

[Siquo]

You meant it right but it came out wrong

You mean "Disliking members of a group because of their personal actions, not because of the actions of the group or their membership thereof", versus Poo's "Dislike the group and it's ideals instead of the specific members that adhere to them", but you both mean the same thing: don't hate people just because they're part of a group.

[Andir]

The actions of the Tea Party are damning.

If someones car has brakes that fail and they drive their car into a bus full of kids and kills them all in an inferno... It is a tragic accident, and maybe people should get their brakes checked more often.

If someone gets drunk and drives their car into a bus full of kids and kills them all in an inferno... It is a tragic case of negligence, and maybe that person should be in jail.

If someone says "Hey I am going to drive my car into that bus full of kids" and does it, killing them all in an inferno... Then you have a sick fuck, who is beneath your contempt, and makes you consider going christian just so that you could believe he burns for all eternity in hell.

And no, ignoring something horrible will not make it go away, it exists and affects the world in its own maleficent glory without regard to you paying attention to it or not.

Not sure how that has anything to do with "Taxed Enough Already" or any of the following...

    Identify constitutionality of every new law
    Reject emissions trading
    Demand a balanced federal budget
    Simplify the tax system
    Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality
    Limit annual growth in federal spending
    Repeal the healthcare legislation passed on March 23, 2010
    Pass an 'All-of-the-Above' Energy Policy
    Reduce Earmarks
    Reduce Taxes

...but whatever.  If you have a problem with government spending improperly, I implore you to look at what your political choice is spending money on, not the people trying to establish sanity in spending.

Yeah, I'm done (for real this time.)

[freeformschooler]

You meant it right but it came out wrong

You mean "Disliking members of a group because of their personal actions, not because of the actions of the group or their membership thereof", versus Poo's "Dislike the group and it's ideals instead of the specific members that adhere to them", but you both mean the same thing: don't hate people just because they're part of a group.

Yes, thank you Siquo, that's what I meant. I still need my coffee

[Leafsnail]

"Demand a balanced federal budget" and "Reduce taxes" together smacks of making unachievable promises.  Especially since...

    Audit federal government agencies for waste and constitutionality

Is basically "Bring in more bureaucrats to audit the other bureaucrats" (hint: doing this generally results in spending more on the auditors than you save).  And most of their other policies are incredibly vague (Simplify the tax system how?  What the heck is an "All of the above energy policy" (other than an excuse to keep using oil at the same rate)?  How will the constitutionality of laws be any different to the current system under which unconstitutional laws are rejected by the Supreme Court?).

[RedKing]

you're reading a lot more into my post than I'm reading into yours (as in: drawing false conclusions).

All I read into that was someone doesn't like the Tea Party so they draw up a comic to make people laugh, point, and share it elsewhere for whatever reason... furthering the sentiment of the original author even if it's not the same as their own.  If we stopped regurgitating the opinions of those that hate the opinions will go away.  Re-posting it, however, supports the idea that the entire movement is "fail."  (make sense?)

While we're on the subject of political cartoons and hate, here's a couple of gems from renowned artist and asshat Chuck Asay, formerly of the Colorado Springs Gazette:

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

So, Norwegians are all pussies because they don't pack heat, and the President and two Democratic Senators are thugs beating up defenseless rich people, because they want to eliminate a tax break on corporate jets. Glad to see that political cartoons never commit hyperbole....

[Lysabild]

The Norway one is just fucking tasteless, yuck

[Siquo]

the President and two Democratic Senators are thugs beating up defenseless rich people, because they want to eliminate a tax break on corporate jets.

Oh, and killing the American Dream along the way, of course. Those are really, really sad.

Hey Andir, why don't you join my Andesite Table Party? Everybody gets to be a millionaire, and nobody has to work or pay taxes! Also, everybody gets a unicorn.

Damn, and I try so hard not to be sarcastic anymore.