Recent Posts

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10
Big Government - Authoritarian / Re: My Problem with Universal Health Care
« Last post by Alia on November 23, 2009, 12:17:12 am »
We do not need higher wages... If anything we need lower wages so we can compete with the overseas labour market.

Health care is just one of the parasitic industries that force minnimum wage higher and destroy the job market with thier trusts that make cost of living go higher. "The market will self-regulate," cry Republicans, but a market without any international trade regulation will not do so; it will destroy itself instead.

One more advantage of universal health care would be my vision of assigning each doctor a preset number of patients. If this was done properly, instead of pushing medications, instead of convincing people they are ill to provide more treatment and rake in more profit - as they must do in a ballooning medical indistry - each doctor would strive to make less work for himself instead of more, and my educated guess is that many peoples' "chronic" "conditions" would miraculously disappear. The twin forces of genetic degradation and medical advancement would cancel eachother out, pushing for cures instead of treatments. There is a very good reason no disease since polio has actually been cured.
The Public Forum / Re: They say a picture is worth a thousand words....
« Last post by Alia on November 23, 2009, 12:00:23 am »
The war is still on, only now it's become masochistic and self-defeating, and I'm still laughing at the people who failed to judge a book by its cover because they thought they knew what was written on the inside.

I'd rather not have a war at all. I'd rather deal with terrorism on a security basis and with international threats through intelligence and both offensive and defensive armament.

However, if we're going to have a war I'd rather a Republican deal with it than almost any Democrat I can think of. I'm not endorsing Bush, it's just that in this case he was the lesser of two Goods. I got the feeling McCain would have won and ended the whole thing by now.
The Mud pile / Re: Hypocrisy courtesy of Maureen Dowd
« Last post by Alia on November 22, 2009, 11:45:06 pm »
Now, taken aside the absurd arrogance of accusing a movement that I know first hand is multi racial, of being racist. I'm going to show how based on her own standard of racial politics, namely that anyone who criticized a black man for any reason is only motivated by race must prove that she herself is a racist.

You just don't understand. You're using logic, when I've been trying to tell you that predefined terms simply are what they're defined as, and logic does not apply. This is why American culture is so degenerate; the media controls the opinions, and the opinions control the definitions.

If most people accept something as true they'll find a way to define it true. We have a language that allows for murky terms to begin with, and moreover, allows for those terms to change with popular usage.

Racism as it exists now in popular usage - and thus Truth as our dynamic language allows this - is such:

If 1 OR 2 are true, [action] OR [opinion] = [racist].

0. Check if [individual] = minority. If true, then no possible [action] or [opinion] = [racist].

1. [Opionion] = negative about a member of a minority or an entire minority.

2. [Action] = more detrimental on average to minorities than non-minorities OR [action] = beneficial to a non-minority over a minority on an individual basis.

If you truly do not believe that logic applies before popular conviction in terms of definitions and labels, then tell me plainly how Pluto can suddenly become a non-planet, and why an invertebrate that is not a fish is called a starfish, a silverfish, or a jellyfish. Scientists tried to rename the jellyfish the jelly-animal but it didn't take, and they'll be called jellyfish for the rest of eternity, because they are jellyfish. As a Republican you must be familiar with the Fairness Doctrine, which states that equal time must be given on the air to Liberal opinions. Despite the fact that this results in the "unfair" allocation of funds since programs that bring in listeners like Rush Limbaugh are forced to share time with programs that can cost radio stations money, it is still called the fairness doctrine, because that is what it is.

Some terms are pretty much defined as bad, or if you like, "evil" - and those terms, in turn, are defined by popular opinion. Popular opinion is whatever the now Liberal media wants it to be. Just look at the definition of "equal opportunity employer". In my opinion, a language form that allows this is a recipie for cultural disaster, and I would much rather have a precise and unflexible language with each and every term with one exclusive, perfectly clear and unambiguous definition.

If you're unhappy that others can define you into moral wrongness in this fashion, create a language without this fundamental flaw. There is no way the media-dominating ***cough*** could pull off a guilt-induced, forced culture suicide in the confines of such a language.

Maybe you'll be the one to do it - Change the dictionary. Create your own dictionary utterly devoid of ambiguity that has unflinching, perfectly-designed rules for creation of new words... A dictionary only a computer could love [understand]. In the meantime, you're just going to have to accept that things mean what they're generally understood to mean, and that people can use this to make logic simply unapplicable.
Global / Re: Obama Awared Nobel Peace Prize
« Last post by Alia on November 22, 2009, 10:39:50 pm »
"Promises of disarmament" ...?

A non-***slur deleted**** politician makes a promise, and people roll thier eyes. Obongo makes a promise and he gets a Nobel prize. Never even mind the fact that if we disarm, we will be destroyed... Let's just give up the whole cabbage and assume that disarmament is a good thing. A promise equals a Nobel prize all of a sudden?


Read my lips: No new ***slur deleted***!

Where's my Nobel prize?
Rules / Re: My rules
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on November 17, 2009, 05:36:37 pm »
Please make all posts in English, due to some measure of spamming all strangers posting in foreign languages will be banned and their posts will be removed. You may post foreign languages if its clear that you are not spamming. But if your first post around here is in Cyrillic script and is a link to a Toyota add, I might just kick you out.

Thanks for understanding...
Meet the staff / My confusing political ideology
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on October 19, 2009, 08:41:31 pm »
I took a number of tests, the results were contradictory.


Your PERSONAL issues Score is 60%.
Your ECONOMIC issues Score is 70%.

According to your answers, the political group that agrees with you most is...


CENTRISTS espouse a "middle ground" regarding government control of the economy and personal behavior. Depending on the issue, they sometimes favor government intervention and sometimes support individual freedom of choice.

Centrists pride themselves on keeping an open mind,

tend to oppose "political extremes," and emphasize what

they describe as "practical" solutions to problems.


The Quiz

The following are your scores. They are based on a gradual range of 0 to 12. For instance, a Conservative/Progressive score of 3 and 0 will both yield a result of social conservative, yet 0 would be an extreme conservative and 3 a moderate conservative

Conservative/Progressive score: 6
You are a social moderate. You think the progressive movement is overall well meaning, but sometimes it goes too far. On issues like abortion and affirmative action, you see the negatives of both extremes on the issue. You probably value religion, but at the same time you think it should still stay separate from the government

Capitalist Purist/Social Capitalist score: 8
You are a Moderate Capitalist. You support an economy that is by and large a free market, but has public programs to help people who can't help themselves or need a little help. Pretty much you believe in the American economy how it currently is.

Libertarian/Authoritarian score: 5
You're a Moderate. You think that we all have certain inalienable rights that must be protected, but that sometimes laws need to be made to protect the majority's lives or quality of lives. You might think that the 2nd amendment isn't necessary anymore because letting everyone a gun is extremely dangerous to the community. You might also be against illegal drug use or public pornography because of its possible harmful effects to society.

Pacifist/Militarist score: 12
You're a Militarist. You believe that since the United States has so much power in the world, it has a responsibility to keep the world safe. You think that if the US does not exert its power in the world, it may eventually lose its power, and that we can not look weak in the face of terrorists, and must take them out where they live.

Overall, you would most likely fit into the category of Democrat


Your political compass
Economic Left/Right: 0.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: 0.26


Where Do You Fit? Your Results


Based on your answers to the questionnaire, you most closely resemble survey respondents within the Liberal typology group. This does not mean that you necessarily fit every group characteristic or agree with the group on all issues.

Liberals represent 17 percent of the American public, and 19 percent of registered voters.

Basic Description
This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999, Liberals now comprise the largest share of Democrats and is the single largest of the nine Typology groups. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration, issues which are more controversial among Conservative and Disadvantaged Democrats.

Defining Values
Strongest preference for diplomacy over use of military force. Pro-choice, supportive of gay marriage and strongly favor environmental protection. Low participation in religious activities. Most sympathetic of any group to immigrants as well as labor unions, and most opposed to the anti-terrorism Patriot Act.

Who They Are
Most (62%) identify themselves as liberal. Predominantly white (83%), most highly educated group (49% have a college degree or more), and youngest group after Bystanders. Least religious group in typology: 43% report they seldom or never attend religious services; nearly a quarter (22%) are seculars. More than one-third never married (36%). Largest group residing in urban areas (42%) and in the western half the country (34%). Wealthiest Democratic group (41% earn at least $75,000).

Lifestyle Notes
Largest group to have been born (or whose parents were born) outside of the U.S. or Canada (20%). Least likely to report having a gun at home (23%) or attending bible study or prayer group meetings (13%).

2004 Election
Bush 2%, Kerry 81%

Party ID
59% Democrat; 40% Independent/No Preference, 1% Republican (92% Dem/Lean Dem)


Your ideological score is: 245/400 This makes you progressive. The average score for Americans is 209.5

Your true political self:
You are a

Social Conservative
(35% permissive)

and an...

Economic Liberal
(20% permissive)

You are best described as a:


hehehe, just to the left of darth vader

You exhibit a very well-developed sense of Right and Wrong and believe in economic fairness.


You Scored as Fascist

Great. You're a fascist. You guys have lost some favor in the past fifty years, but you made some good progress in your time. Too bad you also killed huge groups of people to protect you're ideology. I suppose you can't win 'em all.



You got 72 points.

Centrist ho! You're like most people, unable to make up their mind. Or maybe you're like a libertarian whose ideas are all over the map. Anyway, you're the target of most ad campaigns because your votes actually affect the outcome of elections (you attention ****, you). For fun, here are where some other major political figures would score (out of 144): George W. Bush: 94 John Kerry: 58 Ralph Nader: 12 Howard Dean: 34 Colin Powell: 82 Joe Lieberman: 70 John Edwards: 52 Harold Browne: 90 Michael Savage: 108 Me: 104

What political ideology do you have?

Your Result: Fascist
You believe vital industries should be regulated, not by government bureaucrats, but by national syndicates (like medieval guilds), which are composed of representatives from every aspect of the industry. You believe that business, as well as everything else, should work towards the betterment of the nation. You may see the State in a spiritual role. You tend to be authoritarian and extremely anti-communist.
Result Breakdown:
85% Fascist
51% Communist
22% Authoritarian Capitalist
19% Libertarian
10% Democratic Socialist
7% Anarchist
Quiz URL:


For 40 % you are: You are a democratic Socialist. You believe that socialism can be attained through democratic process only.



You are a liberal.
You favor little social regulation by the government but you do favor the government's regulation of the economy in order to preserve everyones rights and to provide welfare and all types of government services for the people.

So I'm a liberal moderate social democrat fascist. Apparently...
Right wing / Re: If Patton were alive...
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on October 14, 2009, 01:31:28 pm »
Yes, I thought so.
Right wing / Re: If Patton were alive...
« Last post by VelvetComa on October 14, 2009, 12:31:07 am »
Very Cool..   ;)
Global / Re: Obama Awared Nobel Peace Prize
« Last post by Giuliano Taverna on October 09, 2009, 08:20:36 pm »
As did Jimmy Carter, Yasir Arafat, and Al Gore.

He may as well have won a free box of fries at McDonald's for all the credibility the Nobel prize has. Its a partisan political hack award bestowed by the Norwegian Parliament to reward anyone who puts America down.

On very rare occasions to they give that award to someone who actually deserves it.
Global / Obama Awared Nobel Peace Prize
« Last post by Nin on October 09, 2009, 08:16:32 pm »
OSLO The announcement drew gasps of surprise and cries of too much, too soon. Yet President Barack Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize on Friday because the judges found his promise of disarmament and diplomacy too good to ignore.
The five-member Norwegian Nobel Committee four of whom spoke to The Associated Press, said awarding Obama the peace prize could be seen as an early vote of confidence intended to build global support for the policies of his young administration.

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 ... 10