Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

When did the idea that there are no white people, or even poor white people, come about? No one has argued that there are no poor and/or uneducated white. In fact, I believe several posters here have specifically called Tea Party members just that.

I think it began with Shuma trying to play Where's Waldo to point out no blacks exist in the tea party but failing epically.

Thats what I am saying, that the irony is some of the 'conservative' Tea Partiers are indeed in the lower socio economic spectrum and live off the government.

To me this is just another example of the US sensationalisng thier polotics between liberals and conservatives. I really can't believe you two get so heated about fething polotics of all things.

*Adopts British Accent*

Sir, that is the only thing you should get heated up about wot wot!

/Accent

And that is why america is a much more democratic nation than most other Western Ones. They actually follow their politics (if somewhat ignorantly) and they do things about it. Instead of blindly and apathetically voting for their leader every 4 years.

Fateweaver wrote:

On the flip side of things I'd guess that the majority of people at DNC rallies are minorty. Afterall, they have the most to gain from liberal policies (well, that and most don't give a flying feth about this countries past, they just want free handouts).

So all the homeless, lazy (Oh! and don't forget immigrants!) people are voting for the liberal party so that they get free handouts? And all the hardworking, hardearning, well-off (and coincidentaly white) people who love thier country and thier constitution are voting for the conservatives, who are the only real politicians who actually care about American values? How nice.

Ratbarf wrote:

To me this is just another example of the US sensationalisng thier polotics between liberals and conservatives. I really can't believe you two get so heated about fething polotics of all things.

*Adopts British Accent*

Sir, that is the only thing you should get heated up about wot wot!

/Accent

And that is why america is a much more democratic nation than most other Western Ones. They actually follow their politics (if somewhat ignorantly) and they do things about it. Instead of blindly and apathetically voting for their leader every 4 years.

We dont do anything halfway. Its all the way fethed up or not fethed up at all.

So all the homeless, lazy (Oh! and don't forget immigrants!) people are voting for the liberal party so that they get free handouts? And all the hardworking, hardearning, well-off (and coincidentaly white) people who love thier country and thier constitution are voting for the conservatives, who are the only real politicians who actually care about American values? How nice.

True generally speaking though.

Fateweaver wrote:

Emperors Faithful wrote:Fateweaver, you're really playing the 'token black guy' card for all it's worth aren't you? This movement looks pretty much white. It certainly isn't a black movement, which is what the article was raising the question in regards to.

Neither is the DNC.

But please, keep playing the "Tea party is a bunch of racist, redneck anti-government gun toters" card.

I never did. From the start I said this is a liberal/conservative issue. Not a race one. (well, not a heart anyway, but it does come into it)

Ratbarf wrote:

To me this is just another example of the US sensationalisng thier polotics between liberals and conservatives. I really can't believe you two get so heated about fething polotics of all things.

*Adopts British Accent*

Sir, that is the only thing you should get heated up about wot wot!

/Accent

And that is why america is a much more democratic nation than most other Western Ones. They actually follow their politics (if somewhat ignorantly) and they do things about it. Instead of blindly and apathetically voting for their leader every 4 years.

I no understand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

Granted, it is Wikipedia but...

I believe he is referring to the way people act in the country, rather than the way the political system is actually organized.

Correct Orkeosaurus, I was commenting on the fact that the Americans are a better democrecy than most countries of the western world. They practice it better than almost everyone, regardless of whether the government is as free or democratic as some wikipedian would judge to be the case.

O rly? O.O
Care to explain?

Ratbarf wrote:Correct Orkeosaurus, I was commenting on the fact that the Americans are a better democrecy than most countries of the western world. They practice it better than almost everyone, regardless of whether the government is as free or democratic as some wikipedian would judge to be the case.

Really? Obama was fairly and democratically elected and heaps of non-liberals are throwing a hissy fit. I don't doubt it'd be the same if John McCain had been elected.

True cheese but so far it's harmless gnashing of teeth.

Most 3rd world countries show discontent with genocide, assassinations, assassination attempts, riots, looting, rapes, murders.

Last time this country tore itself apart over the government was the Civil War. Most other countries it seems as if it happens every 4 years, give or take. So civility has been our strong suit compared to other countries ways of handling hated government.

Part of it is you guys arn't afraid of getting into heated arguments over things. In Canada the poltical scene is empty. We just continue to tipsy toe around the real issues and our government tries to stay in power by any means possible, while the opposition is made up of an aging hippy, and some weird proffessor whose oppinion and stances change with the weather. Whereas in America you have actual intense politcal discourse pretty much year round regardless of how far away an election is, and they are always going on about the big issues. In Canada we just find a settlement that no one notices and doesn't really do anything and sit on it until something blows up. There is no discourse outside of the talking classes.

Probably due to the fact that conservatives and independents believe in what the country stands for and feel that 56 men didn't lose everything they had over nothing so we owe it to them and our country.

The other half don't give 2 gaks about what this country means, they think the government needs to be bigger and more powerful; that the laws of the land apply to those not of this land and that our society will be better with more taxes and more social programs.

So it boils down to the fact that one side of the fence takes pride in what this country SHOULD be and isn't afraid to stand up to those who try to control us.

Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

Ratbarf:

I take it you've never actually been involved in politics eh? I recommend turning out for the party of your choice in the next federal/provincial election and finding out what actually happens.

It looks distinctly different from the inside.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

Funny, the Germans had nationalist pride once. They're getting it back though...

Dads a member of the liberal party and was on the shortlist to be our areas MPP. a Great Uncle whom I knew quite well was the Conservative rep for Westmount and loathed Jean Chretien, always called him a bastard and never said his name. I think I have seen the inside of lower level politics, but what I was talking about was the nation as a whole, not just the parties. Canadians don't in general enjoy ruffling too many feathers, so the only people who actually do anything in their politics are the French. The rest of us have too much British reservedness in us to do anything.

PS: I know that that is a grand generalisation, but aside from party members I don't exactly see a willingness to discuss messy politics and very few people I know have arguments that support their political beleifs, most simply follow what their parents choices are.

Ratbarf:

Okay, but what have you personally done besides vote? Have you campaigned? Have you organized at the municipal level?

Maybe what you're alluding to is the essential lack of ideological alternatives in what is basically a competition between competing teams of management, so it's understandable that such politics of management and responsibility are ignored by the majority of the population. But frankly a majority of the population are idiots that should be disenfranchised lest their ignorance of the basic issues interfere with the interests of our country. Fortunately they self-defranchise, and whatever party gains a majority in the commons gets the low-down by the civil service and abandons whatever ridiculous crap they came up to buy off the electorate.

Yeah, Mr. Chretien was and is a bastard; he's Power Corp through and through. But Power Corp is successful precisely because they promote bastards like that according to their ability. When the alternative are Upper Canada College establishment scions like John Turner (and then Ignatieff/Rae) who never succeeded in the private sector, and whose families bailed them out every time they failed, I'd take the arsehole who gets the job done.

Me, I'm trying to figure out how to run for the Bloc in Toronto come the next Federal...

Fateweaver wrote:Look again Shuma. That is NOT a tan. He's not as black as a true south african Negro but that sure as hell isn't a tan.

That's a racial slur. You shouldn't use racial slurs. It demeans the conversation, and makes you seem ignorant.

Fateweaver wrote:
As far as Afghan I don't see PresO doing much about it. Withdrawing troops by August. It hasn't even started yet and it's going to take longer than 4 months.

No, troop withdrawals are scheduled for consideration in June of 2011.

Fateweaver wrote:
Enjoy your nice cushy middle class life as "big brother" grows bigger and more powerful.

If the life ensured by a powerful 'big brother' is cushy, and easy why would anyone have any incentive to prevent said 'big brother' from becoming powerful?

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:Look again Shuma. That is NOT a tan. He's not as black as a true south african Negro but that sure as hell isn't a tan.

That's a racial slur. You shouldn't use racial slurs. It demeans the conversation, and makes you seem ignorant.

Fateweaver wrote:
As far as Afghan I don't see PresO doing much about it. Withdrawing troops by August. It hasn't even started yet and it's going to take longer than 4 months.

No, troop withdrawals are scheduled for consideration in June of 2011.

Fateweaver wrote:
Enjoy your nice cushy middle class life as "big brother" grows bigger and more powerful.

If the life ensured by a powerful 'big brother' is cushy, and easy why would anyone have any incentive to prevent said 'big brother' from becoming powerful?

Negro is not as bad as the "other" N word but I digress.

Obama has done nothing as planned except HCR so I'm doubting 2011 for troop withdrawal (not to mention what's the point of withdrawing troops when he plans to send more in)?

Explain to me why else liberals want government in every aspect of our lives? Why the majority liberals are poor class or lower class minorities that benefit from all the social programs liberals start? There is obviously SOME reason liberals want the government to control every aspect of our life. Security? Comfort? The love of paying taxes?

Fateweaver wrote:
The other half don't give 2 gaks about what this country means, they think the government needs to be bigger and more powerful;

Very few people directly advocate a more powerful state, and most of those people are international politics specialists.

Fateweaver wrote:
...that the laws of the land apply to those not of this land...

The laws of the land apply to the land, and those in it. That's why they're called laws of the land.

Fateweaver wrote:
...and that our society will be better with more taxes and more social programs.

You've praised the President for extending unemployment assistance, have you not? If so, then you fulfill at least one of the criteria necessary to be subject to your own criticism.

Fateweaver wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that one side of the fence takes pride in what this country SHOULD be and isn't afraid to stand up to those who try to control us.

No, both sides of the fence take pride in what the country should be, as they both advocate a political position focused on an idealized understanding of the state. Of course, the 'fence' itself is a useless tool employed by those in positions of power.

Fateweaver wrote:
Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

The fact that you chose to embody the nation speaks volumes to your ability to carry on this conversation.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Fateweaver wrote:
Negro is not as bad as the "other" N word but I digress.

Do you suppose that fact matters?

Damn is generally considered to be less offensive than feth, but its still considered to be offensive.

Fateweaver wrote:
Obama has done nothing as planned except HCR so I'm doubting 2011 for troop withdrawal (not to mention what's the point of withdrawing troops when he plans to send more in)?

The withdrawal message was issued as part of a statement about personnel escalation. It is an event that is to transpire following said escalation. Additionally, it was not a statement about withdrawal per se, but a statement about the consideration of withdrawal. Unobservant people frequently fail to notice the difference.

Fateweaver wrote:
Why the majority liberals are poor class or lower class minorities that benefit from all the social programs liberals start?

That's a false statement.

Fateweaver wrote:
There is obviously SOME reason liberals want the government to control every aspect of our life. Security? Comfort? The love of paying taxes?

The belief that its an effective means of solving social problems?

dogma wrote:

Fateweaver wrote:
The other half don't give 2 gaks about what this country means, they think the government needs to be bigger and more powerful;

Very few people directly advocate a more powerful state, and most of those people are international politics specialists.

Fateweaver wrote:
...that the laws of the land apply to those not of this land...

The laws of the land apply to the land, and those in it. That's why they're called laws of the land.

Fateweaver wrote:
...and that our society will be better with more taxes and more social programs.

You've praised the President for extending unemployment assistance, have you not? If so, then you fulfill at least one of the criteria necessary to be subject to your own criticism.

Fateweaver wrote:
So it boils down to the fact that one side of the fence takes pride in what this country SHOULD be and isn't afraid to stand up to those who try to control us.

No, both sides of the fence take pride in what the country should be, as they both advocate a political position focused on an idealized understanding of the state. Of course, the 'fence' itself is a useless tool employed by those in positions of power.

Fateweaver wrote:
Most other countries citizens don't have the nationalist or exceptional pride that American citizens have that is why those of us who love our country, aka conservatives, fight for her against those that don't.

The fact that you chose to embody the nation speaks volumes to your ability to carry on this conversation.

Pushing HCR is letting government become more powerful. Pushing Federal government to control guns in the population is letting the government become bigger. Advocating less government and then voting for government hell bent on doing what it can to gain more power is a piss poor way of showing the rest of the country that person is all about LESS government control.

If you are in this land to do us harm than the law of the land should not apply. You weren't welcome here, you weren't here to try to make this country better so feth your so-called freedoms in this land.

UI is a social program but I also had to earn it. Food stamps, WIC and MA is NOT earned. You just need to be 18 and unemployed. That's the kind I mean but keep purposely misconstruing my meaning for your benefit.

One side is giving a finger to the Constitution every time it does things to enable the Federal government and President to become more powerful, more intrusive. That is not really showing those of us on the right side of the fence that you lot on the left care about our country.

Patriotism is not a bad thing. If you don't love this country or too ashamed to admit you love the country than I'll personally escort you to either the Northern or Southern border. Your choice. I speak for the whole country because I would hope every man, woman and child in this country loves the US. Not asking you to love the current administration but if you don't love the US of A in general than GTFO.

Fateweaver:

So what's it like being a neo-nazi?

Feels pretty good.

Hows it going to feel to get a week long ban cuz I think you just earned one?

LOL.

If being against government takeover of my country and loving my freedoms means being a neo-Nazi then I'm going to shave my head tomorrow, tattoo a swastika on my neck and shoulder and go beat up some minorities and burn some crosses.



Put ork moticons so people don't actually take me seriously although some will, as is apparent already.

Fateweaver wrote:
Pushing HCR is letting government become more powerful. Pushing Federal government to control guns in the population is letting the government become bigger. Advocating less government and then voting for government hell bent on doing what it can to gain more power is a piss poor way of showing the rest of the country that person is all about LESS government control.

It is possible to advocate less government as an ideal, while advocating more government in a particular situation.

In any case, debating what constitutes 'less' or 'more' government is nothing more than platitude pissing competition. There is no point to it, as it does little more than sway people who don't take the time to acquire more detailed knowledge.

Fateweaver wrote:
If you are in this land to do us harm than the law of the land should not apply. You weren't welcome here, you weren't here to try to make this country better so feth your so-called freedoms in this land.

Sorry, that isn't how the rule of law works. Indeed, the rule of law was established in order to police the sort of attitude you're displaying here.

Fateweaver wrote:
UI is a social program but I also had to earn it. Food stamps, WIC and MA is NOT earned. You just need to be 18 and unemployed. That's the kind I mean but keep purposely misconstruing my meaning for your benefit.

I didn't misconstrue anything, you failed to specify. Don't attempt to pin your own failings on me. It shows a lack of personal responsibility.

Fateweaver wrote:
One side is giving a finger to the Constitution every time it does things to enable the Federal government and President to become more powerful, more intrusive.

No, that's false. Many extensions of power are entirely constitutional. You seem to be conflating what the Constitution actually says with your understanding of its overall meaning.

Additionally, Republican governments have long sought to extend executive power. Note Nixon, and the latter Bush.

Fateweaver wrote:
That is not really showing those of us on the right side of the fence that you lot on the left care about our country.

When you say 'our country' here you aren't referring to the people and land that constitute the United States of America, but an ideal which you wish to approach. Considering that fact, it should be expected that people who disagree with your vision would not value your 'country'.

Fateweaver wrote:
Patriotism is not a bad thing. If you don't love this country or too ashamed to admit you love the country than I'll personally escort you to either the Northern or Southern border. Your choice. I speak for the whole country because I would hope every man, woman and child in this country loves the US. Not asking you to love the current administration but if you don't love the US of A in general than GTFO.

You don't speak for the whole country, you speak for yourself.

The Tea Party is full of dumbass rednecks who all need an ass whooping for being so dumb.

That includes you Glen Beck, Bill O'REALLY, and Fox News in general.

Karon wrote:The Tea Party is full of dumbass rednecks who all need an ass whooping for being so dumb.

That includes you Glen Beck, Bill O'REALLY, and Fox News in general.

Paint any broader stroke and you'd paint the entirety of dakka with one brush.

Better to be a dumbass redneck than a dumbass puppet who's puppeteer is the current administration.

Fateweaver:

I'm not trying to insult you. It's just that your "love it or leave it" nationalism combined with your utter assurance that people who don't agree with you are enemies of the state, and assumption of a corporate identity is pretty much the definition of neo-nazi. It's just weird seeing how you all but admit to it.

Why aren't you proud of your politics? I can understand why the liberal pc-police make you keep on the down low about your pride in the White Race, but surely they can't suppress your love of America.

Nurglitch wrote:Fateweaver:

I'm not trying to insult you. It's just that your "love it or leave it" nationalism combined with your utter assurance that people who don't agree with you are enemies of the state, and assumption of a corporate identity is pretty much the definition of neo-nazi.

Wikki-Fail

Haha, keep on Nurglitch.

So I'm proud to be a caucasian? Is that anymore wrong than Native pride or Black pride? I am a neo-Nazi because if you don't love the US you shouldn't be here? If you don't love the place you are at than how much sense does it make to stay?

If I don't love being at the Twilight movie I sure as hell won't stay, I'll leave.

By your definition every conservative is a neo-Nazi. 56 people risked all they had in 1878 to ensure the government didn't try to get too big. All 56 lost everything they had, some lost their lives. So I apologize if the Constitution, the very document that made this country worth living in, is being threatened and I along with it.

On second thought I don't apologize. Enjoy your vacation Nurglitch. I'd suggest you stop attacking me while it's only a small ban.