Where does AO lie on the Political Compass?

[Miscue]

Originally posted by impostal22


lol. and it doesn't make people angry when you belittle them for not agreeing with you? putting others down because they don't agree with you doesn't enforce policy.

Yes, yes. Pretend for a moment that you aren't the only one who is aware of the blatantly obvious. Also, you take what I've said out of context and you miss the point I was getting at.

if the government did that, they'd have a real hard time keeping order.

That depends on what they are keeping from you, and several other variables. If you don't know what they are doing, how would you know what to complain and be disorderly about? A dictator with an iron first can do as he wishes, and keep order... so that throws out that theory. Heck, they could try to massacre an entire ethnic group... and the people wouldn't be disorderly about it.

[Sir_Brass]

economic left/right: -0.12
social libertarian/authoritarion: 2.97

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Miscue


Yes, yes. Pretend for a moment that you aren't the only one who is aware of the blatantly obvious. Also, you take what I've said out of context and you miss the point I was getting at.

you said "It is time better spent in making people follow policy" in defense of rooster's actions. so i dunno how i was taking it out of context. but ok.

and i would argue that the people would be disorderly about it. they'd just need a spark. hence...we have things called revolutions

[shartley]

Originally posted by impostal22


you said "It is time better spent in making people follow policy" in defense of rooster's actions. so i dunno how i was taking it out of context. but ok.

and i would argue that the people would be disorderly about it. they'd just need a spark. hence...we have things called revolutions

... and forest fires. And only you can prevent forest fires.......... or CAN you?!?!

[Miscue]

Originally posted by impostal22


you said "It is time better spent in making people follow policy" in defense of rooster's actions. so i dunno how i was taking it out of context. but ok.

and i would argue that the people would be disorderly about it. they'd just need a spark. hence...we have things called revolutions

NO NO NO! Quite the oppposite! I was arguing that he should have said NOTHING, if he believes that "liberals" or "idiots" cannot understand what he is saying. And, those who can understand what he said, already had an understanding. The problem with people is, you cannot say anything that requires the intelligence of 5 to understand when they have the intelligence of 2. You're wasting your time, and just end up pissing people off... which is why I will take my own advice and refrain from this thread.

[nastymag]

what albinonewt said is true. this is a paintball community, an an american community.
if i am wrong about my political, and someone else is right ( i believe its alot more complicated then right and wrong)
does that automaticlly make me not worth your respect?
We are all Americans, ( well there is a few brits and canadians ..)... i am a second Generation American. but still feel glad to be part of these country, and i would be glad to give back to it. we may disagree in the means, but do you actaully believe i wish this country harm ? ..no ... in fact i still planning on joining the Air Force after i finish college (though joining may be not be an option).
but the fact that some one would not respect me for my political affiliation is really sad. there is more to people then political beliefs. the same person that would extend a hand to help you could have diffirent beliefs, would you no longer respect that person ?

[Albinonewt]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by impostal22
1st- i think the only reason the democrats would be relying on the courts now is because of the republican majority in congress.

But so what? If the democrats are outnumbered in the legislature it's because the American people decided that's the way it should be. It's not for them to decide that the country picked wrong and now they need to find a loophole to continue whatever their pet crusage is.

and with all of the stupid things out there that congressmen can do to stop a bill from being passed, i would suggest going through the courts, too.

two things. First, the democrats in congress ARE doing all the things to prevent Bush from pursueing his agenda, specifically the filibustering of judicial nominees. Second, be careful what you wish for. It is very short sighted, for anyone, to say "now that we're losing we'll manipulate the courts to win". What will they do next time that they win? If the other side decides to use the same tactic we then have a country where the democratically elected legislative process is moot.

using the courts to do policy is probably much more efficient than going through the legislature.

It is more efficient. You know why? BECAUSE IT CIRCUMVENTS DEMOCRACY. The whole point of our system is so that it is cumbersome and difficult. Otherwise you have a system where decisions aren't scrutinized or analyzed. There are losts of good criteria to governing and decision making, and achieving a "streamlined" process is not one of them.

if you study all the steps required to pass a law, it's ridiculous how many obstacles there are and how easily it can create gridlock. also, it isn't democratic legislators going to the courts, it's just people. and liberal courts have been making a few "out there" decisions, which benefit the democrats.

And those steps are as it should be. A consensus must be achieved to do most things, which is why we're a democracy and not a theocracy. Now, in our case certain Democrats are going out of there way to cause problems, which I think is stupid of them, since it's starting to annoy AMerica and they're in danger of marginalizing themselves for a while.

[Albinonewt]

Originally posted by Rooster
I don't debate people I do not respect. I'm not here to debate ideas. I'm here to deflate ignorant ideas and beliefs. Poltical correctness has nothing to do with staying within the confines of the rules. What possible good does it do? It means I'm not letting someone spout their inane platitudes without challenge. If you say grass grows purple, I'm going to say it doesn't, and its moronic to think so. If you say redistribution of wealth is good for all, I'm going to say it's not, and its moronic to think so.

Poltical correctness, to a degree, is important, and accmplishes the significant task of keeping things civil. You should not tell someone their beliefs are moronic. Do what I do, tell them they're wrong and then prove it.

AnI challenge all the "inane platitudes" in the world, but do so civily and with reasoned arguement.

Kill em' with reason, it's the only way to win!

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

I am going to agree with Newt on this one going through the courts is just not deomcratic. America, actually elected these people to serve them, and they should be allowed to do it. And all going through the courts is finding a loophole in the system and exploiting it. As well as almost completely disreguarding the system of checks and balances.

[Rooster]

"but the fact that some one would not respect me for my political affiliation is really sad. there is more to people then political beliefs. the same person that would extend a hand to help you could have diffirent beliefs, would you no longer respect that person ?"

This goes far beyond political affiliation. This is about a fundemental difference in understanding how the world should work. Anyone with the gall to say any mentally and physically capable deserve something for nothing will never get an ounce of respect from me. In fact, I find their existance to be worth a great deal less to this planet than most animals and a great deal of plants.

The belief that robbing the rich to subsidize the poor is wrong. There is no discussion, nor justification. Its the same as saying snow falls purple. Its wrong.

[845]

Economic Left/Right: -3.38
Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -1.49

[impostal22]

Originally posted by Rooster
The belief that robbing the rich to subsidize the poor is wrong. There is no discussion, nor justification. Its the same as saying snow falls purple. Its wrong.

except you could prove that snow doesn't fall purple. you could even prove that in some instances it would appear that snow falls purple. you CANNOT prove that "robbing the rich to subsidize the poor is wrong." you can't prove it. and until you do, your arguments are worthless. every SINGLE time i or anyone else brings up a point, we get hounded about proof proof proof. you need to do the same thing, or just stop posting.

albino- i agree completely that going through the courts isn't the right thing to do. one thing, though. i don't see the democrat congressmen going through the courts to do policy. what i see is people who run into problems with our legal system and a liberal court makes a liberal decision that benefits these democrats. also, there are a few things that anger me about the process to make a law: #1 filibustering is ridiculously taken advantage of (by both sides). #2 the "poison pill" loophole, which basically means anyone opposed to the bill, at a certain stage, can add a clause to the bill like "all penguins should be allowed to marry." this part of the bill is inserted as a way to get the bill killed. and there really is no boundaries to what can be used as a poison pill. not saying going through the courts is the RIGHT thing to do, but i think there are flaws in the legislature that need fixed.

[1stdeadeye]

Originally posted by impostal22
albino- i agree completely that going through the courts isn't the right thing to do. one thing, though. i don't see the democrat congressmen going through the courts to do policy. what i see is people who run into problems with our legal system and a liberal court makes a liberal decision that benefits these democrats. also, there are a few things that anger me about the process to make a law: #1 filibustering is ridiculously taken advantage of (by both sides). #2 the "poison pill" loophole, which basically means anyone opposed to the bill, at a certain stage, can add a clause to the bill like "all penguins should be allowed to marry." this part of the bill is inserted as a way to get the bill killed. and there really is no boundaries to what can be used as a poison pill. not saying going through the courts is the RIGHT thing to do, but i think there are flaws in the legislature that need fixed.

No! It is meant to be difficult. Otherwise too many quick fixes and flavor of the moment things could get passed.

Think about Prohibition. It should have been tougher to ban alcohol and maybe we wouldn't have had the problems it brought.

Look at gay marriage now. 38 states now have "Defense of Marriage" Acts that refuse to recognize Gay unions. Massachussetts doesn't want them, but 4 ultra liberals are now making laws! Well guess what those 38 states will be unable to enforce their laws due to Article IV of the US Constitution requiring Full Faith and Credit amoung all states for judicial proceedings in other states. So 4 uber-liberals can set the law for the entire US, that sounds more like a dictatorship to me then anything the Bush-bashers have shown so far!

[MayAMonkeyBeYourPinata]

except for the fact that gay marriage does not affect you.

[impostal22]

Originally posted by 1stdeadeye


No! It is meant to be difficult. Otherwise too many quick fixes and flavor of the moment things could get passed.

Look at gay marriage now. 38 states now have "Defense of Marriage" Acts that refuse to recognize Gay unions. Massachussetts doesn't want them, but 4 ultra liberals are now making laws! Well guess what those 38 states will be unable to enforce their laws due to Article IV of the US Constitution requiring Full Faith and Credit amoung all states for judicial proceedings in other states. So 4 uber-liberals can set the law for the entire US, that sounds more like a dictatorship to me then anything the Bush-bashers have shown so far!

yes, it's meant to be difficult. NO, it isn't meant to be where you can add ridiculous clauses to kill a bill you just don't want passed.

and you're taking that to an extreme. the full faith and credit clause doesn't mean just cuz mass legalizes gay unions, that the other states have to. just look at prostitution in nevada. is it legal ANYWHERE but nevada? no. know why? cuz the full faith and credit clause doesn't mean what you thought it meant, thankfully:)