Total posts: 2,049
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
@ILikePie5
@MisterChris
@Mikal
@LikeMagic
The day phase has started
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Lunatic
@Vader
@Speedrace
@SirAnonymous
@Intelligence_06
The day phase has started
Created:
Posted in:
Let's infer who to lynch through the mod's little riddles
Unless you oddly prefer to remain noncommittal
Nostalgic for days with none clipped in the night
All equipped with ways to try and put up a good fight
It may not always work; some will wind up in a casket
Seldom is every ability or possibility an asset
Town consults with each other to hope scum gets busted
Only problem is that not everyone can be trusted
Wise to wangle good favor from their solid disguise
Nefarious scum will not waiver; their eyes' on the prize
Good luck!
Created:
Posted in:
Greetings!
This is a classic mafia game with a twist. Each day phase will include at least one public riddle and/or clue by the mod. Some hints will be more obvious or helpful than others. The rules of this game are pretty standard. No talking about the game outside the game. No copy and pasting role PMs; however, I have manipulated the PMs so as to avoid that type of analysis about how I structured them (ahem Mikal).
I don't care if ya'll use profanity or insult each other, so long as it does not interfere with the general quality and participation in the game. Hopefully everyone is active and this provides a distraction in the wake of the shit show that is about to come post Election Night.
A few notes for this game:
- Flips will be revealed upon lynches (I don't always)
- Role names may be made up, modified or unconventional
- Roles with X-shots will lose those shots if prevented from use
- I will not specify if I have given the mafia fake claims in this game
- I will not specify if roles were randomly assigned in this game
- If someone is killed at night, their night action will go through
That's all I can think of for now.
The first day phase will end at 4:30 pm on 11/6/20. It takes 6 votes to lynch. Good luck!
Player List
01 Lunatic
02 Speedrace
03 Supadudz
04 SirAnonymous
05 Intelligence
06 ILikePie5
07 Greyparrot
08 Mikal
09 Misterchris
10 Likemagic
11 Oromagi
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Barney
@Bullish
@warren42
@oromagi
Actually I can't send roles yet cuz I'm still waiting for everyone's username/friend request. Did you guys wanna sign up?
Created:
Posted in:
Woo! Sending roles now (I may get interrupted with work calls in the process).
Created:
Posted in:
I lied. I don't think Discord forum mafia is happening
01 Lunatic
02 Speedrace
03 Supadudz
04 SirAnonymous
05 Intelligence
06 ILikePie5
07 Greyparrot
08 Mikal
09 Misterchris
10
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
You did not answer my questions: So Merrick Garland would not have followed the law? Joe Biden's potential appointment would not follow the law? Why are Republicans so obsessed with blocking an appointment from a Democrat and rushing along ACB's confirmation if the Court is not political?
I don't disagree that the Court is supposed to be apolitical. But when I asked you what conservatives expect from ACB, you said "follow the law" which is a non-answer. Everyone expects every Judge to follow the law. Clearly conservatives are hoping ACB does certain things/rules a certain way on key issues. What are those issues, specifically?
But as for Virginia and Brown [neither of which I've mentioned], I don't disagree with either finding, and your assumption that my logic goes against them is flat wrong. If you want to be in my shoes, buy them. You do not get to usurp them by assumption.
Lol @ your condescending tone. I'm not assuming anything - I'm using your own words.
You said, "So, the answer to your question is: it depends on which State originates a Supreme Court case similar to Lawrence v. Texas. I expect Barrett will follow the law of that State, not personal opinion, whatever either happen to be. . . Your argument is not with the Court, but with those 11 States. Complain to them."
You don't have to reference the cases of Loving or Brown explicitly. You straight up said that you believe ACB and the Court should defer to STATE LAW as in you think state law (like the anti-sodomy laws) are to be upheld. If you don't think that then your whole point about Lawrence v. Texas is garbage. You can't have it both ways. Either you think the Court should follow STATE LAW and my "argument is not with the Court, but with those 11 states" --or -- you recognize that the role of the Supreme Court is specifically to recognize that laws like the ones Lawrence v. Texas fought (or Loving v. Virginia, or Brown v. Board of Ed) are unconstitutional.
Don't sit there and tell me to "complain to those 11 states" and then give me an attitude when I say that your logic allows for slavery lol. It's true. You're the one who made the trash argument that the Court should defer to state law. Ergo by that logic we could still have legal segregation. We could have legal ownership of women if some state voted for it. This was your argument. If you want to take back what you said, by all means, now's your chance.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Yah, not all Trump supporters are happy at all about that bullshit though.
Not a single one of them whines incessantly about it like they do whenever a conservative gets "cancelled."
I've never seen anything like this brainwashed, cult-like devotion to a politician. It's sociologically fascinating.
The radical left has unfortunately regressed into a groupthinktank of a singular view devoid of diversity of thought.
I agree. Would you consider the right-wing to be open-minded, tolerant and diverse?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You know my libertarianish leanings don't allow me to wallow over people being "cancelled" in the market. The same people who fight tooth-and-nail over a Christian's right to deny baking a gay wedding cake are the same ones who throw massive cry baby tantrums when a company decides to part ways with someone over their racist tweet from 2011. Boo hoo. You either support freedom of association or you don't.
The biggest issue of Cancel Culture I see is the silencing of ideas in academia or the stifling of intellectual discourse. There's a big difference between Noam Chomsky and Milo Yiannopolis.
Trump supporters whining about Cancel Culture is a joke. They cheer him on when he does it and he's actively called to punish or boycott American businesses 30+ times. He gets happy when their stock prices drop. So we have a president that gets happy if/when those companies (Harley Davidson, Goodyear, Macy's, the NFL, media networks, etc.) employing millions of people suffer. That's nice.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Individualism.
Can you be more specific? Both Karl Popper and Friedrich Hayek champion individualism. Karl Popper is pro democracy (pro government) and Hayek, a favorite among "anarchists," believes in the utility of government regulations to curb negative externalities. Hayek also believes the government has a role in preventing fraud and in providing a social safety net. By your standards that makes him a socialist. What type of individualism are you referring to?
Based on my previous response about the origin of rights, the answer to this question would be an apparent, no.
At what point in human history did we start to have rights? Is it possible for any other species/non-living entity to have rights?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I agree with you too :P I am constantly lamenting Cancel Culture. People just don't often recognize it comes in all forms, or they (of course) like it when they agree with the cancellation. Did you hear that Facebook, YouTube and Zoom blocked some Palestinian activist from sharing her webinar recently? Granted she was a former militant who participated in two plane hijackings in the 1960s (she didn't kill anyone though). But hey the KKK has participated in domestic terrorism; they've killed people and some would say they still have a right to free political speech. Libertarians certainly would, which is why people like Ted Cruz, Rand Paul et. all are such little weenies in their silence on this. The ACLU has fought on behalf of the KKK's speech rights. Let's see a "Liberty Republican" stick up for speech they don't like.
I mean I know it's a tough subject. I don't know how I'd feel about Facebook letting Osama bin Ladin pontificate on their platform for example. But see this is why I listen to first amendment podcasts lol it's interesting. #Nerd
Created:
-->
@fauxlaw
Yes. Follow the law.
So Merrick Garland would not have followed the law? Joe Biden's potential appointment would not follow the law? Why are Republicans so obsessed with blocking an appointment from a Democrat and rushing along ACB's confirmation if the Court is not political? Trump literally said he would not nominate someone that was not opposed to Roe v. Wade; he didn't even pretend that he lacked bias or motive. And it's interesting that you consider less than a 50% unanimous verdict to be indication of no bias. The Judges could flip a coin without hearing the case and have a greater chance of unanimous agreement by sheer probability but okay.
I expect Barrett will follow the law of that State, not personal opinion, whatever either happen to be.
I don't advocate legislating from the bench, but sometimes state laws are wrong. By your logic Virginia v. Loving was wrongly decided. By your logic Brown v. the Board of Ed was wrongly decided. By your logic a state could forbid women from voting, and then because they lacked the right to vote could never vote for a politician with a different view. By your logic some states could have legal slavery.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ILikePie5
Are you gonna post your signups?
I'ma post them tomorrow -- do you also play on Discord or nah?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
How did you win so fast?
Gut + POE. I'm town. I could tell Supa and Chris were town from their claims. I could tell SirA was town because he rightfully pointed out that we should lynch Supa tomorrow if we mislynched today (I feel like scum wouldn't have pointed that out and his math trying to figure when we'd get to LYLO did not feel like an act). I could tell the roles were not randomly assigned so I used mod psych: I didn't think BearMan would make skittlez mafia two games in a row and didn't think he would want a n00b in the mafia if he could help it. So I assumed it was you + Croc or Pie. When Pie said he would not be active I was like oh then it's him lol. Just didn't feel right.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
The problem with your Cancel Culture critique is that you (shockingly!) say nothing about how conservatives are the absolute kings of Cancel Culture.
My god there are so many examples. Conservatives would cancel my marriage if they could just because they find it icky (except in porn). One of my faves is how the Israeli government and its American lemmings push to criminalize dissent of Israel, even convincing some states to require loyalty oaths to Israel in order to get government contracts. Liberty Republican Rand Paul demands the FBI go after protesters who yelled at him in the street. Liberty Republican Ted Cruz wants the government banning films he doesn't like. But all the "freeze peach" anti-cancel culture nags have to rage about is annoying campus liberals shouting down speakers and people being mean to Bari Weiss and JK Rowling on the internet. What a joke. The last few months have just been a massive reminder that the right *invented* cancel culture in this country, and when they cancel you it's not with mean tweets or the private sector exercising its freedom of association; it's with the power of the US government.
But I don't want to talk about that. I want to talk about the documents with damning information about Hunter Biden. What do they say?!?! TELL US TUCKER!!! YOU'RE OUR ONLY HOPE!!! Surely these documents condemn Joe Biden in some way. I mean right? They were stolen from Tucker for god's sake. By the elites! It's gotta be juicy stuff. You just wait and see.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@MisterChris
I said "nobody is going to have fun or care about this game" because there is nothing to do. The mod is going to make things up as he goes along, and with flippant rules there's no standard way to form reads or analyses so there's no incentive to pay attention or do anything at all really. The reason I voted for myself is because I can't be lynched on Day Phase 1. That's not whining. That's called confirming my role. I'm glad the game is over though.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
This thread is about a fake news story and everyone who thought it should be taken seriously deserves ridicule.
in the age of elite censorship and cancel culture.
Created:
Just to be clear, nobody thinks Amy Coney Barrett is going to single-handedly overturn Roe v. Wade. That's not how it works.
I'm personally apathetic to ACB, but I understand why some people are concerned. Most people here are probably too young to remember that in 2003 —just 17 years ago — homosexuality was still outlawed in 13 states. A Texas case called Lawrence vs. Texas went to the Supreme Court when two men were dragged from their home in handcuffs for being gay. As horrific as that sounds, three members of the Supreme Court voted that they saw nothing wrong with putting people in prison because they’re gay. One of those Justices is still on the court and swore in Amy Coney Barrett a few nights ago. The person Barrett described as her mentor and extremely close to her ideologically also argued vehemently in Lawrence v. Texas that people should remain felons for being gay. So for some, this confirmation sounds warning bells (ACB's use of the term sexual preference was not heartening) or perhaps more realistically just a very deep sense of sadness. It harkens back to an era when we were terrified to share our families with the world. We were afraid to let anyone know about the most important people in our lives. Hopefully it won't be an issue, but if not I wonder why conservatives are so grateful for her. There must be something they think she's going to do, correct? What exactly is that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
I get this is a "Bad Mod" theme and all, but no one is going to have fun or care about this game.
Unvote and VTL Danielle
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@BearMan
Danielle are getting mod-roleblocked today.
The rules say nothing about replies or quotes.
Created:
Posted in:
To clarify, Guiliani is shouting FIRE! in a crowded fire house.The moviegoers look around, see no fire, and tell Guiliani to shut the fuck up.Guiliani stands on his chair and weeps " I will not be censored! I myself saw a picture of the fire on a friend of a friend's laptop!"The moviegoers say "well, where's this fire now?"Tucker Carlson stands up and says, "It's true! I found an ember that proves there is a fire!"The moviegoers say, "well, what ember"Tucker screams, "It's gone! Somebody stole my ember! I am being censored by movie theater management!"The moviegoerslook around again, see nothing, yell "sit down and shut up, please."Greyparrot posts to DART, "Wow, this fire at the movie theater is getting out of control!"
Can someone just make this a closed thread and pin it to the top of the Politics forum? Someone tag a mod.
Created:
Posted in:
LMFAO at how poorly this thread aged. "I have the most damning documents!!! But they disappeared!!!! SOMEONE STOLE THEM IT'S A HUGE FUCKING CONSPIRACY OH MY GOD THIS SHOULD BE TERRYIFNG TO EVERYONE!!!!!! It was going to ruin Joe Biden's campaign!!!!! Me, Tucker Carlson, journalist extraordinaire!!!!!! Now that I have been reunited with the documents umm uhh errr uhh umm err stay tuned."
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
Anyway, why do you sus Pie?
Looks like you are getting role blocked.
(I did not say I find Pie pretty btw. I said we should vote for him. In the last game he refused to role claim for no reason as a townie. If someone is going to play like a petulant child at the town's expense, we need to figure out as soon as possible what their role claim is or lynch them early on if they refuse. Otherwise it's only going to hurt us later if we potentially mislynch when it's too late. Plus coupled with him being inactive, if we want his claim we're just simply not going to get it later.)
Created:
Posted in:
So if we think anyone is [a word that starts with S and rhymes with delicious] we should use a different word to avoid being mod killed. It can't be a synonym so I'ma use the word pretty (as in Why won't he role claim? SirAnonymous is so pretty right now).
VTL Pie. He should be voted for a claim on DP1 as standard procedure, but especially if he isn't going to be active. In that case we should assume we're never going to get his claim unless we get it now. Scum is probs Greyparrot and Pie. I'm off for the night most likely.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Spending under Reagan averaged 21.6% GDP, roughly tied with President Obama for the highest among any recent President. Reagan did not reduce government spending as he had promised to do. He actually spent more than his predecessors. Reagan tripled the federal debt from $900 billion to $2.7 trillion. For comparison presidents Ford and Carter in their combined terms could only double it. It took 31 years to accomplish the first postwar debt tripling, yet Reagan did it in eight years.
Both Obama and Reagan were big spenders who champion free market rhetoric. Obama pursued major free trade agreements with 11 Pacific Rim countries (not including China) and the EU. He stayed in NAFTA. His economic advisers published a report concluding — as nearly all economists do — that reducing trade barriers raises living standards here and abroad, boosts productivity, fosters innovation and expands employment in high-paying sectors. Contrast this with someone like Donald Trump who does not believe in free trade and wants everything made in the US or he will impose tariffs.
So I will ask you again how Obama and Reagan are very different. Unfortunately buzz word and one-liners aren't gonna cut it.
Obama actually inherited a much worse economy than Reagan did too so I'm curious what your perspective is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
How were Obama's economic policies much different from Reagans?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Dr.Franklin
The washington Post thinks he was a conservative
I believe they said he is conservative by the standards of 1980s and 1990s Republicans. Obama also said an interview that his (economic and taxation) views were essentially like mainstream, moderate Republicans in the 1980s as well. Do you disagree with that assessment?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I think Justices should be allocated by chance lottery from a large pool of qualified candidates and confirmed by elected officials.
That's interesting. "Qualified" is subjective though. Technically I qualify to be a Justice because I meet all of the legal criteria, but I'm probably not qualified by most standards. Who gets to decide? Congress?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
No. Only one is logically consistent.
Which interpretation of rights is the only one that's logically consistent?
Did humans have rights before they were able to interpret them?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@blamonkey
A few family members of mine like to put the blame on Obama for "not doing anything" to reduce police abuse
Another gem. It's amazing to me how comfortable people are spewing nonsense without having the wherewithal to do basic fact checks. I would be so embarrassed (!) yet I catch people doing this constantly. People have no shame and no common sense. It's easy to look up and compare the last 3 years of Obama's term - the most racially charged ones of his presidency post Treyvon Martin and Ferguson - with the numbers from Trump's first three years:
In 2014, (51) cops were feloniously killed and 48,315 (7.71%) were assaulted on duty - 626,949 LEOs
In 2015, (41) cops were feloniously killed and 50,212 (7.9%) were assaulted on duty - 635,781 LEOs
In 2016, (66) cops were feloniously killed and 57,180 were (8.99%) assaulted on duty - 652,936 LEOs
In 2017, (46) cops were feloniously killed and 60,211 (8.98%) were assaulted on duty - 670,279 LEOs
In 2018, (55) cops were feloniously killed and 58,866 (8.57%) were assaulted on duty - 686,665 LEOs
In 2019, (48) cops were feloniously killed and 56,034 (8.16%) were assaulted on duty - 697,195 LEOs
On balance, more cops were assaulted under Trump than Obama. Furthermore the false narrative being perpetuated by the right is that "nobody wants to be a cop anymore" because of the alleged war on cops. Meanwhile the number of cops has consistently gone up since the Ferguson riots and existence of BLM. People are honestly way too comfortable speaking assertively on topics they know nothing about or can't be bothered to look up.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Nah, the system is adequate.The alternative is a system where grievances are calculated by cultural groups instead of jurisprudence.
Do you think Justices should be elected?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I love this banter where I pretend you are left wing and you pretend I am right wing.
I'm glad you enjoy it :) Just so long as we both know that Trump embraces the white supremacists + cuckoo conspiracy theorists that support him without denouncing their crazy ass ideas strongly enough; that right-wing militants account for the majority of domestic terrorism and violent threats; and that all of the "anarchists" that worship Trump like a king are a joke. I actually know some of them IRL.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Thank god for arbitrary courts then.
That's why I laugh when people defer to a legal scholar's authority. Of course it holds more weight than a less informed layman's perspective, but whenever one of my douchey lawyer friends condescends to me because he is an "expert" (per his one con law class at a shitty tier 3 law school) I remind him that the Supreme Court is considered to be a panel of the brightest legal minds in the country, and yet split decisions are the norm.
I still think it's a pretty good system though. Do you have an alternate proposal? I g2g btw but ya'll can tag me if I missed something.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Lol, you have no idea what you're talking about. Most of the free speech lawsuits in this country stem from right-wing snowflakes throwing crybaby tantrums over people protesting the Vietnam War, or refusing to salute their precious little flag. At least you know you have no idea what I'm talking about.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
Do you think ethnic or cultural discrimination is justified under any scenario?
You'd have to be specific. "Any scenario" makes it easy to say yes.
But to be clear the lawsuit had nothing to do with racism or liberals. It was the school's decision to send the students home and the Court upheld it per the legal standard known as Fighting Words doctrine. It's very interesting.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
You could convince me that it's a problem when you can post more actual significant race crimes from 2016 forward than I can post fake hoaxes (Smollett...fake nooses in Nascar garages, multiple instances of retarded edgelord liberal students spray painting nigger all over the campuses, etc...)
Until then it's fringe hyperventilation.
You provided 2 examples of hoaxes and then mentioned "multiple instances" of spray paint. It will be incredibly easy to provide more examples than that considering hate crime violence hit a 16-year high post Trump's election. Some of the instances were major national news stories, such as the mass shooting at a Pittsburg synagogue in 2018 or the El Paso Walmart shooting in 2019, where the shooter had a xenophobic manifesto about a Hispanic invasion to help Democrats. There's also the rise in anti-Chinese hate crimes post coronavirus and anti-Semitism is at record highs. Law enforcement, members of Congress and groups tracking extremism have warned about the increasing threat potential from militia and far-right groups.
But not only can I provide you this resource which details a lot of information on federal hate crimes, I can defer you to YouTube where you can see them being filmed. Most of us probably saw the video of the Asian guy in Scottsdale 2 days ago going on a rant about how it was a "nigger free zone," and there are thousands and thousands of similar videos all over the internet. I'd like to bring up these because while I can absolutely meet that incredibly easy threshold of showing you "more instances of real hate crimes than the ones you showed were fake," we both know you're dishonest and incapable of conceding. So you will predictably shift goal posts which is why I think YouTube might be an even better resource than all of the documented statistics. I have a lot more links to resources if you're interested, but we both know you have no interest in being proven wrong.
In response to Whitmer's kidnappers being "anarchists," that is an unequivocal lie. When you suck Trump off that emphatically online you don't get to call yourself an anarchist despite whatever logo you put in your twitter profile picture. These people are literally too stupid to see why calling yourself an ANARCHIST while championing Trump makes no fucking sense. They're dumb as rocks. They believe in QAnon (the fact that Trump won't denounce QAnon is insane and deeply disturbing) and that Bill Gates gave everyone coronavirus through 5G cell towers. They certainly believe Trump is the greatest thing to happen to the USA. Their devotion and constant praise for Trump makes them the worst "anarchists" of all time. They love their Dear Leader.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
There's even less of a history of violence from people on the right toward people on the left from 2008 on up. It's all fringe hyperventilation.
I understand this defense ("it's only the fringe!") but I would respond to that a few ways. One, a group like ANTIFA really is fringe left (weird to think anti-fascists could only be leftists but okay) whereas the "fringe" right has made it to the mainstream Republican party. I listened to a really good interview with Steve Bannon I'd be happy to link you to if you're interested. He talks about the 2016 Trump campaign strategy and it was very insightful into the hearts and minds of Trump's base. Bannon argued that Breitbart made Trump and I agree. You would agree that Breitbart is practically if not explicitly an an alt-right publication, correct?
I don't think there can be any question that Trump made certain discriminatory rhetoric or behavior more acceptable and mainstream. For instance I was just listening to a podcast about a first amendment lawsuit in CA where students got sent home for wearing an American flag shirt to school (I know, it outraged me too). School officials felt it was intentionally provocative and likely to start a fight on school grounds. The students wore the shirt on Cinco de Mayo to antagonize Mexican-American students. This kind of stuff was not the norm under Obama, and if racist things like this did occur, it was not because the president excused or dog whistled to provoke that type of behavior. We both know Obama was demure. Whatever we think of his politics, he was not a leader to provoke racial tension or other hostility. Meanwhile white supremacists genuinely believe Trump is on their side. It doesn't seem very "fringe" when the president gives you credibility. That's why we don't meet with North Korea.
Secondly as far as violence goes, I think you could be honest enough to acknowledge that all of the notable militia groups in this country are primarily right-wing. I mean the caricature of the left is them being spineless, gun-less, pink pussy hat wearing little weaklings people say would immediately crumble if the shit hit the fan. ANTIFA isn't even an organized group. Meanwhile there are militant people all over the country doing and plotting crazy shit. The people who kidnapped Michigan's governor is one example. The fact that the FBI has been warning white supremacists infiltrated law enforcement for years now is another example. I just don't think you can rely on the narrative that racism or whatever is limited to ultra old school cuckoos. I think it has very much become more acceptable.
Do you think 2010 was a referendum based on the popular perception (justified or not) that Obama and Obama's Congress went too far with socialist policies?
Absolutely. I think it was mostly in response to the ACA, but there is no denying right-wingers emphatically portrayed Obama as some kind of left-wing nut job. I remember this very well. Ted Cruz, Sean Hannity et. al were saying Obama was a "radical socialist" which they repeated over and over. It was the loop sound bite on Fox News for like 8 years. I mean Obama was portrayed by the Breitbart crowd as the antichrist. Literally. One in four Americans believed Obama was the antichrist. And I'm sorry but if you think race had nothing to do with that you're delusional. There are a lot of extremely ignorant and hateful people out there. I know it must not feel good that they're primarily on "your side" but we have to be honest about it. Just like I have to acknowledge BLM (whom I've marched with) is now an explicitly pro Marxist group which you know I don't like. But yes I do think there was a huge backlash to Obama in 2010 primarily due to fear mongering about socialism. He was not a hard leftist by any stretch. He didn't even (publicly) support gay marriage until his second term! Can you imagine that being "radical" today?
Obama inherited the lowest tax rate in a generation (the Bush Tax Cuts) and then repeatedly lowered them. He cut federal spending. He argued that government programs can create welfare dependency. I mean I guess if you're a Tea Party member or like our friend Athias here who thinks Ayn Rand was a socialist, then sure Obama may be classified as such to those people. I don't think the assessment stands for 95% of the people who insist he was though but then support a handful of other Big Government initiatives like the Space Force or saving the auto industry.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Mind elaborating on the times it doesn't?
Sure, like right now, this sentence is grammatically incorrect, and yet, I am communicating my point to you perfectly fine.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Greyparrot
I'm sorry I missed your post before. I g2g back to work for now but will respond later.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you believe that grammar plays an important role in communication?
Sometimes.
The statement which followed my contention that Ayn Rand was not a socialist was an nonessential appositive phrase. It would specify nothing.
Here is your sentence: She was a philosopher, who (and correct me if I'm wrong) didn't participate as a member of government.
I'm curious: what was the grammatical or rhetorical purpose of bringing up whether or not she participated in government? Why is that relevant to the conversation? Why not mention that she never participated in cow tipping or pie eating contests?
I'm not arguing that being a member of government is a prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism.
Then what exactly is the prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism?
Please provide examples of her socialist ideologies.
Sure. As one example, Ayn Rand believed "The only proper functions of a government are: the police, to protect you from criminals; the army, to protect you from foreign invaders; and the courts, to protect your property and contracts from breach or fraud by others, to settle disputes by rational rules, according to objective law." Police, military and courts require taxation. And even if they didn't (they do) she explicitly said these government actions were proper, not voluntary arbitration. She did argue for "voluntary taxes" lol. We'll get to that.
Created:
-->
@HistoryBuff
I wouldn't go so far as to say Biden is a right-winger. He has the most progressive platform of any presidential Dem candidate in history. But he's certainly moderate to progressive standards. Nonetheless the people on this site just make shit up or parrot Fox News pundits to an embarrassing degree. I've responded by trolling with snarky ass witticisms, but I may try a more Socratic approach. I don't have any hope they'll acknowledge being wrong about anything, ever though. That's Trump's M.O. and they eat that shit up, so of course they will emulate the same demagoguery and think they're right somehow. Sad.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Rights are moral concepts. So they come from an analysis of the human condition. The subjective prescriptions for that which "ought" or "ought not" be.
There are innumerable interpretations of rights stemming from human analysis. Do you believe only one of those analyses is correct?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
I'm not arguing that being a member of government is a prerequisite for sustaining or advocating socialism.
In post #44 you said that Ayn Rand does not qualify as a socialist specifically because she was a philosopher who did not participate as a member of government. You specified that the other people mentioned in that post did qualify because they were part of government. You did not provide any other criterion.
Yes.
Good. So we agree that the definition of socialist includes, but is not limited to: a person who practices or advocates socialism. By that logic, explain how Ayn Rand is not a socialist if she both practiced socialism and advocated socialism in her ideology.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Where do rights come from?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Hence the qualifying statement, "as far as this discussion is concerned." My focus is on members of government; your focus is on Errbody, the mention of which makes little sense since the subject was Obama.
I'm not sure what you're talking about here.
Ayn Rand, as I mentioned, was not.
Do you agree that dictionaries are useful for defining words?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Athias
Do you believe rights come from government?
Created: