Police Officers

[Bojangles]

Guineapig:
"Show me a 2 faction system on Earth where the one faction does not try to discredit the other faction."

The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated.

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Guineapig:
"Show me a 2 faction system on Earth where the one faction does not try to discredit the other faction."

The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated.

This is quite possibly the dumbest political argument I have ever heard.

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This is quite possibly the dumbest political argument I have ever heard.

Typical lack of intellectual depth. Please explain using logical arguments and examples, not just conclusory statements. Spouting slogans and opinions you read in a student paper might impress a few other brain dead liberals who already agree with you, but it makes you look both ignorant and intellectually incompetent when you face those who disagree with you, and you can't come up with real arguments for your point of view.

[purist]

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Typical lack of intellectual depth. Please explain using logical arguments and examples, not just conclusory statements. Spouting slogans and opinions you read in a student paper might impress a few other brain dead liberals who already agree with you, but it makes you look both ignorant and intellectually incompetent when you face those who disagree with you, and you can't come up with real arguments for your point of view.

tl;dr

[guineapig]

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Typical lack of intellectual depth. Please explain using logical arguments and examples, not just conclusory statements. Spouting slogans and opinions you read in a student paper might impress a few other brain dead liberals who already agree with you,

Who said I was a liberal? Just because I don't agree with you? You don't know anything about my beliefs and affiliations.

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

but it makes you look both ignorant and intellectually incompetent when you face those who disagree with you, and you can't come up with real arguments for your point of view.

You mean like how you couldn't show me a 2 faction system on Earth where the one faction does not try to discredit the other faction?

That's right, you avoided my comment and instead touted some nonsense like this:

Originally Posted by Bojangles [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated.

Spouting slogans and opinions you say? You just described yourself to a T.

The only opinion I have given is that the previous quote from you is dumb. And I stand by that statement.

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Who said I was a liberal? Just because I don't agree with you? You don't know anything about my beliefs and affiliations.

Well, you are opinionated yet ignorant. Argumentative yet can't debate. Calling you a liberal is just a guess, but it is a guess based upon experience.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You mean like how you couldn't show me a 2 faction system on Earth where the one faction does not try to discredit the other faction?

I'm sure if I did enough research I'd find a 2 faction system where the 2 groups worked together for a common goal from different directions, without the need to discredit each other. Perhaps the US during WW2? Some Indian tribe? Whether 1 exists or not isn't relevant to what we are arguing about, so I didn't bother to treat this question seriously.

The argument I am making isn't that 2 factions shouldn't try to discredit each other, on the contrary I think that such an adversarial system is better than one where both factions are in a conspiracy of silence. We can't rely on the news media to bring out the bad shit, but we can rely on their fellow politicians to do so since it is in their best interest. Hell, even politicians within the same party will turn on each other like rabid dogs during the primaries.

Originally Posted by guineapig [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

That's right, you avoided my comment and instead touted some nonsense like this:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bojangles
The problem is that side #1 supports law and order. You know, the shit that keeps a society running. When side #2 opposes that merely because side #1 supports it, then side #2 is no longer a valid political group it is a revolt that needs to be exterminated.

Spouting slogans and opinions you say? You just described yourself to a T.

I think this proves that you are a liberal. You blatantly state that you think it is merely an opinion that law and order is what keeps society running, and that opposing law and order is a perfectly viable stance for a mainstream political party. Are you fucking nuts? Oh wait, we already established that you are a liberal. Same thing.

What I was arguing, and what would have been obvious to anyone with an ounce of sense (i.e. non-liberals), is that although discrediting a faction by taking an opposite stance is an old and effective (even socially useful) tactic, it is not good when the stance is one that is against the good of society.

"X supports raising the retirement age to 70, but Y will keep it the same" is not the same fucking thing as "X supports the people who protect us from criminals, but Y would rather hinder those people and empower criminals."

In the past it has been a joke that all politicians are for education but against crime and poverty. Apparently you liberals are now so desperate, so devoid of common sense, that you are now pro-crime simply due to the police tending to be conservative. What is next, becoming pro poverty simply because the "enemy" is anti poverty?

[purist]

Bojangles your political opinions are about as substantial as the Taco Bell fart I just unleashed.

[azeth]

think outside the bun

[Murphy]

You'll only hear the word "liberals" out of the mouth of a white man

[Bojangles]

Originally Posted by purist [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Bojangles your political opinions are about as substantial as the Taco Bell fart I just unleashed.

Typical liberal hypocrisy. You castigate me for not being substantial enough... in a post with 1 sentence. Care to elaborate on your arguments and counter-arguments in a substantial way? Please note: "TL;DR" is not considered 'substantial' for this purpose.

Originally Posted by Murphy [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

You'll only hear the word "liberals" out of the mouth of a white man

Do you say this because you think blacks pronounce it "libral"? Or are you saying that blacks aren't educated enough to know about the names for either end of the political spectrum, whose terms are often used as a simplified way of... Wait, I really don't get what you are saying. Please explain, preferably in a 'substantial' way to keep Purist happy. Also, why do you think white women would not use the word liberal?

Btw, did you put any thought whatsoever into what you just wrote? Because it can easily be disproven by even the most rudimentary of google searches, not to mention practical experience. You do talk to people who are not white males, right?

Originally Posted by Kassel [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

#1) King of England

#2) George Washington

hmm

Your historical knowledge of this country is about equal to your knowledge of politics.

GW and the colonists did not advocate the marginalization of the forces of law and order. GW et al did not advocate hating and distrusting people who had served their country in the military. GW et al did advocate a new way for a people and their government to relate to each other.

If the dems were simply doing this, then fine. Let the voters decide. But that is not what this debate is about. It is about 1 group of people who hate the forces of law and order simply because those forces tend to be associated with a 2nd group.