Joke: Why were the six men jerking off at the same time?

[HAL9000]

I don't think anyone uses the textbook definition of these terms when discussing, or labeling themselves.

It would seem that way, which is why I find it confusing.

That could be construed as authoritarian. In fact if you add your opinions on criminals, guns, police, etc, you might very well have an authoritarian streak in you, way more than you probably want to admit.

I'm perfectly happy to admit it. See quote below from earlier in the thread.

I think this is another reason why I get confused when americans call me a "liberal", I want more government intervention, I'm pro police, anti-gun, anti-abortion. More laws seem like a positive to me, people call that liberal, that is anything but liberal, it's not an easy going way of thinking, it's a more authoritarian way of thinking.

Very confusing.

 

[Away]

Who is this?

I pull from memory that it's the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Funny, that doesn't look like Barack Obama. I am seeing a resemblance to you though.

 

[SparkyJJO]

What does 1+1 equal? I pull from memory that it's 2.

Who is this?

http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/4580/barackobamay.jpg

I pull from memory that it's the President of the United States, Barack Obama.

Put up or shut up.

You know what I meant, don't play stupid

Stop trolling. I'm done with you.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

I think this is another reason why I get confused when americans call me a "liberal", I want more government intervention, I'm pro police, anti-gun, anti-abortion. More laws seem like a positive to me, people call that liberal, that is anything but liberal, it's not an easy going way of thinking, it's a more authoritarian way of thinking.

Very confusing.

Actually on that conservative one, I just googled the definition:



Also, when it comes to politics, I am not a liberal easy going type person, I want change, I want more laws, more police etc etc.

Again, what Americans are now referring to as liberal is anything but.

Agreed, no problem there. I wonder how many in DC are truly liberal or conservative, I doubt very many. I think you mentioned earlier that these terms have been hijacked by the respective parties, no args there. Just one the many reasons I am so tired of all this left vs. right partisan bullshit, it gets us nowhere, quickly.

I completely agree. One of the problems I frequently see in politics is the fact that many politicians, as well as civilians, will use both terms to automatically give the other side a negative connotation while not addressing real issues. It's the "us vs them" mentality.

 

[davmat787]

You know what I meant, don't play stupid

I swear if I ever disregard my principle regarding the ignore list, it will be because I just can't stand the stupid shit DS posts anymore. If nothing else, it would save on bandwidth due to the brainless pics it insists on posting.

No use wasting packets on a troll, which is a term that is way overused, but fits the bill perfectly for DS.

 

[HAL9000]

Again, what Americans are now referring to as liberal is anything but.

Fixed, but yeah.

 

[LOL_Wut_Axel]

Fixed, but yeah.

Fixed it in the comment. You're right.

 

[HAL9000]

Fixed it in the comment. You're right.

I tend to be right about one thing a year, so this one was due

 

[DominionSeraph]

Put up or shut up.

I'm done

Can't fault your choice... whoever you were.

 

[irishScott]

The difference is that conservatards do let right-wing commentators do their thinking for them. They don't have the information base to directly counter the assertions, the knowledge that their dearth of information puts them at risk, nor the baseline toolset underlying critical thinking with which to emplace generalized counters. They are only set up for the delusion of independent thought.

Top liberals, OTOH, don't take what anyone says as the final say on the matter. We know how to counter rhetoric to leave a proposition at an indeterminate truth value.
"Organizing atheists is like herding cats." That's because we don't share one mind.

And maybe Conservatards do, as do Libtards. There are always fringe idiots, they don't represent everyone they think they do though.

I know plenty of Conservatives, go shooting with a lot of them on a weekly basis. My mom comes from rural North Carolina and has a large extended, old-school southern family. I've had lively political debates with all of them, I have never heard the name of any pundit at any time unless we were talking about how stupid they were. Same story with the liberals I know and my dad's side (all from New England, generally liberal as hell).

Most people do not care about pundits. The media cares, because pundits sensationalize and make good news. The radicals care for any number of stupid reasons, and the politicians care because the radicals are the only ones voting in the primaries and make the most noise when they don't get their way.

We have a system designed to prevent abuse by the majority, but went too far and now (politically anyway) has abuse by the minority. Anyone with a sensational view can get more media time and attention than a boring, reasonable, moderate candidate, and get people to follow them due to that attention. The only way for a honest, idealistic moderate to make it anywhere beyond the congressional level would be to lie and fool their way through a primary or completely fund their own campaign as an independent, which can take hundreds of millions of $$$. And most honest people are too busy living their own lives to care.

This is why you see a trend towards more reasonable (not necessarily moderate) people at times of crisis, because only during a crisis are reasonable people willing to buy into our current political structure past a certain level. Why do you think Obama got elected? It wasn't because he was liberal and people were fed up with Republicans, it's because people saw integrity, change, and idealism in him. They thought he would make things better. Instead he's a politician like any other, which, for the record, I so called.

We need a political system that levels the playing field and allows Joe Schmo from the Fish Market to run for President on an even footing if he feels like it. Instead we've got this corporatocracy of an electorate that, at this point, is around solely for the continued existence of the two major parties.

 

[davmat787]

The difference is that conservatards do let right-wing commentators do their thinking for them. They don't have the information base to directly counter the assertions, the knowledge that their dearth of information puts them at risk, nor the baseline toolset underlying critical thinking with which to emplace generalized counters. They are only set up for the delusion of independent thought.

Top liberals, OTOH, don't take what anyone says as the final say on the matter. We know how to counter rhetoric to leave a proposition at an indeterminate truth value.
"Organizing atheists is like herding cats." That's because we don't share one mind.

Ironic that you have a quote from a pundit in your sig. Obviously you can't think for yourself and model your mind on Colberts. Which is very sad, you should try thinking for yourself sometime and dust off those synapses. Although I suspect many are damaged.

 

[DominionSeraph]

If nothing else, it would save on bandwidth due to the brainless pics it insists on posting.

You have to count... kilobytes?

(2272 bytes, just for you)

 

[davmat787]

You have to count... kilobytes?

(2272 bytes, just for you)

Not so much counting per se, its just those packets and electrons could have served a much better purpose, anything really, than your trolling, whether it be words or pics.

 

[davmat787]

And maybe Conservatards do, as do Libtards. There are always fringe idiots, they don't represent everyone they think they do though.

I know plenty of Conservatives, go shooting with a lot of them on a weekly basis. My mom comes from rural North Carolina and has a large extended, old-school southern family. I've had lively political debates with all of them, I have never heard the name of any pundit at any time unless we were talking about how stupid they were. Same story with the liberals I know and my dad's side (all from New England, generally liberal as hell).

Most people do not care about pundits. The media cares, because pundits sensationalize and make good news. The radicals care for any number of stupid reasons, and the politicians care because the radicals are the only ones voting in the primaries and make the most noise when they don't get their way.

We have a system designed to prevent abuse by the majority, but went too far and now (politically anyway) has abuse by the minority. Anyone with a sensational view can get more media time and attention than a boring, reasonable, moderate candidate, and get people to follow them due to that attention. The only way for a honest, idealistic moderate to make it anywhere beyond the congressional level would be to lie and fool their way through a primary or completely fund their own campaign as an independent, which can take hundreds of millions of $$$. And most honest people are too busy living their own lives to care.

This is why you see a trend towards more reasonable (not necessarily moderate) people at times of crisis, because only during a crisis are reasonable people willing to buy into our current political structure past a certain level. Why do you think Obama got elected? It wasn't because he was liberal and people were fed up with Republicans, it's because people saw integrity, change, and idealism in him. They thought he would make things better. Instead he's a politician like any other, which, for the record, I so called.

We need a political system that levels the playing field and allows Joe Schmo from the Fish Market to run for President on a even footing if he feels like it. Instead we've got this corporatocracy of an electorate that, at this point, is around solely for the continued existence of the two major parties.

Well said again. I said this in another thread I think, that often people use Rush or Maddow or whomever you want to use, to project how they view someone of the other end of the spectrum. In other words, if ________ says something downright dumb or inflammatory, then everyone of that side must be dumb and inflammatory. Makes it easier to hate and justify yourself I guess.

Which is what DS was doing earlier when he derail-trolled with that comment, and very transparently.

 

[eits]

lol wtf is a "vasec"?

 

[davmat787]

lol wtf is a "vasec"?

vasectomy

 

[Ghiddy]

It seems pretty obvious to me that "vasec" was a poor abbreviation for vasectomy. The joke is flawed for other reasons to me, namely that "Obamacare" refers to a federal statute that details health care reform while Blue Cross is a health care provider. You can't "have Obamacare" that just doesn't even make sense. It's like saying to someone that you have "Citibank" and they have "TARP".

Even if you substitute "vasectomy" for the OP's "vasec", the sentence doesn't make sense (easier for the doctor to locate the vasectomy? vasectomy is a procedure, not a part of anatomy).

I'm guessing the OP pasted this from somewhere else though, and even if the sentence was wrong, I think everyone got the gist of what was meant. The brain fills in missing information; I didn't even notice that mistake until DrPizza pointed it out.

Regardless, joke not that funny.