You’re either serious, in which case I repeat, seek help. I mean, portraying Republicans as poor, persecuted waifs, equivalent to Jews in WWII is simply… insane.
or Poe’s Law, in which case, good job.
I’ve been engaged in an exchange of thoughtful posts with other people in this thread. We’ve been discussing issues of political philosophy and history. You have chosen not to participate at that level. Instead you are just making unintelligent attacks against the Democrats.
So when I was directly responded to you, I intentionally dumbed it down. If you want to join us at the grown-up table, you’re welcome to do so. But it means you’ll have to start engaging in intelligent conversation.
The side that literally spawns Nazis are being portrayed like the victims of Nazis? And you actually wonder why you’re considered a joke?
At this point Quartz has bad opinions so often and so impressively that he should really be trying to monetize that talent.
Then again, being a gigantic tool isn’t really that much of a talent.
It’s insane, but it’s also a fundamental part of how they view themselves. They are the embattled followers of the One True God in a world of Satanic unbelievers who want to damn them; they are the embattled Pure White Race in a world of subhuman untermenschen who want to rape and kill them; they are the Makers in a world of parasitic Takers who want to steal from them.
It’s a central part of how they justify their desire to torment, kill and enslave everyone else on Earth as just, holy and necessary.
McMullin ran solely because Trump was not hawkish enough. It’s not a surprise you choose a hawk spook.
How nice. Another contribution at the standard we’ve come to expect from you.
Yes and the charming uncomprehending warlust we come to expect from you and Bill Kristol.
But that is the position of the Libertarian party, not the Republican.
Now, there ya got me. 
Exactly. As a libertarian I point to NYC’s soda cup size law as Democrats running amok* without being a homophobe opposed to gay marriage rights.
*Yeah, yeah, Bloomberg was a nominal Republican when he was elected mayor and pushed for the law, but he was a Democrat immediately before running and reverted back to Democrat during the 2016 election cycle. de Blasio, OTOH is a dyed in the wool Democrat and continues to push for the idea.
First Maddow and now Kristol. I realize that this may be completely foreign to you but those of us capable of rational thinking don’t get our opinions dictated to us by the voices we hear, either the ones on television or the ones in our heads. Once again, you have seized a random factoid (“Gyrate cites McMullin as an example of a good Republican”), built a strawman around it (“McMullin is actually a warhawk and that, rather than the things Gyrate actually wrote*, is the reason he supports him!”), and then ascribed this to blind unthinking adherence to people from the talky box. I suppose it’s easier to argue against your own delusions than against what other people have said.
Believe what you want, Will. Ha, what am I saying? You always do. And while you play in your imaginary sandbox, the rest of us will be over here in reality.
*One of which was “I disagree with many of his positions”.
You are a deranged Russia-hating Warhawk who happens to name another Warhawk as a good Republican. This is the guy who is nationally known only because he thought Trump didn’t want to kill enough people and decided to run against him. That you like this guy is a bit too much of a coincidence. Of course you are typical of contemporary liberal warhawks, if you weren’t such a cliche I wouldn’t waste my time pointing out how morally bankrupt you are.
:smack: What’s next? A thread “What is 2+2 in a way that is distinct from 4 ?”
At this point the Republican Party must be obliterated, completely defanged, castrated and thrown on a funeral pyre. (I hope that a new Two Party system arises from the ashes.) Anyone who doesn’t understand that is part of the problem.
If you really don’t understand even that much, Google “Republicans torture children.” Yes, the search phrase is hyperbolic but anyone so comatose as to think anything Republican is worth salvage needs a rude awakening.
There is a valid argument for a soda tax (rather than a pointless restriction on serving sizes), but I think it depends on having publicly run health care. And, still, only a tax, and only one to recoup cost–no behavior taxes like with cigarettes. That said, it’s a tricky path to go down without getting worse.
As for the OP’s question: it’s difficult. It has to be fact-based, and I’m not sure there is anything that is fact based. Now if you mean morally good, then just not racist, not sexist, not homophobic, etc, caring about other people, including the less fortunate, not overly concerned with money, not willing to do tricks that benefit them, not lying or stretching the truth, and stuff like that.
But that’s the same for everyone. Problem is, so much of that has become the Demcractic/liberal position in opposition to the Republicans. Republicans don’t push morality anymore.
At first I thought he said “uncomprehending walrus,” and figured he was referring to John Bolton. Then I realized it was “warlust,” and knew for sure.
Will drew a crude crayon sketch of the world one day, and has spent the rest of his life holding it up and squinting so they look the same.
Pretty much. But you have to give him credit: no matter how far removed from reality his worldview is, he remains utterly consistent in advocating it.
The argument for taxing sodas is the same as the argument for taxing cigarettes. The only meaningful distinction is that we are conditioned to accept high taxes on cigarettes.
That is not to say that I am for or against soda taxes or cigarette taxes, only that you can’t distinguish between the two on principle.
That is not to his credit.
The same can be said about David Icke.
Indeed.
I am of the opinion that othering is a non-beneficial strategy in the long run. Maybe not even in the short run. If them is not part of us, we are just fomenting conflict.
But, there is another thing at play here. Some guys decided to goof around with some high-tech equipment and claimed that they observed an apparent correlation between ideological inclinations and brain structure. They found that those attracted to left-wing ideas tend to be heavier in the forehead region whereas those with right-wing preferences showed more development in an area called the amygdala (sometimes also called “the lizard brain”).
Point is, if it is no longer ok to persecute people for how they are keen to use their genitals (except for some specific applications) because they cannot help being that way, and if it can be proved that political ideology is a similar thing, an aspect of your personality that is outside your control, then one could possibly see that denigrating right-wing assholes might in fact be sorta like hate speech.