logo Sign In

Arnie.d

User Group
Members
Join date
17-May-2005
Last activity
19-Apr-2015
Posts
1,595

Post History

Post
#265119
Topic
Naked Parties
Time
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
Originally posted by: Arnie.d

Is this "definition" of a liberal generally the same in the US?


No, Reagan was considered a Conservative in the US.

Liberals typically support drastic increases in spending associated with government social programs (such as welfare) which give way to higher taxes. They’ve typically spent less on the military and tend to support more diplomatic approaches to resolving international conflicts. Conservatives favor less government intervention and a stauncher stance on the preservation of personal liberty (however, issues such as abortion and gay marriage fall into the shades of gray separating the opposing sides of this notion.) Conservatives are typically both financially and socially conservative and have thus been slow on "righting" (or have perpetuated ) social wrongs (segregation, civil rights infractions, etc.) On the other side of the ridiculous political coin, while they have supported and changed appalling social practices (integrating the Southern social infrastructure, sending the Jim Crow Laws packing, doing away with slavery, etc.) Liberals have typically demonstrated an inability to differentiate between "Change" and "Progress." They have, in recent times, drastically overcompensated. Social programs like welfare have become bloated and far too easy to abuse, affirmative action has in a sense re-legalized racial discrimination, etc.

It gets confusing when you throw in the two Parties. Republicans are typically considered "Conservative" these days, but our current President has spent record amounts on government programs and hasn't really done anything special to protect vital personal liberties (those on the left will say legislation such as the Patriot Act have done completely the opposite and have irreparably damaged the rights of the American citizenry, those on the right will tell you in special circumstances like wartime such infractions on personal liberty are necessary.) I would say Bush is anything but a true Conservative (some would disagree.)

Lincoln, the most famous Republican, was wildly socially progressive (something today that is almost entirely associated with the Democrats) during his tenure (abolishing slavery, suspending Habeas Corpus, not "punishing" the Confederacy after the Civil War, etc.)

During of the first half of the 20th century (and slightly beyond) white Southern Democrats (sometimes called Dixiecrats) were both Democrats and extremely conservative. Later, they completely shifted over to the Republican Party (look at Strom Thurmond’s tenure in the Senate for a nice, encapsulated look at the shift of the Part lines during that period.)


So generally speaking, what I would consider liberal you consider conservative?

Post
#265104
Topic
Naked Parties
Time
What do liberals in the US stand for? What do they want? Why do most people here don't like liberals?

Liberals in America are of the annoying subspecies of liberal. See...not all liberals are bad and liberalism is not a bad thing unto itself. It's the nimrod dipshits who populate our country and call themselves liberal....they are what has ruined liberalism across the board.

If you would like any evidence....simply look at everything Gomer writes. I rest my case.


A "liberal" in the Netherlands is someone who supports privatizing government controlled sectors like public transport, postall services, communication, health care, etc. They believe a free marked is better than a government controlled marked. The fundamental idea is the freedom of the individual. They want to keep taxes low. Stuff like that.
Ronald Reagen was considered a true liberal.
Is this "definition" of a liberal generally the same in the US?

Liberals in America are of the annoying subspecies of liberal.
So when you speak of liberal s you don't mean a liberal?
Post
#264510
Topic
Global Warming
Time
Originally posted by: WESHALLPRESERVE
Originally posted by: skye_solo
Yes, it would be nice to be able to breathe unincumbered. I'm American. I supported the Kyoto treaty...but my government doesn't give a flying fuck. The neo-cons are also currently trying to send 25k more troops into Iraq. We need another 60s youth culture uprising again. It's freaking overdue.

Are you insane? You want every other person smoking pot fucking everywhere? The VERY LAST THING we need is a fucking 60's culture my good man. Neo-cons is such a stupid term btw, and What we DO NEED is another 25,000 troops in Iraq.

I think you need a LOT more troops to regain control.

Post
#264497
Topic
Global Warming
Time
Originally posted by: ferris209
What is the source of that graph Arnie, and which is red and which is blue, between CO2 and Temp respectively. Also, is that red graph really syaing we are off of the charts now? Or is it just a grapics error.

Whoops I forgot to add what is what. Yes, it's off the chart, there hasn't been this much CO2 in the atmosphere in a very long time. It's from an article of A. V. Fedorov et al. Science 312, 1485 (2006).
Post
#264495
Topic
Global Warming
Time
You can piece together a picture of the climate dating back millions of years by using ice cores, boreholes, tree rings, glacier lengths, pollen remains, ocean sediments and the orbit around the sun.

There were periods of stability and periodes of rapid change. Interglacial climates are more stable. Rapid climate changes are accompanied by transitions between glacial and interglacial periods. We are already in an interglacial climate so it's very strange the temperatur rises rather quick, it is warm already. Altough abrupt climate changes have occured before, human civilization arose during a period of relative climate stability.

Also take a look at this picture of the last 400.000 years. More carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means a higher temperature.

http://img246.imageshack.us/img246/1584/carbonte4.png
Red=CO2
Blue=Temp
Post
#264312
Topic
Global Warming
Time
Originally posted by: WESHALLPRESERVE
Oh My Fucking God. That was one of the stupidest statements I have ever heard. Read the bible you dumbass. If Jesus was here now he would not tolerate the killing of millions of jews and christians by Islam, a fake religion. I am pretty sure he would not of sat down and done nothing about this. Your a fucking stupid individual to think thats what Jesus wanted. You lunatic.


I am not religious whatsoever and I don't know much about religion and the Bible but didn't Jesus said something like "forgive them Father, for they know not what they do". If they hit your on the left side of you face, turn them the right side? I think the Amish people did pretty much what Jezus would have want them to do after the shooting at their school. Forgive the killer, even set up support for his family because they suffer too. No spiral of violence.

Edit: What is fake about their religion? Do you believe every religion except Christianity is fake? I hope not because than you sound like a fundamentalist yourself. And that would clearly show you have no respect for other people's beliefs.


Post
#264310
Topic
Allies of World War II
Time
Originally posted by: Stinky-Dinkins
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Hey I had a black bar over her eyes, you're not supposed to recognize her

But I'll make it more difficult the next time


What are the randomly-placed black bars in this picture for? This is the Arnie version of slight of hand.

http://img297.imageshack.us/img297/3835/x2cg9.jpg


It was to make you guys believe I was hiding a guy that's standing behind her

Post
#264298
Topic
Nanner Split's Super Fun Time Land
Time
Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: Arnie.d
Originally posted by: C3PX
I like the scientology thing. Let's go! Although they might track us down and try to kill us. You never know.

Ah, they won't chase me down into Europe I think.


Don' be so sure about that. They will stop at nothing to achieve their means!


They don't? But then... they're like a bunch of... terrorists!