File: Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier.swf-(9.98 MB, Porn)
[_] [O] [L] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)22:30 No.1736902
Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)22:33 No.1736903
Oh boy another strawman argument thread spoken by cats written by a biased neckbeard
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)22:40 No.1736914
>>1736902
Point out which part of that was a strawman so I can post 5 Redstate/The Blaze/Fox Nation/Daily
Caller/Breitbart articles making the exact same claim.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)22:41 No.1736916
>>1736914
Right.. Right there.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)22:42 No.1736918
>>1736916
So...you just don't know what "strawman" means then?
Got it.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)22:43 No.1736920
>>1736914
Tea Partiers are hypocritical scumbags, but that doesn't make this any less of a poorly
constructed cat-themed strawman.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)22:45 No.1736923
>>1736920
>cat-themed strawman.
Still can't help noticing the complete lack of specific examples of alleged strawman arguments
ITT.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:25 No.1736983
>>1736972
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Read this and then write a three paragraph essay on how you're fucking retarded.
>> [_] Repost-chan 08/05/12(Sun)23:37 No.1736992
>>1736983
>Tea Partiers present their position.
>"Liberals" point out flaws in their reasoning.
>Tea Partiers claim it's a strawman argument.
>Google Tea Party.
>Nothing but strawman arguments on their side.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:40 No.1736998
>>1736992
both sides are idiotic, the tea party is just so incredibly stupid that they have no clear
position and spew mindless bullshit instead of coming up with something based even remotely on
economics or principled reason, so they have to resort to making up strawman arguments to degrade
positions that they oppose for no apparent reason.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:42 No.1737001
It's truly sad how the Tea Party, while originally libertarian, was capitalized early on by
right-wing populists, and no one has seemed to notice.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:45 No.1737003
>>1737001
The Tea Party, also known as the "Practically Republican" Club.
It does suck, but the Libertarian Party is doing pretty well right now, it likely has more
support than ever before.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:47 No.1737004
>>1736998
>both sides are idiotic
[citation needed]
Hell, never mind citations, just find me one picture of a verified liberal (I'll even accept
OWSers) as retarded as these freaks:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-UKNY2Zrd3iA/Tno32VejODI/AAAAAAAAAXI/dtWkYpVlKTs/s1600/teabagger-%2B
Impeach%2BMuslim%2BMarxist.jpg
http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3555/3462246191_6f68ffa6dc.jpg
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:49 No.1737006
>>1737004
http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/063/74d/a7b/resized/queen-of-plastic-meme-generator-we-h
ave-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it-1e1dec.jpg
lol, this
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:50 No.1737007
>>1737003
>it likely has more support than ever before.
A handful of rich douchebags who really believe they don't need government, and a bunch of
college students who only support Paul so they can stand out and be different?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:53 No.1737008
>>1737007
>bunch of college students who only support Paul so they can legally smoke marijuana without
realizing the full implications of libertarian policy
Fixed that for you
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:54 No.1737009
>>1737006
>http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/063/74d/a7b/resized/queen-of-plastic-meme-generator-
we-h
>ave-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-find-out-what-is-in-it-1e1dec.jpg
Oh look, a selectively snipped, completely out-of-context quote used to deliberately misrepresent
the position of an opposition leader. I'd never expect something like THAT from the right...
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:57 No.1737013
>>1737009
I thought we were displaying pictures of idiotic liberals and tea partiers, not trying to
represent conservative or liberal positions
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:57 No.1737014
>>1737004
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sZrht4tb4Vo/TpGt5TK_XQI/AAAAAAAAASU/VoyMZU_0OVk/s400/131792
6668200.jpg
Tea Partiers started waaay different, but even on its worst day, its not half as fucking retarded
as the OWS. The amount of faggotry that OWS generates created a parallel universe that consists
entirely of San-fransico and furry faggots. I would rather an idiot be allowed to try and make
their own individual flawed opnions, then demand we have everyone be considered average,
regardless of drive or ability. So anyways, thank you OP for reminding me that you are a faggot,
and for spreading aids.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:58 No.1737016
>>1737007
Gary Johnson was polling at like 7% nationwide, I'm pretty sure the most any libertarian has
gotten is like 1%
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:59 No.1737017
>>1737014
I think they're both just groups of idiots who decide they want to parade around and support shit
that they don't know anything about
>> [_] Anonymous 08/05/12(Sun)23:59 No.1737018
>>1737008
what do you consider "the full implications of libertarian policy"?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:02 No.1737019
>>1737013
So you were just asserting without evidence that Nancy Pelosi is dumber than the two visibly
retarded tea partiers I posted?
>>1737014
So she's dumb because....?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:05 No.1737021
>>1737018
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lby9P3ms11w
The only IRL test of libertarianism in modern times.
Shockingly, it turned out to be a nightmarish shithole of drugs, organized crime, and subhuman
living standards.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:06 No.1737022
>>1737019
>just find me one picture of a verified liberal (I'll even accept OWSers) as retarded as these
freaks
I'm pretty sure saying something like that is pretty retarded. We were both asserting without
evidence the stupidity of both sides, so I don't see how you can say that I'm not justified in
not giving evidence for the idiocy of that statement.
I shouldn't speak for the other anon, but I'd say that he's trying to say that she's stupid for
putting herself in a bad situation and then protesting when she has to deal with the consequences.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:08 No.1737023
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=I+am+the+99%25&view=detail&id=775345B4BFA81C485633B5E34E
EED5C993387AC7
Fuck I found a whole blog full of 99%'s that are goddamn entitled faggots. Tea Party asks to keep
making money and be left alone, OWS asks to keep taking money and control all businesses.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:09 No.1737024
>>1737021
the fact that there was no legal system or law enforcement is just a *tiny* problem that wouldn't
exist under libertarianism.
Also, it's a society that was founded by poor-ass refugees and squatters, what do you think would
happen?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:10 No.1737025
>>1737023
the tea party really doesn't want to be left alone, they just want a right-wing government. When
they say "no more taxes" or "no more big government", usually they mean "no more taxes/big
government unless it's a right-wing policy or some military expansion" because they're mindless
fucks
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:10 No.1737026
>>1737022
>I'm pretty sure saying something like that is pretty retarded.
Possibly, if what she was talking about at the time and the implied meaning of that quote were
even remotely similar.
>We were both asserting without evidence the stupidity of both sides
How were the pictures I posted not "evidence"? It's pretty hard to take protest signs out of
context.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:13 No.1737027
>>1737023
>using bing
>thinks an image search is a "blog"
Yeah, methinks it would be a waste of time trying to explain to you the difference between
regular people sick of government that only cares about corporations and "goddamn entitled
faggots"
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:16 No.1737030
>>1737024
>the fact that there was no legal system or law enforcement is just a *tiny* problem that
wouldn't exist under libertarianism.
There was law enforcement. They were legally under the jurisdiction of the Hong Kong police, who
for the most part were afraid to get near it.
>> [_] >>1737008 08/06/12(Mon)00:16 No.1737031
>>1737018
From an American standpoint, it would mean severe reduction in government domestic services (that
most don't realize we rely on), in favor of the private sector. In addition, it would mean severe
deregulation of industry and commerce. Lastly, severe reduction in tax rates, and reforms and
enforcement in that area. Knowing congress, most legislation would not even reach the floor, save
for anything that coincides with republican dogma.. leaving a dysfunctional, toothless policy
that would only serve to further screw up our budget.
Also, this
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_perspectives_on_intellectual_property
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:17 No.1737032
>>1737022
>protesting when she has to deal with the consequences.
Well at least you're not criticizing something you don't understand...
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:17 No.1737033
>>1737026
If you want context for Pelosi's statement and the reason why it is idiotic, I can provide it; I
thought we we showing pictures of idiocy, not having some kind of argument about who is the most
idiotic.
>the reason she wanted to "pass the bill to see what was in it" was because she wanted a Senate
bill to be able to be put against the House bill, so that they could vote and determine which
version should be implemented.
>the problem with this is that the Senate isn't supposed to just define a bill and pass it to be
debated, they're supposed to put finesse into it and make the bill and what it entails as concise
as possible for debate.
>to "pass the bill to see what's in it" would be insane if they were actually implementing the
bill. It's just idiotic in this context, since they are wasting their own time and putting
something up for debate which they have not finished working on.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:19 No.1737034
>>1737030
the Hong Kong police were being paid whether or not they acted in Kowloon. in a libertarian
society (one that is actually ideologically consistent), there would be no forced monopoly on law
enforcement, and they would only be paid if they actually worked
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:22 No.1737037
>>1737033
God you're an idiot.
Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and learn how government actually works.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:22 No.1737038
>>1736903
I think the fallacy you're looking for is reductio ad absurdum, not strawman. The points raised
are semi-legitimate, but oversimplified to the point of absurdity. One side is represented only
in oversimplified talking points, while the other gets to use extended reasoning and
argumentation. Not an argument representative of real debate.
Wow, I just realized it's basically the Bill O'Reilly show, except with Democrats.
way to fail
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:23 No.1737039
>>1737034
Privatizing law enforcement?
So basically replace police by mob protection? Yeah, brilliant.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:23 No.1737040
>>1737031
Private enterprise has to compete (in efficiency, competency, and price) for your business. The
government does not; it has a monopoly and will receive your money whether or not it does well.
There is no major incentive for the government to be incredibly efficient; politicians might
provide slight increases in quality around election time, but they have little reason to do so at
any other time.
>most legislation would not even reach the floor, save for anything that coincides with
republican dogma
what do you mean?
as for intellectual property, while some libertarians consider it "owning an idea" and invalid,
it's really owning information. piracy is "inflation" of this information, which devalues it. the
only debate amongst libertarians about this is generally between those more ideologically sound
and those who are not.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:25 No.1737041
>>1737037
I can tell you a lot more easily why he's an idiot, but you ought to learn how the government
works before you tell me to.
Here's Nancy Pelosi's official explanation: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-p
artisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamous-health-care-remar
k/2012/06/20/gJQAqch6qV_blog.html
Which basically defends my position on how the government works, although her idea of how idiotic
the statement was is obviously different than mine.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:26 No.1737044
>>1737040
>Private enterprise has to compete (in efficiency, competency, and price) for your business. The
government does not; it has a monopoly and will receive your money whether or not it does well.
There is no major incentive for the government to be incredibly efficient; politicians might
provide slight increases in quality around election time, but they have little reason to do so at
any other time.
So lets blow up reasonably, if not perfectly, efficient government programs serving hundreds of
millions of people and turn over the responsibility to private citizens only concerned with
making money?
How's that working out for the prison industry?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:27 No.1737045
>>1737039
Mob protection? It's interesting, in a thread originally started with "oh boy another strawman
argument" that one would pop up.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_military_company
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:27 No.1737046
>>1737044
The prison industry is subsidized by the government and given quotas.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:29 No.1737048
BOOORRRRRRING
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:30 No.1737050
>>1737041
What the hell are you even on about? You object to conference committees now?
>> [_] >>1737008 08/06/12(Mon)00:30 No.1737051
>>1737040
Knowing republican dogma, the Reaganesque call for the elimination of the Department of
Education, and Department of Energy especially, would ROYALLY screw us. Even a reduction would
fuck everything up. Most people don't even have a clue of just how much the DOE does for us.
If you had read that part about intellectual property, you might have picked up on the part where
businesses go lawsuit crazy effectively ENDING any hope of Net Neutrality.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:32 No.1737052
>>1737045
So in the ultra-free libertarian utopia, private military contractors are going to be the police?
You'd rather have Blackwater patrolling the streets than the local PD?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:33 No.1737053
>>1737046
How's that relevant? Would they be *more* responsible if they didn't have to follow gov't
regulations?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:35 No.1737054
>>1737048
>BOOORRRRRRING
You're right. Someone go post Super Deepthroat for the 8,560,543rd time.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:35 No.1737055
>>1737053
I'm not incredibly well-versed on the workings of private prisons, I oppose their existence, but
I would say that they would work better if they were not subject to quotas and being paid by the
government more than they should be.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:36 No.1737057
It's like I'm really on /pol/
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:36 No.1737058
Sorry for leaving this debate, but it's like 1:30 in the morning, I'm going to sleep. Nice to see
that the /f/aggots of 4chan are active, though.
>inb4 oh thank god that stupid faggot is gone
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:37 No.1737059
>>1737055
So if you reduce the amount of money they have, that'll improve the prison quality somehow?
Sort of how defunding underperforming school districts has led to a dramatic increase in test
scores?
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:38 No.1737060
It doesn't matter which niggers in office.
Why vote? So you can pick and choose who controls your life? lol.
Makes a lot of fucking sense.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:38 No.1737061
>>1737057
Nah, the liberals have mostly abandoned /pol/, and it's basically a stormfront echo chamber at
this point.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)00:40 No.1737062
>>1737059
>Sort of how defunding underperforming school districts has led to a dramatic increase in test
scores?
Well it did for a while, but that was mainly due to teachers cheating.
>> [_] sage sage 08/06/12(Mon)00:49 No.1737068
>>1737061
lol as much as op is a dipshit i just went over there and .... damn
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:10 No.1737081
As much i have read i think that this is all talk cant we all go back to watching porn just like
the millions of other mindless sheep
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:11 No.1737082
>Not-teaparty thinks Fascism and Socialism are different things
>Nazi = National Socialism Party
>Lol'd.
A whole lot of fucking stupid going on here on both sides in this flash
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:20 No.1737089
>>1737082
This faggot here
Awwright, I'll show you which parts are strawman.
The entire video is simply percieving the Tea-Party member as an extremely ignorant person—still
referring to what is now called "Climate Change" as "Global Warming". They do not believe
"Climate Change" in the armageddon sense exists. They say the argument is "It snowed last year."
Anyone who would say this is a fucking moron or doing it on purpose.
The Conservative claim is: Climate Change has always existed for millions of years in a cycle. It
will get hot, cold, and repeat. They will bring up NASA research studies showing that the global
temperatures have in fact been cooling since the 70's,
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:20 No.1737090
and tie what they call the "Global Warming Hoax" to scams made to scare people into buying and
investing into such things as electric cars and the government into giving money to eco companies
such as Solyndra (Half billion of taxpayer money given, calls bankruptcy) and developing tax
holes for said eco companies.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:24 No.1737095
>>1737089
>still referring to what is now called "Climate Change" as "Global Warming".
The newspeak is strong in this one.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2003/mar/04/usnews.climatechange
...leading Republican consultant Frank Luntz concedes the party has "lost the environmental
communications battle" and urges its politicians to encourage the public in the view that there
is no scientific consensus on the dangers of greenhouse gases.
...
"Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the
debate."
The phrase "global warming" should be abandoned in favour of "climate change", Mr Luntz says, and
the party should describe its policies as "conservationist" instead of "environmentalist",
because "most people" think environmentalists are "extremists" who indulge in "some pretty
bizarre behaviour... that turns off many voters".
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:28 No.1737099
>>1737089
>>1737090
Damn, that's a pretty high talking-point-to-word ratio right there.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:32 No.1737104
>>1737095
And what difference does this article make?
Unless this flash is from 2002, my point stands that whichever chucklefuck made this video is for
some reason still using the term "Global Warming" over "Climate Change"
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)01:34 No.1737107
>>1737104
>Unless this flash is from 2002, my point stands that whichever chucklefuck made this video is
for some reason still using the term "Global Warming" over "Climate Change"
So you're insulting someone for *not* replacing the commonly used, accurate term with the
deliberately obfuscating right-wing propaganda term?
If bowing down to the gods of right-wing newspeak is a prereq for arguing with you, I think I'll
pass.
>> [_] Anonymous 08/06/12(Mon)02:35 No.1737148
It's too long.
The comments are too long, the animation is too long.
There's no "position". There's basically people who do things and people who don't, and all
politics boils down to people talking.
Seriously. I just tried to find out how life is different for people in china financially. I
found dozens of pages full of jargon...each concept has a hundred concepts behind it. I watched
an hour long video by a communist academic who suggested we take lessons from walmart, and then I
watched a video by someone who was angry that wal-mart was too capitalistic. People study this
stuff for years and no one knows what the fuck they're talking about. Fuck studying...people even
run shit for years and have no clue how it works. Its just systems of nature transmuted onto
symbols. It's like trying to predict the weather 20 years from now. I'm not worrying about
anything for a second and I'm done ever listening to economists or politicians.
