File: Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier.swf-(9.98 MB, 320x200, Other)
[_] Adding to the fire Anon 2363808 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2363814 >muh freedoms
>> [_] Anon 2363846 I appreciate this.
>> [_] Anon 2363892 >Strawman.swf
>> [_] Anon 2363894 How do you guys not realize that our freedoms are IN FACT being taken away?
>> [_] Anon 2363899 >># Would any Liberals like to have a conversation with an ACTUAL Tea Party Libertarian? The flash in question, being made by a liberal, made the Tea Partier into a bumbling idiot.
>> [_] Anon 2363915 >># >># no no guys keep going you're totally gonna change hearts and minds here in the fucking flash section of 4chan
>> [_] Anon 2363917 I have many refutation to this video. Firstly let me point out that I'm a Libertarian. This is not to be confused with a Republican as many who are unfamiliar with how politics (like the person who made this video) actually work. Let me also explain what the Tea Party is. The Tea Party is not Republican or Democratic but we are conservative. As this and our name Tea (Taxed Enough Already) suggest, we are sick and tired of the government wasting money on useless government polices and funding, illegal, unjust and useless wars. The Liberal media makes all people who associate with the Tea Party or any one who generally just disagrees with getting taxed only to have it spent uselessly as idiotic and bigoted retards. This is simply not the case. We only want our money to be put to good use. Libertarianism which was also poked fun at in this video even if not by name is something I would also like to discuss. Cont.
>> [_] Anon 2363920 >># Cont. Libertarians (also to not be confused with Liberals who actually want less freedom and want the masses to be reliant upon the government) are people who just want freedom. Nothing more, nothing less. Some of us may be Christian and not support gay marriage but we also realize that not everyone follows the same religious beliefs and it is unfair to deny them the right to marry. On top of that we want people to be able to choose how they live their lives in general and not have it be controlled by the government like it's beginning to be.
>> [_] Anon 2363922 >># Cont. Us Libertarians don't want to be reliant upon the government because whenever you look back on history you will see the corruptness in it especially in Socialist style governmental systems. When the entire country is reliant upon the government they can be easily manipulated and controlled which is wrong. It seems that more and more people are being convinced that the US has some sort of force field that protects it from corruption and abuse of power which simply isn't the case.
>> [_] Anon 2363925 >># I personally know tea party people. Or at least self-professed republicans that believe in the tea party's message. They are some of the most delusions and misinformed peopled I've encountered. This is coming from someone who has a political science background and can tell the difference between communism, socialism, and fascism. Watching the flash literally took me back to listening to these people discuss current events. That doesn't make the flash any less biased though.
>> [_] Anon 2363927 >># Tell me what you think of my wall of text as a Political Scientist. >># >># >>#
>> [_] Anon 2363948 >># >># >># I believe that you're a libertarian because who the fuck else would type all this shit in the comments to a flash file on 4chan lemme screencap this
>> [_] Anon 2363950 >># Uh... Well, I'll just say that I don't associate with a political party. I don't see how liberals are against freedom. It boggles my mind why anyone would think that, considering historical context. Lincoln was a republican. Back when republicans were the liberals. I also don't believe that government is restricting our lives and taking away our freedoms. If you think about how complex our country is (it takes thousands of people to run a single airport, for instance), it's not all that surprising why the government exists to regulate stuff. It's a give and take. The more power you give to the government, the more it can do. Too much and it will control you, ala 1984. But I don't see it happening right now. Government is horribly incompetent just by virtue of complexity and disagreement. Government jobs are terribly inefficient and wasteful. If anything, people are placated and controlled by their everyday lives: TV, internet, social networks, restaurants, etc.
>> [_] Anon 2363955 >># Also to add to that, you don't have a voice in the federal government. The college controls the presidency. Giant corporations lobby the representatives. Government is already corrupt but it's been that way for ages.
>> [_] Anon 2363958 >I thought the reason they put in that coverage was to [blah blah corporations] Well you're wrong, pink-pig, they're forcing you to pay for it and that's goddamn socialistic.
>> [_] Anon 2363962 >># >># Liberals like Barack Obama, Dianne Feinstein and basically every other senator in New York, California and various other cities and states have been wanting to strip us of our only defense against government tyranny. How is that not restricting freedom? Also who do you think controls things like the TV and internet. Politicians if you work your way up the chain. They've all got some sort of propaganda machine in their pocket whether Democrap or Republicunt. Yes I totally agree with you though otherwise, the government is terribly incompetent. If it isn't people who want control trying to strip me of my freedom then it's people who don't understand what in the hell they're talking about.
>> [_] Anon 2363964 >># >># Also About your last post. The entire voting system is fucked. The entire voting system gives us a false illusion of control. I think it's time for a change, for a more freer republic. Though I think a Confederacy would be better. (No I'm not a redneck, yes I do know what a Confederacy is.) Also doesn't anyone find it wrong that the only ones who don't have to abide by Obamacare are politicians and CEO's? If that isn't corruption then what is?
>> [_] Anon 2363966 >># and I went to a Catholic University where I was constantly surrounded and bombarded by Libtards who are some of the most delusional and misinformed people I've ever met. I seriously had people trying to convince me that humans have special "THC receptors" in their brains and that people's brains are not functioning at full capacity until they have smoked Pot. I also had people trying to convince me that the Bush Administration was, a Conspiracy by Global Elite Bankers to ruin the country and or the second coming of Hitler. I even had a professor threaten to have me Expelled when I turned in a presentation questioning the basis of the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory. Of course this doesn't prove that all Liberals are delusional, misinformed, extremists any more than your anecdotal experiences do.
>> [_] Anon 2363984 >># >># I don't believe that the constitution is the end-all political document. It is fabulously written by a group of very intelligent people. A long ass time ago. Time has moved on, so has the world. But our political system is still stuck in past. It's like that 1970's car you just don't wanna let go even though it runs like a tractor. Unfortunately, mine is not a very popular opinion. Anyway, this is more /pol/ territory. I'm sure they discuss this to death. >># I think it would help if you didn't call them 'libtards.' The only time I hear that word is when an equally ignorant person tells me why they hate them, how they're ruining the country, etc. My anecdotal experiences are just that. I only mentioned them because of how uncanny the entire conversation in the flash was, though I only listen and nod when I need to.
>> [_] Anon 2363988 >># The entire thread was more /pol/ territory but I'm not going to be a push over about it. It's important. Of course the Constitution isn't an omniscient perfect godly piece of paper but many of the ideas still stand today. I'll simmer this conversation though because you're right. This is not a politics board. I just find it pathetic how us, just because we appreciate freedom and don't agree with the government are given such a bad rap by Liberals who can't bother to do some research.
>> [_] Anon 2363993 >># Modern liberalism is the opposite of freedom. Modern liberalism ideals include a very powerful central government that controls various aspects of life, usually under the message that the government knows what's best for you and some other utilitarian ideals. However this restricts personal freedom as well the individual's various rights, not to mention it muddles the smaller sections of government so that your individual voice will never make it up the grapevine to the federal government.
>> [_] Anon 2363996 >># hings like socialized/subsidized heathcare, out of control welfare, and small business regulation (while the larger businesses are free to sleep with the administrations and lobby the lawmakers) destroy individualism and make everybody just a number in a giant central government, not to mention it drains on the economy and brings wages down (unless of course they're artificially kept up by minimum wage laws, but those won't last forever). It's funny, classical liberalism is what libertarianism is now today, and modern liberalism is nothing like older liberalism.
>> [_] Anon 2364000 >># >I don't believe that the constitution is the end-all political document. > Unfortunately, mine is not a very popular opinion. No fucking shit it's not a popular opinion. The Constitution is LAW. It doesn't matter how long ago it was made, nor who it was made by, it was voted by a group of people representing their respective areas and was used as the basis of what our government is. Saying to get rid of the Constitution or to ignore it is to say throw out the government system we have as is.
>> [_] Anon 2364003 >># >># Dam straight. Minimum wage laws destroy small business which are the building blocks of local economies.

File: Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier.swf-(9.98 MB, 320x200, Other)
[_] HAHA I POSTED IT AGAIN Anon 2198257 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 2198263 /pol/ everybody.
>> [_] Anon 2198274 "pussy electric cars" My sides are gone.
>> [_] Anon 2198280 all i can think is "Geico Commercial?"
>> [_] Anon 2198299 notice the stupid tea partier is... a nigger
>> [_] Anon 2198306 Tea paety is Taxed Enough Already to be fundamental....
>> [_] Anon 2198384 Why do they each have on big fucking eye?
>> [_] Anon 2198416 yay strawmen! You're the winner OP!
>> [_] sage sage 2198426 sage goes in all fields

File: Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier.swf-(9.98 MB, Other)
[_] Anon 1795731 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 1795753 RAIDEN TURN OFF THE GAME CONSOLE RIGHT NOW
>> [_] Anon 1795868 wow i couldnt stop watching this
>> [_] Anon 1795879 This is what happens when you let retarded fucking obamaniggers get their hands on rendering tools. This is why we can't have nice things.
>> [_] Anon 1795883 3rd parties ftw
>> [_] Anon 1795895 >># Case in point. Here's a person who shouldn't be allowed to leave the house without adult supervision let alone vote.
>> [_] Anon 1795899 >># as if you're gonna vote. i bet you some kinda frenchy.
>> [_] Anon 1795903 You can't just use a strawman when talking about these people, it detracts from the point. There are plenty of actual documented quotes that would make this really have an impact.
>> [_] Anon 1795909 While the talking animals with the voice of fucking microsoft sam dilute the points a little bit, they remain the same. And those points are that the tea party is pants on head retarded.
>> [_] Anon 1795917 ITT: lotsa liberal fools addicted to social programs and "free" shit
>> [_] Anon 1795925 >># >># You guys still vote?
>> [_] Anon 1795928 >># >Hurr hurr I'm edgy and making a statement because I don't vote >Some men just want to watch the world burn
>> [_] Anon 1795930 >># ITP: Some fag implying he isn't impacted in some way, shape, fashion, or form by social programs.
>> [_] Anon 1795931 >># GB2 Freep you chunky honky.
>> [_] Anon 1796016 YOU ALL NIGGERS IN A POL THREAD

File: Hi, I'm a Tea-Partier.swf-(9.98 MB, Porn)
[_] [O] [L] Anon 1736902 Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 1736903 Oh boy another strawman argument thread spoken by cats written by a biased neckbeard
>> [_] Anon 1736914 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1736916 >># Right.. Right there.
>> [_] Anon 1736918 >># So...you just don't know what "strawman" means then? Got it.
>> [_] Anon 1736920 >># Tea Partiers are hypocritical scumbags, but that doesn't make this any less of a poorly constructed cat-themed strawman.
>> [_] Anon 1736923 >># >cat-themed strawman. Still can't help noticing the complete lack of specific examples of alleged strawman arguments ITT.
>> [_] Anon 1736983 >># http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man Read this and then write a three paragraph essay on how you're fucking retarded.
>> [_] Repost-chan 1736992 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 1736998 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737003 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737004 >># >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/Tn o32VejODI/AAAAAAAAAXI/dtWkYpVlKTs/s1600/t eabagger-%2B Impeach%2BMuslim%2BMarxist.jpg http://farm4.staticflickr.com/3555/34622 46191_6f68ffa6dc.jpg
>> [_] Anon 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-fin d-out-what-is-in-it-1e1dec.jpg lol, this
>> [_] Anon 1737007 >># >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?
>> [_] Anon 1737008 >># >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
>> [_] Anon 1737009 >># >http://assets.diylol.com/hfs/063/74d/a7 b/resized/queen-of-plastic-meme-generator- we-h >ave-to-pass-the-bill-so-that-you-can-fi nd-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...
>> [_] Anon 1737013 >># I thought we were displaying pictures of idiotic liberals and tea partiers, not trying to represent conservative or liberal positions
>> [_] Anon 1737014 >># http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-sZrht4tb4Vo/Tp Gt5TK_XQI/AAAAAAAAASU/VoyMZU_0OVk/s400/13 1792 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737016 >># Gary Johnson was polling at like 7% nationwide, I'm pretty sure the most any libertarian has gotten is like 1%
>> [_] Anon 1737017 >># 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
>> [_] Anon 1737018 >># what do you consider "the full implications of libertarian policy"?
>> [_] Anon 1737019 >># So you were just asserting without evidence that Nancy Pelosi is dumber than the two visibly retarded tea partiers I posted? >># So she's dumb because....?
>> [_] Anon 1737021 >># http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lby9P3ms1 1w 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737022 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 1737023 http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=I+am +the+99%25&view=detail&id=775345B4BFA81C4 85633B5E34E 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737024 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 1737025 >># 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
>> [_] Anon 1737026 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 1737027 >># >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"
>> [_] Anon 1737030 >># >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.
>> [_] >># 1737031 >># 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/Libertaria n_perspectives_on_intellectual_property
>> [_] Anon 1737032 >># >protesting when she has to deal with the consequences. Well at least you're not criticizing something you don't understand...
>> [_] Anon 1737033 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737034 >># 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
>> [_] Anon 1737037 >># God you're an idiot. Stop listening to Rush Limbaugh and learn how government actually works.
>> [_] Anon 1737038 >># 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
>> [_] Anon 1737039 >># Privatizing law enforcement? So basically replace police by mob protection? Yeah, brilliant.
>> [_] Anon 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. >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.
>> [_] Anon 1737041 >># 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 -partisan/post/pelosi-defends-her-infamou s-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.
>> [_] Anon 1737044 >># >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?
>> [_] Anon 1737045 >># 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_m ilitary_company
>> [_] Anon 1737046 >># The prison industry is subsidized by the government and given quotas.
>> [_] Anon 1737048 BOOORRRRRRING
>> [_] Anon 1737050 >># What the hell are you even on about? You object to conference committees now?
>> [_] >># 1737051 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737052 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 1737053 >># How's that relevant? Would they be *more* responsible if they didn't have to follow gov't regulations?
>> [_] Anon 1737054 >># >BOOORRRRRRING You're right. Someone go post Super Deepthroat for the 8,560,543rd time.
>> [_] Anon 1737055 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737057 It's like I'm really on /pol/
>> [_] Anon 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
>> [_] Anon 1737059 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737061 >># Nah, the liberals have mostly abandoned /pol/, and it's basically a stormfront echo chamber at this point.
>> [_] Anon 1737062 >># >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 1737068 >># lol as much as op is a dipshit i just went over there and .... damn
>> [_] Anon 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
>> [_] Anon 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
>> [_] Anon 1737089 >># 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,
>> [_] Anon 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.
>> [_] Anon 1737095 >># >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/20 03/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".
>> [_] Anon 1737099 >># >># Damn, that's a pretty high talking-point-to-word ratio right there.
>> [_] Anon 1737104 >># 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"
>> [_] Anon 1737107 >># >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.
>> [_] Anon 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.