Republicans == Loudmouth morons....

Potential.
Historically; freedoms, rights, and opportunities, both economic and social.
Until recently, governmental system.
Wealth (per capita).
Military might (although I accept the argument that this is more often a net loss, not a net gain).

Yes, it swings both ways, as you also have the freedom to be as terrible as you like, to hate as irrationally as you like, to be as ignorant and dumb as you like, to be as spiteful and self serving as you like. Before we allowed our system to be purchased by the deepest pockets for purely personal gains of the powerful few with Citizens United, our system was well designed to serve the people, which while imperfect was still better than almost all others. There is still the possibility, however slight, that that democracy killing decision can be remedied with an amendment and we can get back on the right track. Most other systems are lacking in such self correction.

I'm not claiming perfection, far from it, but our overall potential outweighs any other nation's (at least it used to). Yes, we have bigots, but less than many nations by far. Some countries still allow murder of improper worshippers or don't allow certain races to become citizens.
Yes, we have more than our share of loudmouth ignorant morons, but there are other nations that beat us there too. We (as a whole) don't believe aids comes from homosexuals eating each other's poop, for instance, or that women's brains are 1/2 the size of men's. The opportunities for educational advancements are better here than most countries, but not all I admit, and far too many don't avail themselves of said opportunities, granted.
Yes, we have poor people, but fewer per capita than many if not most others, and the opportunity for ethical advancement both financial and social are still good, but admittedly that's changing.
Equality under the law, while far from perfection in that respect, we are (or were) still moving in the right direction.

We have a long hard Sisyphusian slog towards perfection, but overall, historically, we have been crawling towards justice more than away.

That said, New Zealand has been nipping at our heels for a while, and arguments could be made that they presently are ahead in all meaningful ways besides size and weather.

IF Bill Burr delivered these they the whole room would laughing their busts off.

The upper crust of New Your just can't stand being beat by an uncouth loudmouth.

You can just not vote then because it wont change anything.

I just dont get how some of you Americans are so afraid of Trump. Yeah, hes a loudmouth, but thats about it. He talks a lot of crap, but a lot is lied about or blown up by the media. He didnt show yet what he can do. Hillary on the other hand has shown very well what kind of sick despicable stuff she does and how much she cares about it getting public: She just lies more and puts up her creepy disconnected grin when confronted with it.

I think it shows perfectly whats wrong with the USA. Words mean more to you than actions. Fits perfectly into the Americans hypocrite stereotype. You have been lied to so much that you adapted it yourselves and thus hiding behind political correctness gives some kind of protection from the truth that has been going on for decades, not only in your own country, but especially the shit you did in other countries, killing millions of people, causing the mess we are in today. And here comes a guy who doesnt give a shit about it and just speaks his mind. Must be scary for a lot of people, who have been lying to themselves and others for their whole lives, I guess.

I don't want to defend Gordon Ramsay, but describing him as a sweary loudmouth who owes his stature to reality TV is a bit of a stretch when he's got 15 odd Michelin stars and is a world renowned chef separate to any TV work he does.

In your scenario, he has an emphatic yes, yes, yes, I want to drink tea with you, he has done his due diligence.

Until we get less crazy around sex in this Puritan country, and even after, there will be mentally disturbed people who say yes and then say no.

But here's something you probably don't know. Women are conditioned to be polite. They are conditioned to be nice. They say no while smiling, and that is a definite mixed message. As someone "joked" already on this comment stream, what about the women who say no but really mean yes?

All the stuff in the prior paragraph is NOT CONSENT to drink tea.

So yeah, it sucks eggs large that there are women out there who don't take responsibility for their own choices, and for whatever fucked up reason, change their mind later.

But those are the minority, dear Scud.

The majority are women who smiling say no and don't speak up while, in their minds, they are having tea forced upon them. Or who go paralyzed and are silent. That happens. That happens a crushingly high number of times in this world.

Here's a true story, to give you a peek into how screwed up we train our young women to be. I heard this in a self defense class. A young woman was held in a dorm room for two days, having tea forced on her repeatedly. She could hear people walking in the hallway, who could have come to her aid. Why didn't she yell out? If she could hear them, then they could hear her. The guy didn't have weapon, just the threat of physical force. So why didn't she yell out for help?

She didn't want to make a scene.

Isn't that awful? Isn't that crappy?

We tell our girls to be nice and pleasant. And the message gets perverted, yeah?

The plus side is she got herself to a really good self defense class that taught her to speak up and make a scene and gave her some physical skills to deal with any tea forcing behavior. It won't be happening to her again.

But I'm telling you, dear Scud. This nice pleasant woman, if she had been asked, would have said no, no thank, I don't want any tea. If she was asked. And you don't know if you have a meek person or a loudmouth like me. So you need to ask. And ask again. And make it fun while you ask, because it is sexy as hell to say yes, please, more tea. Give me more tea. Put that tea right there.

right. and what tries to stop corporations...or anything for that matter from encroaching on our civil liberties too much? Gov't.

What stops gov't from doing the same? People. People have a pretty good track record of stopping gov't that goes too far armed or not. Are people generally slow to react? sure...but they do eventually react to injustices. If gov't really did not rule by the consent of the governed, there would be heaps more unrest, There would be actual revolts happening on a semi frequent basis instead of just people threatening to revolt/secede for the sake of drama.

The problem is, we have a non-insignificant number of people who seem to honestly think corps should run everything, or at the very least, there should be little to no regulation. Like I said, right now, it's chaotic because we have far too many people who all want different things. Over time, we're going to see what works and what doesn't and things will generally settle down. bad ideas do eventually get thrown out and good ideas get implemented instead. Part of the problem is that we are in the middle of big technological changes that radically change how we live compared to even just 100 years ago. Again...chaos ensues when new things come up and it just takes time for people to figure it out, adapt, and accept change.

Honestly though, no one has yet to successfully explain how society without gov't...or amoral corporations works. who distinguishes between the amoral corps and the good ones? are there good corps in a non-statist view? if there are...then don't there have to be good gov'ts out there too? Or are we back to the viewpoint of all gov'ts are bad...but some corps are good...I don't see how you can objectively make that distinction. How do you prevent stuff from just devolving into "might makes right" no one seems to be able to answer that one. I think the human race as a whole has collectively decided that rule by force is not preferred. There are just too many people that would take advantage of and screw over other people. or are you honestly advocating a kill or be killed situation here? Again, I think people have decided as a whole that they don't want that.

There's just too much subjective viewpoints instead of objective ones.

I'm sorry, but you've got one heck of an uphill battle trying to convince people that gov't is inherently bad. Sure you've got a lot of loudmouths making a lot of noise about how they think gov't is corrupt, but that's a far cry from actually abandoning gov't. Lots of people bitch about gov't, but don't actually see a lot of people escaping it. We see it every election cycle "if so and so wins, I'm leaving the country" yet they never do.

regardless of what side of the aisle you sit on, for all the bluster and rhetoric most people would rather have gov't run by the party they don't like than have no gov't at all.

I'm annoyed by the word, because the loudmouth-femmenists have taken over with all the "Femme First" and all that bullshit.

Judge people on their merits; hiring people should have nothing to do with their sex, just their skills.

Joking is in many areas oppressive of men in politically correct places like Codes of Conduct. No one thinks to put in "don't make jokes about men's something or other" because men in general don't really care; there are however often things protecting women - which in my mind displays a lack of understanding on the organizers part, because they need to protect women from the big bad guys out there; their white armor polished and trusted steed standing ready.

Women can by and large take care of themselves just like guys can. Just like white people can and black people can.

Hate to break this to you but @shatterdrose seems to have read his Marx while you seem to have watched too much FOX.

A 'Government' WILL ALWAYS EXIST in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY and WILL CONSIST OF THE POWERFUL (in modern parlance read: WEALTHY). This is true of towns in deep Africa, or nations, or in the future- planets of billions.

The idea that government is, of itself, fundamentally corrupt, or has any other predefining characteristic is a point of PHILOSOPHY and NOT THE ONE YOU ARE PUSHING.

The government is REPRESENTATIVES OF THE GOVERNED NEGOTIATING WITH THE POWERFUL.

The elimination of private property is an extreme reaction predicted by Marx and others AS A RESPONSE TO THE EVER INCREASING SHARE GOING TO THE OFFSPRING OF THE WEALTHY.

In theory, chinless entitled inheritees push the situation so much the people turn to violence to reset the system. As a comic side note, this has happened regularly and bloodily in EVERY HUMAN SOCIETY WE HAVE A RECORD OF including the relatively comfortable European countries shortly before they gave birth to the US. (In fact the Puritans on the Mayflower executed the English King for corruption and briefly ruled but upon taking power banned parties, christmas presents, janet jacksons nipples etc and were rapidly kicked out with the monarchy reinstated..)

The modern social philosophers were contemplating how to avoid repeating history over and over. And by modern I mean the 195 year old man whose ideas you are publicly struggling with.

The size of government is IRRELEVANT. Its success or failure in negotiating on your behalf with THE POWERFUL WHO OWN YOU is all you should be concerned with.

Either you are a smart young Rockerfeller-Rothschild type playing clever PR, or the sort of loudmouth whose narcissism and stupidity has sold his family into neo-feudal servitude. Either way you should really shut up.

Yes and no. But I have to get rid of your loaded terms and misleading juxtapositions. First, nobody here is a murderer. They are at war with Israel, and they killed people on the other side, just as Israel does to Palestinians.

Second, the guy clamouring to see bodies is a broadcaster. This means he is not one of the killers himself. It also means he's a paid propagandist, maybe some loudmouth like Keith Olbermann or Glenn Beck.

Third. That's not even "the cause". The cause is Palestinian freedom, and part of that includes killing Israelis because they are the enemy of Palestine. If the celebrate the deaths, that has nothing to do with the cause itself.

The only difference you're showing me between Israel and Palestine is that Palestinians publicly celebrate the deaths of their enemies while Israel is more Western, so they don't. That's not enough of a distinction to claim that their cause of freedom isn't noble, so don't conflate the two.

That's the "No" part. The "Yes" part is, the cause, which is their own freedom, is a noble cause.

There. I've actually answered your questions. You've avoided answering mine by asking misleading questions.

Here are my questions (some repeated):

1. Which part of, "Palestinians in Gaza are the prisoners of Israel, and Hamas is fighting against Israel because Israel has taken away the freedom of Palestinians in Gaza," do you disagree with?

2. Do you think that Hamas would continue fighting Israel if Palestine returned to its 1946 borders?

3. Do you think Hamas would stop fighting if all Israelis in the world were killed, but some other country kept Palestinians confined in Gaza and continued the embargo?

4. Are there any rules against celebrating after killing your enemy?

5. Is killing someone worse than celebrating the killing?

Answer my questions straight without dodging.

Yes, Canadian loudmouth assholes exist, and they're visiting China for some reason.
*shrug*
Maybe they'll keep him.

>> ^hpqp:

Loudmouth vulgar-boy here has no idea about politics, especially American politics. Does this twerp even watch the news? Heck, I'm not from the states either but all it takes is watching TDS (the only reliable news source, ironically) to understand Obama's not all-powerful, and shit's a tad more complicated than "balance the budget".
And telling people not to pay the bills, yeah, very sound advice (even though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's being sarcastic).


I think it's meant to be taken semi-sarcastically.

More importantly, I don't think we ought to be defending politicians who don't do their jobs.

>> ^hpqp:

I said it before and I'll say it again:
>> ^hpqp:
Loudmouth vulgar-boy here has no idea about politics, especially American politics. Does this twerp even watch the news? Heck, I'm not from the states either but all it takes is watching TDS (the only reliable news source, ironically) to understand Obama's not all-powerful, and shit's a tad more complicated than "balance the budget".
And telling people not to pay the bills, yeah, very sound advice (even though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's being sarcastic).



Yes I totally agree with you here. Anyone who thinks the president is actually in ultimate control and can just yes or no things doesn't really have a clue. However, his rant for me was hilariously put

<edit> I think it was fairly clear he was being sarcastic about paying the bills. Just pointing out that we're expected to pay ours so shouldn't it be the same the other way round?

I said it before and I'll say it again:
>> ^hpqp:

Loudmouth vulgar-boy here has no idea about politics, especially American politics. Does this twerp even watch the news? Heck, I'm not from the states either but all it takes is watching TDS (the only reliable news source, ironically) to understand Obama's not all-powerful, and shit's a tad more complicated than "balance the budget".
And telling people not to pay the bills, yeah, very sound advice (even though I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and say he's being sarcastic).

Looks like Fox learned a few tricks from professional wrestling; put on a loudmouth, attract an audience. I'm assuming it's Fox anyway, don't want to watch that a second time