Racism and projects that attempt to offset the affects of discrimination/racism.....there's a lot of ways to look at it. I can only speak to my viewpoint on it, and that's as a white male who is currently unemployed.

In my local area the majority of the population is made up of white and blacks, a few Indians, very few Mexicans that only seem to be around in the summer months, and a smattering of other races...but the vast majority are whites and blacks. According to the census it's about 50% white and 40% black of total population. And for every 100 females there's about 90-94 men....so a few more women than men.

And one would think that if you walked into a government facility such as the unemployment compensation department housed in the same place they handle food stamps and other welfare programs that you would see the population reflected in their employees. However I noticed that at least 70% of the people I saw working there were female, and the largest represented race there were blacks making up probably 6-7 out of every 10 people I saw who seemed to work there.

Now this is in a time when there are A LOT of people looking for jobs and the government programs are being flooded by the sheer amount of people using the services. I would have taken a job there, even though it looked like a pretty hectic place to work. They hired 3-4 times last year and I never saw any noticeable change in the sex and race of the people employed there.

And they were still overburdened, making mistakes......not calling back...and generally just bungling everything I had to turn into them for unemployment and the extensions. So it's not like they were getting high quality personnel by hiring the people they did. I can only conclude they did this because of a quota in the overall government or because the people in charge of hiring showed preference. How do you prove something like that? If the job were something more like what I'd like to do, I might have cared enough to ask them.

But it made me question at what point does giving non-whites a leg up start to become discrimination against whites?

It also made me wonder why we can't have any "whites only" programs, when there are plenty of programs for blacks only? Some of them even receive government funding.

If anyone needs more help to get a job or more help to get into college, there should be organizations to help with that....non-discriminatory in nature. If you are close, but not quite there..whether it be financially or education based you should be able to receive help. Then they could go back to admitting/hiring the best person they can get for the money, and then if the non-discriminating organization sees that there's bias ...they have some authority to speak from. Where as a black-only program doesn't know if bias is taking place because they are biased themselves.

I still remember all the black only clubs they had at college. I think there were even some Indian only clubs....which they probably wouldn't have let in my US born Indian friend because Indians born in India didn't like US born Indians....the TAs who were mostly India in the tech fields of study would barely talk to him.

Basically, if you're white........it's OK if you don't get a group of your own. You'd automatically be a racist if you even asked to have a white only club, because you'd know it'd be people bitching about the double standard......which would basically be bitching about other races.

If only more people understood that Fox is not "news."

>> ^Lithic:

Oh my god! The double-standard is so staggeringly stupidly sickening I just want to punch them.

Oh my god! The double-standard is so staggeringly stupidly sickening I just want to punch them.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

Fact is that the federal government doesn't need 4+ TRILLION dollars to perform its constitutionally mandated functions. It takes that money to do a lot of unnecessary crap that buys votes (particularly union votes). The government could easily be trimmed back to a lean 1 trillion dollars by divesting itself of foolish entanglements in social experimentation and other welfare entitlements.
The states that are facing fiscal collapse (New York, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Illinois, California, et al) are almost UNIVERSALLY states that been controlled by decades of left-wing liberal "tax & spend" nanny state philosophy. The Chris Christies and Walkers of the nation were voted in to clean up the mess. To put it plainly, people got tired of dealing with children-liars who promise the world while brooming problems onto the next generation - and so they hired some grown-ups.
The kid in this vid doesn't come off as 'destroying' anything except his own credibility. It's an open display of a person who is not a critical thinker, and who has little or no understanding of economics, or civics.


Oh please, red and blue states are hurting across the board. Speaking for my own state (very red) we're hurting financially too and it's the same nonsense, give tax breaks away like candy to the people and companies who don't need them while at the same time, punishing the needy. We've gone through this shit before and it just doesn't work!

By your same logic, your top earners don't NEED all that extra money their tax breaks and bonuses net them. If you've got such moral outrage for the public sector "supposedly" having too much money, then where is the moral outrage for the private for having way more than they need when you're a top earner. Double standard much?

I totally agree that cuts need to happen, but they need to start at the top where it's fattest, not the bottom where it's already lean.

Why do you think these problems would go away without a state? Why should I believe that violence, theft, guns and oppression wouldn't be much worse under your system?

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
What violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit am I pushing? That I want to be left alone? That I don't want you voting to steal money from me? That I don't want you voting to have men with guns aggress against me for victimless crimes?

The alternative is leave me alone. Don't vote my rights away. How's that for a realistic, intelligent alternative?

In your bullshit system I can't be libertarian. In a free society where people are left alone, you can be whatever you want as long as you can find other people to voluntarily join your collective.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

What violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit am I pushing? That I want to be left alone? That I don't want you voting to steal money from me? That I don't want you voting to have men with guns aggress against me for victimless crimes?

The alternative is leave me alone. Don't vote my rights away. How's that for a realistic, intelligent alternative?

In your bullshit system I can't be libertarian. In a free society where people are left alone, you can be whatever you want as long as you can find other people to voluntarily join your collective.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

But your violent, tyrannical, one-size-fits-all, groupthink bullshit is OK? Why this double standard?

Democracy is flawed, but until you can provide a realistic, intelligent alternative, it's the best we've got.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I'm fine if people want to VOLUNTARILY join groups or collectives. That's great. My problem is when people want to push their group think bullshit on the rest of us. Slavery was the majority of white people voting away the rights of the minority, and that's exactly what democracy will always be.

. Your system encourages violence and tyranny through policy: family first, drug wars, wars, etc. I think it's fine for someone to be racist and a bigot, as long as he doesn't force it onto me. But in this silly statist system I haven't a choice and neither do people affected by bad democratically voted policies.

Democracy is dangerous. It's outdated. It needs to slowly be phased out completely.

In reply to this comment by dystopianfuturetoday:
Do you realize how nonsensical it is that you belong to a group that is anti-group? Why should your anti-collective collective be exempt from its own principles? Life is a balance between the individual and the group. Individuals cannot survive without collectives and collectives cannot survive without individuals. You are pitting ying against yang.

Despite what your identity politics leads you to believe about yourself, you are a part of many collectives: libertarianism, anarchism, capitalism, anarcho capitalism, free marketism, conservatism, videosift, facebook, Free Talk Live, NAMBLA, Ron Paul fan club, the company you work for, Los Angeles, California, America, North America, Earth, the human race, your university, high school, middle school and primary school, your family, your circle of friends, the production crew for your film.....

You dirty collectivist pig!

The reason wealthy and powerful people push this kind of thinking is that individuals are much easier to control than groups. Individuals with wealth and power have little trouble subjugating other weaker, less powerful individuals, but when those individuals organize, they stand a fighting chance.

You should be wary of any ideology that defines itself as the official ideology of individualism, liberty, freedom or objectivity. Ideology should be about ideas, not platitudes.

The double standard is wonderful. Let the King swing his dick around his castle. Whatever.

In reply to this comment by dag:
I don't think a barely discernable cartoon penis needs to be changed.

Your next move of course is to change your own avatar to something even more borderline offensive in order to provoke a reaction from us admins. You will cite precedence, favoritism and other nincompoop utterings. I've seen this movie and I don't like how it ends. Count me out of your trollfest.



In reply to this comment by thinker247:
I find gwiz's new avatar offensive. Can you please ask him to change it?

I don't know, call me closed-minded... republicans ... scapegoat even the smallest and most disadvantaged portions of the population, who are caught in lies daily, including the bald-faced double-standard that allows their consciences to somehow use the apparently communist system of roads to get them to work every day, not to mention cut their paychecks; To simply compare their political strategy to that of the famously espoused Joseph Goebbels quote doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me at all...

OK - you're closed minded. Hey - you asked.

Just to make sure what you are saying is perfectly clear... It is unfair when conservatives call liberals 'socialists' as a label to describe left-leaning philosophies that call for expanding government taxation, regulation, and controls. However, it is NOT unfair to call conservatives 'nazis' as a label to describe right-leaning philosophies that call for reduced government taxation, regulation, and controls.

Just wanting to make sure the double-standard is plainly understood.

An actual true compromise? More power to them!

I've always liked Ron Paul for his foreign policy ideas, but he's just a bit TOO libertarian for me. I thought his ideas about going back to the gold standard border on lunacy. Paul's notion of free market running health care with little regulation is nuts too, Government provides excellent health care for veterans, so this notion that gov't fucks up everything it touches is bull. Nader could help balance that out maybe. This double standard between public and private sector needs to end. If gov't is incompetent, it's only because gov't is not allowed to offer competitive pay and thus, talent goes elsewhere. But on the other hand, gov't needs people who want to work to make the system better. You can't work just for a paycheck, you have to want to make a difference.

A point... you also make one.

Godwin's is an easy road to travel; if this representative had the whole day with a room full of brilliant writers, he'd be Jon Stewart. I bet this guy pulled out Godwin's to try to make his point, and then went off to work on something else.

>> ^Ryjkyj:

I don't know, call me closed-minded, but comparing democratically elected officials in a free nation full of positive benefits like roads, dams, parks, education, fire and police services, all sorts of assistance programs, school lunches, laws and the judicial system, the right to pursue happiness, all of which are funded by the American taxpayer (oh, and let's not forget that already includes emergency medical services which could be trimmed down immensely by just a little bit of preventative care)... comparing them to socialists just seems, I don't know, like a stretch?
But comparing republicans, who will readily scapegoat even the smallest and most disadvantaged portions of the population, who are caught in lies daily, including the bald-faced double-standard that allows their consciences to somehow use the apparently communist system of roads to get them to work every day, not to mention cut their paychecks; To simply compare their political strategy to that of the famously espoused Joseph Goebbels quote doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me at all. It seems, in fact, to be pretty fucking appropriate. I see no evidence to the contrary.

I don't know, call me closed-minded, but comparing democratically elected officials in a free nation full of positive benefits like roads, dams, parks, education, fire and police services, all sorts of assistance programs, school lunches, laws and the judicial system, the right to pursue happiness, all of which are funded by the American taxpayer (oh, and let's not forget that already includes emergency medical services which could be trimmed down immensely by just a little bit of preventative care)... comparing them to socialists just seems, I don't know, like a stretch?

But comparing republicans, who will readily scapegoat even the smallest and most disadvantaged portions of the population, who are caught in lies daily, including the bald-faced double-standard that allows their consciences to somehow use the apparently communist system of roads to get them to work every day, not to mention cut their paychecks; To simply compare their political strategy to that of the famously espoused Joseph Goebbels quote doesn't seem like much of a stretch to me at all. It seems, in fact, to be pretty fucking appropriate. I see no evidence to the contrary.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:

“What I think is different about things like what Angle and Bachmann said is that are incitement of violence”
This claim has been made several times and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond personal opinion and interpretation. Obama, Frank, Ried, Pelosi, Grayson, Franken, or other liberals make outrageous statements that imply violence on a routine basis.

This claim has been made several times, and I have yet to see any substance to it beyond the mere assertion of your conclusion.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Every major point here is based on interpretation and opinion. “I see… Big lie… Armed insurrection”… There is even a statement of agreement that Bachman DIDN’T mean it ‘that way’. But the comment is held to a different standard than Obama’s. HIS rhetoric is ‘not a lie’, ‘traditional electioneering’, and a ‘transparent metaphor’. Bachman bad; Obama good; Motivation – bias.

Stating your subjective view of my motivation isn't proof that my claims of objective qualitative differences are false.

This is another of my frustrations with the way you conduct yourself here. I'm trying to depersonalize this, and not question your motives, while still making the case that my viewpoint (which obviously differs from yours) is based on things that are supported by objective facts.

The burden of proof here is not entirely on me -- you're the one who provided the Obama quote as equivalent to Bachmann's. I think the strongest objection to it is the first one I listed, namely that it's out of context. How do we know whether Obama's meaning was "overwhelm the Republicans with volunteers and ads" and not literally "I want you to bring guns to kill Republicans with" without the context surrounding it?

My point here is that not all gun metaphors are created equal. "We're going to stick to our guns on health care" is pretty different from "If ballots don't work, bullets will".

Obama's quote was a tick more inciteful than the first, Bachmann's was only a couple ticks less inciteful than the latter. I'm saying the bounds of civil conversation lies inbetween.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I see… So – just to make this clear – calling Obamacare’s rationing a ‘death panel’ where Grandma takes a pain pill and gets end-of-life counseling instead of medicine (Obama said this) is over the top.

Yep. Part of your issue here is that you're not talking about anything in legislation, but something Obama said.

The other issue is, you're quoting him waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of context:

But what we can do is make sure that at least some of the waste that
exists in the system that's not making anybody's mom better, that is
loading up on additional tests or additional drugs that the evidence
shows is not necessarily going to improve care, that at least we can let
doctors know and your mom know that, you know what? Maybe this isn't
going to help. Maybe you're better off not having the surgery, but
taking the painkiller.

And those kinds of decisions between doctors and patients, and
making sure that our incentives are not preventing those good decision,
and that -- that doctors and hospitals all are aligned for patient care,
that's something we can achieve.

It takes removing the context to make what Obama said sound even remotely sinister. Even then, it's clear he's not saying "I reserve the right to compel doctors to pull the plug on your grandma if she doesn't meet my subjective standards on her value to society".

He's saying that we can pull the plug on paying doctors for performing treatments that have been shown to be medically ineffective, so that doctors don't have a monetary incentive to try to convince patients to undergo treatments they don't really need.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But Grayson saying the Republican plan of privatization (a system that worked for decades)

What Republican plan of privatization that worked for decades are you talking about? The employer-based insurance system that arose as an "unintended consequence" of FDR's wage controls? The one everyone was happy with, could afford, and never left anyone out?

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I’ll be honest. I see this as a classic example of distortion bias. “It’s fine when WE do it because we’re RIGHT, but not when THEY do it because they’re WRONG!”

You say "classic example of distortion bias" as if that's some named phenomena. What you mean to say is that it's a double standard.

But see, you're just asserting that, not making a case for it.

I mention Grayson as an outlier. He's unusually inflammatory for a Democrat, and even what he said wasn't particularly inciteful. He didn't say "Republicans are coming to kill you" the way the right often says of Democrats, he merely said "Republicans will leave you for dead."

That's pushing it in my view, but not because I think it runs the risk of sounding like an endorsement of violence against Republicans, but because it's an exaggeration that I think stretches the truth a bit too much.

I say stretch, because Republicans never put together a fully formed plan of their own, and a lot of the rhetoric was based on the idea that there is no need to address the issue of people not being able to afford medical care.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Second, when have Democrats accused Republicans of starving people?
1990s Contract With America. Democrats accused Newt Gingrich and the GOP congress of starving children because they wanted to make cuts in education that would have had some impact on school lunch programs.

Good on them then.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Similarly in 2010, Alan Grayson accused the GOP of starving children and women, and selling people into slavery for black market organs because they wanted to stop the fourth extension of unemployment.

I demand a source on this one. It's gotta be sifted here as a YouTube clip if that's accurate.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
But this is a great teaching moment. This is the origin of your bias. You – Netrunner – AGREE with Grayson. So when he says, “GOP is starving children”, you don’t have a problem with it. You agree with him - so when Grayson is incendiary and egregious in his rhetoric you give it a pass as ‘electioneering’ or ‘metaphor’ or a ‘joke’.

Actually no. Here's an alternative hypothesis: When someone says "So and so is murdering babies", I think it's inciteful. I don't think it's a joke, I don't think it's a metaphor, and I think you better back up your claim.

If you can't, I think you've done something wrong by saying it.

If you can, I think you've probably done something good.

"Cap and trade will be the end of freedom as we know it." Can't be backed up.

"The Republican health care plan is: 'Don't get sick, and if you do get sick, die quickly." This one's debatable for the reasons I said above. But I think that the accuracy of the statement has a lot to do with whether that comment was okay or not. This one's at the edge, either way.

"George W. Bush ordered the torture of Guantanamo detainees" is true, by his own admission.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I can see both sides of the debate. I disagree with liberals, but I can mentally grasp their OPINION (even if I reject it) that the conservative method (smaller government, private solutions) ‘takes away’ from social programs. So when liberals get vociferous, I am willing to cut them a little slack.

I don't think you understand the liberal side of arguments at all. I also don't think you are willing to actually engage in any sort of reasonable discussion about their criticism of the right, either. For example:

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
Here I personally went one click further and suggested that perhaps this is an intentional strategy to rile up the crazies, so they'll physically intimidate liberals.
So – is leftist rhetoric intentionally done to rile up the crazies so they’d physically intimidate conservatives? You know – stuff like the threats against Ann Coulter that caused a college speech to be cancelled. Or when a liberal man bit off a guy’s finger because he disagreed about healthcare. Or when liberal Amy Bishop killed her co-workers. Liberal Joseph Stack flew a plane into the IRS. Liberals destroyed radio towers in Seattle. Liberals torched Hummer dealerships. Liberals beat up a conservative black man at a Tea Party. A liberal brought bombs to an RNC meeting. Liberals attacked police in Berkley. Liberals threw rocks at animal researchers. Liberals stood outside polling stations with nightsticks. A liberal shot up the Discovery Channel. A liberal said, “You’re dead!” to a Tea party leader. Liberals made death-threats against Palin. Liberals made death threats & assassination movies about Bush. A liberal shot up the war memorial. And let us not overlook the fact that Loughner is a 9/11 truther and that the left is the source for that particular 'rhetoric'.

Litanies like this make it pretty clear that you're you're not interested in examining your own prejudices about liberals.

In case that all by itself wasn't enough:
>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
OK – I’ll take one glove off here. I have not accused you of making crap up, and you aren’t providing sourcing either.
[snip]
[Y]ou can find the sources for ALL the examples of liberal violence I listed above. I’ve got the links for EVERY one of them and dozens more, but I don’t go around assuming you're an intellectual cripple that can't find them. Nor do I want to play dueling link banjos here. I extend the courtesy in an online discussion of not forcing the other guy to cite every freaking thing they say because 99 times in 100 the source just gets attacked and ignored anyway.

So what do you think you've done with the combination of these paragraphs?

I see someone essentially saying "I'm right, you're evil, and nothing you say will convince me otherwise".

That's not winning an argument, that's refusing to present one because you're so prejudiced you don't think you need to when dealing with people like me.

>> ^Winstonfield_Pennypacker:
I typically don’t jump in a thread until intolerant liberal rhetoric has already reared its ugly face. Liberal intolerance is there before I say a single word. So I don’t care a fig about the leftist vitriol I get, because it is generally only a continuance of the intolerance that was there before I showed up. They don't hate 'me'. They hate the fact that I have dared to hold a mirror up on own intolerance. What they really want to be doing is feeling self-righteous as they spew intolerance at things they hate. Ol' Winstonfield popping up and spoiling the fun wasn't in their plan, and they react badly. Boo hoo.
But you are specifically accusing ME of being vitriolic. I stridently reject that position. I do no more than calmly, fairly, and accurately present an opposing point of view. I may do it sarcastically. I may point out hypocrisy. But I attack philosophies and public figures – not Sifters. Therefore the personal vitriol against myself is unwarranted and unjustified. I bring no vitriol or intolerance to the table here. The only vitriol and intolerance that exists is directed towards me.


To be frank, you're delusional about why people get mad at you. People would respond differently if you tried to actually make an argument for what you believe, instead of just telling people they're wrong and/or evil, that it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, and there's no point in trying to deny it. You just did that to me here with your litany of supposed liberal crimes against humanity, with the follow-up that sources don't matter because any questioning of the veracity of your sources is proof of the dread liberal bias.

Another example: I gave 4 different reasons why I think the Bachmann and Obama quotes aren't equal. 4 distinct reasons that could all be examined and definitively addressed without making this about me personally. Instead you chose to ignore them, and accuse me of using a double standard.

If you want to show that I am engaged in a double standard, you need to make that case. You need me to define exactly what my standard is, and then show that I'm inconsistently applying it. To prove an overall bias, you need many examples where I've done so. You didn't even try to do any of that. You just leveled it as a personal attack.

My sense is that you don't know (or don't care) about the way legitimate arguments get made. Think Geometry proofs, or science papers. Do they just say "The sum of the internal angles of a triangle always add up to 180 degrees, and anyone who disagrees with me is just doing so because they hate mathematicians!" or do they lay out a proof that clearly states the assumptions and the deductive steps they followed to reach their conclusion?

The topic of what rhetoric is worthy of condemnation is going to be a little more slippery, but it's not impossible to have a civil discussion about what the important factors are in deciding whether a comment is appropriate or not.

>> ^TangledThorns:

Name calling is the best you can do? Ladies & gentleman, we have your typical Obama supporter!



Boys and girls! The typical double-standard and feigned innocence of someone ignorant enough to believe that Sarah Palin is anything more than a communications major/mouthpiece who looks good on camera:



“Can’t wait to vote this moron out of office in 2012!”

“Greyson is a fool.”

“The way this fool is running the country into the ground I expect a President Sarah Palin to save us from his huge mistakes.”

“Sarah & Todd Palin should write ten tips to David Letterman on how not to be a cheating douche bag of a husband.”

“Maher needs his notes again. I love it when he has conservatives on his panel, they always show how much of an idiot and his liberal audience is.”


“This guy is an idiot.”



Say what you want about Obama but to attack his speech-giving ability is pretty weak. Everyone makes mistakes but he's easily one of the best of the last few decades. At least his speeches don't come to a screeching halt when he sweats the talking points off of his palms. Besides, he's just trying to put food on his family.

These are the discussions that really need to be tackled in America

-election reform. Politicians seem to be in a perpetual cycle where instead of governing, they are campaigning for the next election. Elections should be publicly funded. In the internet age, why do we need commercials, lawn signs and billboards?? Give each candidate a website that they can put whatever info they want on it...DONE

-economics. Put it to bed that trickle down economics does not work, or at the very least is vastly inefficient.

-public vs private. This notion that gov't and/or taxes are evil. I don't give a shit about small government. Gov't will always be changing in size because the public demands it. It's a moot argument. I want efficient Gov't. Of course there is gov't waste and greed. But every organization, public and private has this problem and I don't care for the double standard. In either case, the waste and the greed usually starts at the top, not the bottom. Yet the bottom usually is told that they have to sacrifice the most when cuts are made.

-corporations are NOT people.