The Glade 4.0

Do you actually have anything useful to say or did you just post simply to insult me? I actually gave you the information you wanted (the criteria I used) and that merits your insults. Interesting. More proof that you are not actually interested in what I had to say, and simply want to find something to ***** about.

This sentence constitutes a false dilemma. Since the possible spectrum of opposition includes both those more conservative and more liberal, as well as all other points not equal to the exact measure of "liberals" you've failed to provide, your argument means very little. Indeed, this catalog of supposed actions doesn't even constitute a serious criteria for measuring anything.Since you have failed to provide actual criteria at any point in this thread or post, could you kindly delineate them for me? I'm curious as to what metrics to determine each person's ideological placement in the political sphere, when it's obvious that you honestly don't know what a criterion is. If you could, please be complete, even verbose, in your explanation of each criterion in the subset you used to determine our various "leanings." After all, "not X" is amorphous enough to include an infinite number of values only slightly smaller than "infinite + 'not X'".Beyond containing an ad hominem, the assertion that Vindicarre's posts are nauseating, you still haven't provided a substantive measure of political placement. You are asserting that by some nebulous and hitherto undisclosed series of metrics that Vindicarre (and the other posters named including myself) are on "the right". But, as you haven't precisely defined either Left or Right as you wish to use them, and as you have not included any repeatable metrics to determine an individual's placement vis-a-vis the definitions you have not provided, I'm not sure your assertions are logically sound or even appropriate from the point of pure opinion. You have, as it stands, failed entirely to address the questions asked of you.Actually, this statement is only true if you continue to volley assertions without any logical or substantive reasoning behind them. So far, your definition of "the right" is simply all values "not equal to X" wherein X is represents whatever you mean by liberal.Actually, seeing as how this forum has on many occasions demonstrated the Republican Party to be well beyond the typical definitions of conservative and more left of center than right of center, at least relative to the notions of Conservatism held by Barry Goldwater and stated conservative parties in the United States, I would suggest your misprision greatly informs your attitude in this thread. That is to say, you have created a false dilemma inasmuch that anyone who does not toe the line you think is liberal must of necessity be "not liberal". And in your arguments and opinions, the only "not liberal" value possible is "conservative."

Or, if that was too long and you did not read it ...

Your definition of conservative includes all possible political beliefs and actions not synonymous with your own.

_________________

Khross will you accept Dimondeye's defintion as given here:

Okay because you are too busy trying to feel superior to others... and subjectively applying your judgement:


This has less to do with him as a politician (since I **** hate them all) and more to do with the fact that he has outright told people not to come to the town I live in, damaging MY local economy, and directly affecting my quality of life... I suppose that is not enough reason to hate a person... when they affect your livelihood through their actions?


so we ignore that I hate all politicians, so now it is a matter of insufficient support for the democratic party is enough?


Yes, my continued comments about how the leaders of unions should be held accountable for their actions (even made an example of) should be construed as me hating unions.


The constitution was written with the balance of power belonging to the individual states, not the federal government. That is obvious from reading the document.


The commerce clause is being abused, this is a fact. Arguments have been made several times showing where this is the case and you have "Nuh Uh" each time.


I have mentioned commentators I JUST started listening to recently I think twice. My comments at commentators otherwise has been limited to responding to something linked or posted on the board and is a stand alone reflection of what was said at that time. **** off.


My comments on affirmative action have been towards its "balancing" for only one group, and that it is racist in and of itself. Can we as white people utilize the affirmative action laws to ensure we are not unjustly looked over? If it does not protect the rights of all people, and elevates some or protects some through excluding others, then it is in fact racism. And in a time when we are supposed to be espousing equality... shouldn't we get rid of racism?



No... I do not follow people from thread to thread making snide comments. If you want I will start.

I appreciate that you decided to give "proof" of the condition you accuse us of having. But in response, you are a clown, you probably always have been a clown.

And since you have now set the precedent of wishing fellow gladers death: Eat a Bag of Die.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Actually the original criteria was Right vs. Left. In a binary operation there are only two options. If it ain't 1, its 0. Thats obviously a bit of an oversimplification since we're dealing with a continuum rather than a
binary operation. It still means there is a line that can be done on that metaphorical graph.

This comment specifically was not directed at you. (the post was, after all, a response to Vindicarre) -- you want me to cite the posts I'm referring to? They're fresh in my mind.

Neither right nor left is a meaningful criterion in this discussion, as you have failed to adequately explain what you mean by either. More to the point, since both right and left are directional qualifiers, any statement made using either indicates a relational argument relative to some point in a plane. And since the values of right or left include all values between 0 and 180 degrees (right) and 180 degrees and 360/0 (left) without including the poles, there's any infinite number of possibilities relative to that single point within the plane. It seems wholly inadequate to suggest that either represents a meaningful criterion for political valuation when you have not even agreed as to what constitutes the center.

Directional values are awesomely vague when you have an indeterminate point of origin.

_________________

LMFAO

At least you got some semblance of an "answer". All I got for my efforts was sucker punched.

_________________

Ezekiel 23:19-20 

^^
++

What are you laughing at?

_________________

I'm pro-gay rights, women's choice, anti-drug laws, anti-creationisim in schools, a huge detractor of gitmo, and of American adventures overseas. Probably other things I'm not thinking of as well...

What am I?

Oh yeah, union stuff... too lazy to type more stuff on that still. After I go back home.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

I'm going to go with 'opinionated individual'.

_________________

I like swords.

_________________


Grenade 3 Sports Drink. It's fire in the hole.. Your hole!

Heh, I don't have much to add to what critiques of your logic have already been made. It took six days to come up with that? It's sad that your understanding of where someone's beliefs put them in the political sphere don't take into account the fact that people are critical of the policies that are being proposed and enacted, rather, you focus on the people behind those policies. Rather than understanding that people dislike policies and action/inaction taken by politicians and pundits you see it as a popularity contest focused on "the people I like" and "those who don't like them".
As has been stated multiple times before your reasoning is absolutely faulty. Your methodology is to place people in two camps: "those that agree with me" and "everyone else". That's not surprising because, for you, it all boils down to:

"...I am quite correct and you're wrong, because it was MY SENTENCE TO BEGIN WITH."

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko

Welcome to Corneria!

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Opinions are like assholes.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

The thread in general. I feel like we've had this conversation before, lol.

It cracks me up how an off-the-cuff opinionated remark can snowball like this. One guy doesn't want to admit it was just an impression, others get so upset up over the impression that they start throwing out personal insults, and your post was discounting the very basis of the impression.

Rinse, repeat.

And then the State will appeal the injunction, and so on and so on. Then any shortfalls in budget can be blamed on the public sector unions and their greed.

_________________
A man who has nothing for which he is willing to fight, nothing which is more important than his own personal safety, is a miserable creature and has no chance of being free unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself. ~ John Stuart Mill

Yeah, not really an issue long, or even mid-term. It's not the constitutionality of the law that's being challenged, it's that there wasn't enough time given for the public to attend the vote.

_________________
"Dress cops up as soldiers, give them military equipment, train them in military tactics, tell them they’re fighting a ‘war,’ and the consequences are predictable." —Radley Balko