on another, related note, what do you guys think of the potential for the most radical members of the tea party to turn violent? I think even with their incendiary rhetoric, they're all talk, but it's fun to fantasize about.
Probably the same as any other 'radical group of people'? I don't see why the 'hardcore' Tea Party would be potentially more (or less) violent than any other group of extremists?
Projects:
Random Stuff.
Random Stuff.
I'm reffering to the kind of teabaggers who bring or threaten to bring guns to rallies, or the numerous militias(who have sprung up in the wake of the first black president) who actively train with firearms and small unit tactics...
DShiznit wrote:
I'm reffering to the kind of teabaggers who bring or threaten to bring guns to rallies, or the numerous militias(who have sprung up in the wake of the first black president) who actively train with firearms and small unit tactics...
Militias are not a new phenomenon. Most of the ones who bring guns to rallies are the ones least likely to turn violent though, as they are the ones who are most concerned about maintaining the gun rights that those of us who live in rural areas make use of to avoid eating from meat factories.
Except that armed militias have shot up more than 300%. I still think it might be media sensationalism, I just wanted to know what you thought.
An interesting article, although I think some of the other articles I glanced through while I was on that site were of more interest to me personally, as one who is not terribly motivated about politics.
Though this story tries to paint Rand Paul in a negative light for not having specific plans for which programs he would want to cut, but certainly it seems reasonable that he wants to see the budget he has to work with before he tries to make cuts, and this quote makes a point that not a lot of people seem to be willing to face.
Quote:
"I think it's not a revenue problem, it's a spending problem," Paul told Amanpour. "A lot of times people would come up to me and say, 'oh you don't believe in any government.' And I would tell them, 'you know what, I believe in $2.4 trillion worth; I just don't think you can have $4 trillion worth, if you only bring in $2.4 trillion."
That's all well and good, but we're in the middle of a depression. And how did we get out of the last great depression? I'll give you a hint: it's two words, and the second one ends in "eal"...
DShiznit wrote:
That's all well and good, but we're in the middle of a depression. And how did we get out of the last great depression? I'll give you a hint: it's two words, and the second one ends in "eal"...
Actually, quite a reasonable number of economists would argue that the New Deal lengthened the Depression, not shortened it.
DShiznit wrote:
Oh for f*ck's sake, not this crap again...
Since you are using"f*ck" as a noun, did you mean "coitus' sake?"
It's funny that some will ignore some expert economists and then put total faith in some climatologists... even after Climate Gate exposed their devious cover-ups.
roflmao.
Ranman wrote:
It's funny that some will ignore some expert economists and then put total faith in some climatologists... even after Climate Gate exposed their devious cover-ups.
roflmao.
roflmao.
There is no such thing as an "expert economist" :p
Also, "Climate Gate"? wtf?
Ranman wrote:
It's funny that some will ignore some expert economists and then put total faith in some climatologists... even after Climate Gate exposed their devious cover-ups.
roflmao.
roflmao.
You people are the reason I think about suicide.
First off, an economist is just someone who explains why something that works in practice, doesn't work in theory.
Second, "Climate-gate" wasn't actually that much of a scandal; a couple of scientists were simply discussing how to simplify and explain their findings in a way retards like you could understand.
DShiznit wrote:
Second, "Climate-gate" wasn't actually that much of a scandal; a couple of scientists were simply discussing how to simplify and explain their findings in a way retards like you could understand.
I was under the impression that it was more down to multiple definitions of the word "trick" (trick v trick).
DShiznit wrote:
You people are the reason I think about suicide.
That must be terrible! I certainly hope you don't do that.
DShiznit wrote:
First off, an economist is just someone who explains why something that works in practice, doesn't work in theory.
Oh really? You are sooooo smart aren't you? lmao
DShiznit wrote:
Second, "Climate-gate" wasn't actually that much of a scandal; a couple of scientists were simply discussing how to simplify and explain their findings in a way retards like you could understand.
One word... denial!
benryves wrote:
I was under the impression that it was more down to multiple definitions of the word "trick" (trick v trick).
Exactly. They weren't trying to deceive anyone, they were trying to find a quick and easy way to explain the theory and the evidence supporting it to people who have no idea what they're talking about.
I stand by my statement on economists.
DShiznit wrote:
benryves wrote:
I was under the impression that it was more down to multiple definitions of the word "trick" (trick v trick).
Exactly. They weren't trying to deceive anyone, they were trying to find a quick and easy way to explain the theory and the evidence supporting it to people who have no idea what they're talking about.
I stand by my statement on economists.
DENIAL
Register to Join the Conversation
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Advertisement