Command and Conquer: Renegade Official Forums - RDF feed
C&C: Renegade --> Dying since 2003™, resurrected in 2024!
These protests provided some hilarity at the expense of clueless retards... http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/16/10-most-offensive-tea-par_n_187554.html You guys have to keep in mind that you still do enjoy lower taxes compared to a ton of other countries. Plus, the higher America's taxes are, the better it is for Canada, because it means we'll have the lowest rates in the G8 even before 2013.
here's some more clueless people with protest signs. whats good for one side should be ok for the other. http://homepage.mac.com/stopbush/PhotoAlbum9.html
interestingly, teabagging coverage was done almost exclusively by fox news
Yeah, and the stuff that was covered by CNN and MSNBC was extremely biased to the left. So what is your point ryan?
Muad Dib15 wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 18:18 Yeah, and the stuff that was covered by CNN and MSNBC was extremely biased to the left. So what is your point ryan?
Baker wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 17:50 fox news is gay Yeah, and CNN and MSNBC are extremely biased to the left.
Fox News covers the tea parties and CNN calls Fox News anti-government. THERE MIGHT BE A PATTERN HERE BUT I'M NOT SURE
HEY! Maybe INSTEAD of just watching a telecast that WE AGREE WITH, maybe we should also watch one that challenges our belief system, causing us to think, instead of dismissing the other networks as a bunch of biased loonies!
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 19:53 HEY! Maybe INSTEAD of just watching a telecast that WE AGREE WITH, maybe we should also watch one that challenges our belief system, causing us to think, instead of dismissing the other networks as a bunch of biased loonies! Oh, come on. The lefties have been coming out of the woodwork to slam the tea parties. Heaven forbid THEY try to look at it from our side for once. I've been trying to put up with their side since September when Bush decided he wasn't doing enough damage to the country and decided to support the bailouts.
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 18:53 HEY! Maybe INSTEAD of just watching a telecast that WE AGREE WITH, maybe we should also watch one that challenges our belief system, causing us to think, instead of dismissing the other networks as a bunch of biased loonies! you can say that for either side
I read bbc.co.uk from time to time, solely because the only bias that exists is that of a scoffing Englishman who likes to get his laughs in at a few rowdy yanks once in a while. It's great. I know I probably offended pretty much every British person here, but shit, it's for real. I'm loving it.
Darkknight wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 20:34 nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 18:53 HEY! Maybe INSTEAD of just watching a telecast that WE AGREE WITH, maybe we should also watch one that challenges our belief system, causing us to think, instead of dismissing the other networks as a bunch of biased loonies! you can say that for either side That's exactly why I'm saying it. I'm sick and tired of right-wing blowhards and I'm equally pissed off with left-wing pussies; I think much of the polarization I see in the United States stems from cynical networks adopting 'biases' in order to improve ratings, and provide value to shareholders. But please watch MSNBC; my GE stock needs the help.
Every time I see one of these tea-party blowhards, I simultaneously laugh and rage. Faux News had a bit where they had some guy literally take "one million teabags", and dump them in some nearby body of water. Protesting "wasteful" government spending by destroying a product? Genius. Does anyone remember what the right-wing response was during 6-8 years of unpopular policy? "Why do you hate America?" "Love it or leave it!" "Get out of my country!" "Majority rules!" etc etc. How does irony feel?
Some of the tea party supporters (myself included) are libertarian and have hated the past 8 years PLUS the past 3 months.
cheesesoda wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 20:31 Some of the tea party supporters (myself included) are libertarian and have hated the past 8 years PLUS the past 3 months. It's a shame you're overshadowed by butthurt conservifags. Then again, it might be for the best, since without their numbers these parties would be hardly a blip on anyone's radar.
It's a double-edged sword. Any press is GOOD press, but you still don't actually WANT bad press. Doesn't help when you have idiots buying 1 million tea bags, like you mentioned.
CNN's fair and balanced reporting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo
I suggest not to watch any news channels. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, BBC are all criminals. I don't watch them and don't care about the bullshit they try to fill people's heads with though I watch them now and then for shits n giggles to get some laughs. EDIT: oh and not to mention the subliminal messaging shitted on the mind during the ad-breaks.
Darkknight wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 07:54 CNN's fair and balanced reporting http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QOrPzVECSjo What a bitch..
fucking retarded yanks. This is what forced schooling does to a population of rednecks
IMO msnbc is the leftist equivalent of fox news seriously, you got the ed show, chris matthews, olbermann, and maddow back to back to back on weeknites. CNN is the most middle of the road station these days of the three. you're extremely mistaken if you think lou dobbs is ogm lieberal. he is a real rebel you know, like cheesesoda, he hates everybody and complains about everything. seriously though what do some of you guys think of glenn beck, he's sounding quite tinfoil-hat these days
nikki6ixx wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 19:53 HEY! Maybe INSTEAD of just watching a telecast that WE AGREE WITH, maybe we should also watch one that challenges our belief system, causing us to think, instead of dismissing the other networks as a bunch of biased loonies! now you're just being unreasonable
Ma1kel wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 14:47 fucking retarded yanks. This is what forced schooling does to a population of rednecks Protesters on the left their much more educated Protesting ones government isn't just a right of the left. its a right for everyone. The liberal press and the liberal here don't seem to get that. You all hated Bush and had no problems protesting him. Bush and Obama both are like Hitler depending on your point of view
Ma1kel wrote on Fri, 17 April 2009 12:47 This is what forced schooling does to a population of rednecks Forced schooling? What are you talking about? Also good job on the republican = redneck comparison, you fucking moron.
Anything reasonable taking place at these protests will instantly be overshadowed by the masses of droning hardcore right-wing racist blowhards who are still upset over the fact that a black man is president.
of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party
Darkknight wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 08:26 of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party That's not his point, and you assume that he actually thinks the Democrats have it right, too. All he said was that the sane protesters were overshadowed by the radical idiots because that's what the media focuses on. Of course, you weren't going to ever realize this because you still think everybody who doesn't agree with the right-wing is out to get the right-wing.
Darkknight wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 07:26 of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party I guess because I criticized a small fringe section of the "right wing" that makes me a "hardcore leftist", right? Because we all know there are only two sides to politics. Tool.
Canadacdn wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 23:31 Darkknight wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 07:26 of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party I guess because I criticized a small fringe section of the "right wing" that makes me a "hardcore leftist", right? Because we all know there are only two sides to politics. Tool. no just pointing out their are extremist on both sides
THERE ARE EXTREMISTS ON BOTH SIDES? NO WAY!
Darkknight wrote on Sun, 19 April 2009 08:29 Canadacdn wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 23:31 Darkknight wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 07:26 of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party I guess because I criticized a small fringe section of the "right wing" that makes me a "hardcore leftist", right? Because we all know there are only two sides to politics. Tool. no just pointing out their are extremist on both sides That's completely irrelevant to the discussion.
I wonder if these people get anywhere, apart from making us laugh every know and then...
lawl... i still can't get over laughing on how they feel like "teabagging taxes". And, most of them aare religious nutjobs, too. Too Epic.
appshot wrote on Sun, 19 April 2009 21:09 lawl... i still can't get over laughing on how they feel like "teabagging taxes". And, most of them aare religious nutjobs, too. Too Epic. You're an idiot.
cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 07:07 Darkknight wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 08:26 of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party That's not his point, and you assume that he actually thinks the Democrats have it right, too. All he said was that the sane protesters were overshadowed by the radical idiots because that's what the media focuses on. Of course, you weren't going to ever realize this because you still think everybody who doesn't agree with the right-wing is out to get the right-wing. News flash, cheesesoda. Libritarians like you were the minority at these events. The majority were butthurt republican asshats who don't handle defeat very well. Sometimes I wonder what you would do if you didn't have your media to blame things on.
Dover wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 03:45 cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 07:07 Darkknight wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 08:26 of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party That's not his point, and you assume that he actually thinks the Democrats have it right, too. All he said was that the sane protesters were overshadowed by the radical idiots because that's what the media focuses on. Of course, you weren't going to ever realize this because you still think everybody who doesn't agree with the right-wing is out to get the right-wing. News flash, cheesesoda. Libritarians like you were the minority at these events. The majority were butthurt republican asshats who don't handle defeat very well. Sometimes I wonder what you would do if you didn't have your media to blame things on. so those who protested bush when he was in office were they asshats as well?
Darkknight wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 06:14 Dover wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 03:45 cheesesoda wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 07:07 Darkknight wrote on Sat, 18 April 2009 08:26 of course being hardcore extremist leftist is perfectly ok. and we all know there are noooooooooo racist in the Democrat party That's not his point, and you assume that he actually thinks the Democrats have it right, too. All he said was that the sane protesters were overshadowed by the radical idiots because that's what the media focuses on. Of course, you weren't going to ever realize this because you still think everybody who doesn't agree with the right-wing is out to get the right-wing. News flash, cheesesoda. Libritarians like you were the minority at these events. The majority were butthurt republican asshats who don't handle defeat very well. Sometimes I wonder what you would do if you didn't have your media to blame things on. so those who protested bush when he was in office were they asshats as well? Of course not. They were actually protesting SOMETHING (Like a preemptive war), and waited for Bush to actually do something wrong. Obama hasn't been in office 100 days yet. He hasn't raised or lowered anyone's taxes (yet), in fact all he's done so far with regard to taxes is lower payroll tax. And once large-scale tax policy changes to occur in his administration, a huge majority of Americans are getting lower taxes instead of higher taxes. Whoever that CNN reporter is should be dismissive. The real issue isn't that people are sick of taxes--Only true badasses like cheesesoda who hate everything are upset. The problem here is the republican party doesn't handle defeat well, and they're using any excuse they can get to throw a temper tantrum. Turn on Fox News at any time of day and chances are you'll see some bullshit report about things nobody cares about like "Obama going on Xth week without attending church", or about how he shook Hugo Chavez's hand and pretending it's some kind of diplomatic faux-pax, while ignoring Bush giving German leaders what amounts to an unsolicitated backrub. It's so partisan I want to puke. And these same asshats who find "Obama's" spending (I've heard the term "Obama's TARP" said many times, regardless of TARP being a Bush-era program) sooo outrageous turned a blind eye to the cost of the war in Iraq and a barrage of "stimulus packages" under Bush which were ineffective at best and a total waste at worst. It's as if excessive spending is only a bad thing if a democrat does it. It's like everyone just came out of a coma two months ago. And again, let me point out that during the protests under the Bush administration, the reaction to protesters was something to the tune of Dover wrote on Thu, 16 April 2009 20:26 "Why do you hate America?" "Love it or leave it!" "Get out of my country!" "Majority rules!" etc etc. , so why is this batch of butthurt protesters expecting anything different?
Of course, when concerning MY arguments against government spending, I'm A BADASS WHO HATES EVERYTHING. Except that I actually have LEGITIMATE grievances, but you won't admit that. It's just easier to write me off. Since I don't agree with either side, I'm somehow part of the lunatic fringe. Good job using at using ad hominem. We wouldn't want you to actually DEBATE the issue because that would mean you'd have to acknowledge my viewpoint, and that's just not your style. Heaven forbid that my positions on political issues are void of typical hypocricies that we see from both liberals and conservatives. That just makes me legitimate, thus RADICAL AND A BADASS. I've considered Obama to be outrageous in his spending, just as I have criticized Bush for the same and more... like the disappearance of my 4th Amendment rights. Again, acknowledging that I'm not a hypocrite is too hard, so it's just easier to write me off as some radical. Once again, kudos to your usage of ad hominem.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 15:24 Of course, when concerning MY arguments against government spending, I'm A BADASS WHO HATES EVERYTHING. Except that I actually have LEGITIMATE grievances, but you won't admit that. It's just easier to write me off. Since I don't agree with either side, I'm somehow part of the lunatic fringe. Good job using at using ad hominem. We wouldn't want you to actually DEBATE the issue because that would mean you'd have to acknowledge my viewpoint, and that's just not your style. Heaven forbid that my positions on political issues are void of typical hypocricies that we see from both liberals and conservatives. That just makes me legitimate, thus RADICAL AND A BADASS. I've considered Obama to be outrageous in his spending, just as I have criticized Bush for the same and more... like the disappearance of my 4th Amendment rights. Again, acknowledging that I'm not a hypocrite is too hard, so it's just easier to write me off as some radical. Once again, kudos to your usage of ad hominem. The reason I paint you as a BADASS WHO HATES EVERYTHING is because your arguements remind me of the arguements of that turd sandwich, Lou Dobbs, who is a true BADASS WHO HATES EVERYTHING. My post wasn't aimed toward you at all. You're a libritarian. You have views which I fundamentally disagree with and consider pretty wacky. You've been consistantly wacky, which I admire in a roundabout way, but I'm really disapointed with the butthurt republicans who are jumping on the wacky tax-protest bandwagon.
The only reason why libertarians are considered "wacky" and "hate everything" is because whenever we're "pro"-something, we're thrown in with the liberals or conservatives. I'm pro gay-marriage, so I'm thrown in with the liberals. I'm pro-separation of church and state. Oops, liberal again. I'm pro-responsible government spending. I'm a conservative, apparently (even though conservatives like to waste money, too). Instead of thinking of me as "anti"-everything, I should be thought of as pro-liberty and everything that gives people the ability to do what the fuck they want as long as it does not harm others.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 18:00 The only reason why libertarians are considered "wacky" and "hate everything" is because whenever we're "pro"-something, we're thrown in with the liberals or conservatives. I'm pro gay-marriage, so I'm thrown in with the liberals. I'm pro-separation of church and state. Oops, liberal again. I'm pro-responsible government spending. I'm a conservative, apparently (even though conservatives like to waste money, too). Instead of thinking of me as "anti"-everything, I should be thought of as pro-liberty and everything that gives people the ability to do what the fuck they want as long as it does not harm others. From my understanding (And I could be misinformed, if so please correct me), one of the central libritarian goals is the abolishment of income tax, which I consider pretty fucking wacky.
Well, the income tax is fundamentally illegal. The 16th Amendment was illegally ratified, and until that was ratified, you could not have a graduated tax. Besides, the tax code is an absolute mess... 62,000 pages. The simplest and, quite honestly, best solution is a national sales tax. It's a Constitutionally legal tax (it's direct and apportioned), and the rich still pay more because the more you spend, the more you pay.
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 19:12 Well, the income tax is fundamentally illegal. The 16th Amendment was illegally ratified, and until that was ratified, you could not have a graduated tax. Besides, the tax code is an absolute mess... 62,000 pages. The simplest and, quite honestly, best solution is a national sales tax. It's a Constitutionally legal tax (it's direct and apportioned), and the rich still pay more because the more you spend, the more you pay. And see, you post what appears to the casual observer to be a logical, structured arguement, but what I read is pure butthurt. Regardless of how it was ratified, it's been a de-facto law for so long it really doesn't matter. That the tax code is a mess is one thing, and I agree completely. That something so basic as income tax is illegal because of some retarded technicality 9001 years ago, and a little bit retarded. Politicians like Ron Paul who promise abolishing income tax are a nice change of pace, but are horribly naive, and as someone who believes communism can work in the near future, I know a thing or two about being naive. It's a grandstanding move that screams showmanship, like a student elected official promising to abolish homework. In the same way you tell kids to stop bitching and do their homework, you should really stop bitching and pay your taxes, just like everyone in the civilized world for the past several hundred years. But that's a different matter. Back on topic: The US has the lowest tax rates of the developed world, most protesters are getting lower taxes, and it's retarded to pin any of this on Obama since he hasn't actually raised anyone's taxes. People are quick to point out the "massive" government spending that our children will pay for, but for some reason don't like talking about Bush's massive government spending that's being paid for right now (Except cheesesoda, who as a non-hypocrite is more than happy to talk about it). Is there really anything else to discuss?
That's not really "butthurt". If my entire argument is that a flat tax is Constitutional and a graduated tax isn't, sure... it'd be butthurt, but that's only one of my arguments. A sales tax is much easier to control, and certain items (like exist now for food, etc...) can be tax free... or you could lower the rate. Perhaps on things like education, housing, etc... There are no deadlines, no forms, no audits, no IRS, no government withholding, the rich still pay more than the average joe, and you get to keep 100% of what you make, leaving more money for citizens to save. It's only butthurt if you consider the push to use cleaner, more efficient fuels for vehicles to be butthurt, as well. A more efficient system that has more pros than cons, unlike the current system, seems to be progressive rather than whiny, petty bullshit. But, yes, another discussion for another day.
Yeah we may be paying for the Bush spending, but Obama's is going to be paid for over a loooooooooooooooooooooonnnng period of time. Heck, even my citizenship teacher, liberal, agrees that 12% of the budget just to pay for INTEREST in the loans we've been getting from China is pretty dumb. I don't want to have 25+ percent of the budget 10 years from now paying for interest for what we own China. That is precisely why I supported Paul Ryan's budget proposal. It would still have been a lot of spending, but GOSH IT WAS SHOT DOWN BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE IT WOULD RAISE THE NATIONAL DEBT!!! FANCY THAT!!! Yet they supported Obama's budget even though it was projected to raise the debt 1 trillion more in the long run. CHECKOUT THE HYPOCRISY!!!!!
Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 21 April 2009 18:27 Yeah we may be paying for the Bush spending, but Obama's is going to be paid for over a loooooooooooooooooooooonnnng period of time. Heck, even my citizenship teacher, liberal, agrees that 12% of the budget just to pay for INTEREST in the loans we've been getting from China is pretty dumb. I don't want to have 25+ percent of the budget 10 years from now paying for interest for what we own China. That is precisely why I supported Paul Ryan's budget proposal. It would still have been a lot of spending, but GOSH IT WAS SHOT DOWN BY THE DEMOCRATS BECAUSE IT WOULD RAISE THE NATIONAL DEBT!!! FANCY THAT!!! Yet they supported Obama's budget even though it was projected to raise the debt 1 trillion more in the long run. CHECKOUT THE HYPOCRISY!!!!! Yeah! Let's admit my mistakes while glossing them over and BITCH ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET!!!1!!one1!1 I hate to break it to you, Maud, but "Paul Ryan's" proposal (That WAS the budget proposal that didn't include any real numbers, right?) is kind of a joke. The Unfunny kind. Here's one of his graphs: 2080? Really? Republicans couldn't predict a budget accurately for the first half of Bush's first term. You're really taking their numbers seriously for the next 65+ years? GG to you for taking this bullshit seriously. And of course, none of that changes any of this: Dover wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 20:34 The US has the lowest tax rates of the developed world, most protesters are getting lower taxes, and it's retarded to pin any of this on Obama since he hasn't actually raised anyone's taxes. People are quick to point out the "massive" government spending that our children will pay for, but for some reason don't like talking about Bush's massive government spending that's being paid for right now (Except cheesesoda, who as a non-hypocrite is more than happy to talk about it). Your party lost. Accept it and get to work on a real way to fix your internal issues, instead of slinging shit haphazardly like monkeys on muscle relaxants. McCain lost his election bid partly because he focused on his opponent instead of fixing the gaping holes in his proposals. Have you learned nothing?
so say we all. wrote on Wed, 15 April 2009 17:51 teabagging *cough* oh i wish, heh jk
cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 20:00 I'm pro gay-marriage, so I'm thrown in with the liberals. I'm pro-separation of church and state. Oops, liberal again. I'm pro-responsible government spending. I'm a conservative, apparently (even though conservatives like to waste money, too). First yes, last yes, middle, not really. See separation of Church and State is basically not letting any church set rules that govern the state. Separation From church and state would be liberal. Because, then you are taking any christian, judio, hindu, bhuddist, whatever influence out of the picture all together. Then, what morals would we base our country on. You can't base them on anything because every religion teaches morals. Separation of Church and State is as I said before, not allowing any religion to make any rules but still have some influence in the morality of the rules. Separation from Church and State takes all religious influnce, good or bad out all together. I agree that having a church run state is bad for this country because of the way we are, but we shouldn't cut it out all together because some liberal atheists are butthurt about it. It is necessary for the moral fiber of America.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 28 April 2009 17:00 cheesesoda wrote on Mon, 20 April 2009 20:00 I'm pro gay-marriage, so I'm thrown in with the liberals. I'm pro-separation of church and state. Oops, liberal again. I'm pro-responsible government spending. I'm a conservative, apparently (even though conservatives like to waste money, too). First yes, last yes, middle, not really. See separation of Church and State is basically not letting any church set rules that govern the state. Separation From church and state would be liberal. Because, then you are taking any christian, judio, hindu, bhuddist, whatever influence out of the picture all together. Then, what morals would we base our country on. You can't base them on anything because every religion teaches morals. Separation of Church and State is as I said before, not allowing any religion to make any rules but still have some influence in the morality of the rules. Separation from Church and State takes all religious influnce, good or bad out all together. I agree that having a church run state is bad for this country because of the way we are, but we shouldn't cut it out all together because some liberal atheists are butthurt about it. It is necessary for the moral fiber of America. Because religions hold a monopoly on morals and values, right? Fuck you.
Muad Dib15 wrote on Tue, 28 April 2009 19:00 Then, what morals would we base our country on. You can't base them on anything because every religion teaches morals. Separation of Church and State is as I said before, not allowing any religion to make any rules but still have some influence in the morality of the rules. Separation from Church and State takes all religious influnce, good or bad out all together. I agree that having a church run state is bad for this country because of the way we are, but we shouldn't cut it out all together because some liberal atheists are butthurt about it. It is necessary for the moral fiber of America. Allow me to refer you to the second panel of this comic. My morals are founded on 'conscience' ... aka, whether or not something is a dick thing to do. I don't need a religion to tell me what is right, or wrong. Humans are generally programmed to know what makes a person an asshole.
Ugh, exactly. I don't need a book to tell me that murder and stealing are wrong, and implying that we would be nowhere without said book is like saying you can't have drink water unless you piss in your dead great grandfathers eye cavity. Fucking stupid.