The issue in question is publically funded media.

Now, you don't have to agree with everything that Andrew Klavan says; heck, I don't agree with everything Andrew Klavan says. But there is something you have to know; the NPR is funded through tax dollars, and Ron Schiller is indeed, quite ignorant on many issues, namely that the TEA party is NOT the same thing as the Republican Party, but a separate and far more Libertarian organization, and that they're not, by-and-large, actually racist, as they love Ben Carson, an African-American who speaks well of the group.

Now, would you want your tax dollars to go to the voice of someone so pathetically ignorant? I wouldn't. Now some could make the same argument about Andrew Klavan not knowing everything, but there's a difference; he's not funded through tax dollars like Ron Schiller is. Since a lot people in the media are ignorant in general, such as Ron Schiller, I don't think we should HAVE publically funded media.

Some might argue that Klavan uses stereotypes, but stereotyping is essentially what Ron Schiller did as well...and like I said, at least you're not paying Klavan to spread these claims, where as Ron Schiller takes money from your taxes AND from people who hate you, regardless of political orientation.

As for Seasame Street, it's actually a great show, but it gets a lot of cash through merchandise, yet it's on a publically funded station, meaning your taxes pay for it. It doesn't need your tax money anymore because of all the millions it makes in merchendise.

3352127
For some reason I thought you said the NRA instead of NPR

3352127

and that they're not, by-and-large, actually racist,

I'm fond of saying, 'most muslims aren't terrorists, but most terrorists are muslims.'
...and I think this one also deserves similar treatment:
Most tea partiers aren't racists, but most racists are tea partiers.

Also, it's suspicious, the timing.
They didn't have a problem with taxes, bailouts, and high spending when Bush was in office... but when a man of darker complexion gets elected, suddenly there's a big movement about it.

I actually supported the tea party at first. In the very beginning they were all about reducing government and libertarianism.

But that changed.

The tea party has become an outlet for the right-wing fringe, and now even regularly argues for larger government, if it's in line with their extreme conservative agenda.
Ask your average tea partiers if they are for, say, increased border patrols, or increased restrictions on abortion. I'm pretty sure their answers will NOT be in line with a group that purports to endorse smaller, less intrusive government.

Now, with that out of the way, I can agree that publicly funded, politically oriented opinion broadcasting is a terrible idea.

3352469

Most tea partiers aren't racists, but most racists are tea partiers.

You'd be surprised that it's not exclusive to the TEA Party. Existent in it? Definitely yes, but not exclusive to it. Some California Liberals I actually know of are prone to racist speech.

Politicians, who whether Democrat or Republican, are typically Liberal or at least Statist, sometimes act as if they own African-American or Hispanic communities.

A lot of people hated on George Zimmerman just because he was Hispanic, and therefore in their eyes "biologically prone to being a criminal".

Online, the absolute most radical Liberals are not as prone to siding with Conservatives as they are prone to siding with Nazis because they'd rather side with racists and ableists than side with people who don't believe in Socialism and think Israel isn't a purely bad country. Not that the Liberals in question are racist, far from it, but because the radicals are so focused on a couple areas that they want to turn a blind eye to racism to have aggressive allies to aid them on these areas in which they are overly focused on, which apparently are regarded as higher priorities than racism and ableism. Just take a look at YouTube, DeviantArt, Twitter, and even on occasion FIMFiction and Facebook in general.

Racism is in general, still a relevant problem in America in general. The majority of Americans aren't racist, but it's still relevant because crazies are always the loudest voices, not the saner ones, and the remaining crazies will turn a blind eye to the racism of their own allies just to keep more allies, as is the case with the statement I made about the internet.

Also, it's suspicious, the timing.
They didn't have a problem with taxes, bailouts, and high spending when Bush was in office... but when a man of darker complexion gets elected, suddenly there's a big movement about it.

Actually, they were hardly much of anything until 2009, about the same time that they realized that Barrack Obama was at least as Statist as George W. Bush, and frankly, three statist presidents in a row, each progressively more statist than the last, is more than the American people can take. If he was white, chances are, virtually the same thing would have happened, just next to no racists would actually be interested in it.

However, when all is said an done, biased publically funded media is not a good idea, and we can agree on that.

3352566
3352469
IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT OBAMA THAN YOU ARE A RACIST SUN OF A FLIPPIDY JACK ON SUNDAY NIGHT RIGHT BEFORE THE BIG NFL GAME SDKFABRKLGBJKGRJKWGBABRJEFBK,Q JKSEFBASDJKBDGABGFSDBALFBAJKLSDGJKGJKGBEGAEGUAHSFAHJSEFHI;
*Starts foaming at the mouth*

Sarcasm BTW

3352733
*also doesn't support Obama*

But... the sheer level of blind, irrational hate he's getting. That strikes me as more than just political.

3352741
Actually most people I know that don't support him have very good reasons not to and I know a lot of redneck bigots (although it is possible that they found these reasons because they went out of their way to find these facts because their racist) I actually see more people supporting Obama only because he is black down here.

3352733
3352766
True, many people have realized that he's at least as Statist, Socialist, and Authoritarian as his predecessor, George W. Bush, if not more so, and voting for Obama because he's bi-racial is almost as f*cked up, if not exactly as f*cked up, as not voting for him because he's bi-racial.

3352741
You obviously don't remember all the blind, irrational hate Bush got. Or all the blind, irrational hate Clinton got.

3352127 Comrade Michelle Obama World Renown Nutritionist Of Great International Esteem

3353027 And every other president/leader

3353529
All leaders, depending on the circle in question, will get more hate AND more love than they deserve. Personally, I think Ronald Reagan was our last great president, though he might have looked better than he actually was because he was president in a century when most presidents were rather terrible because they were so racist, Socialist, Statist, and Authoritarian (yes, possibly more so than presidents we had back when there was slavery; that's just how racist and Authoritarian they were!), such as Woodrow Wilson and Lyndon B. Johnson, and while the latest are certainly not be as racist and perhaps not even as Authoritarian as many 20th century presidents were, George W. Bush and now, Barrack Obama, have been and are still too Authoritarian and Socialist for this country's good, though that's my opinion. Discussing quality of politicians is based partly on opinions, and it's fine to express these opinions.

3353613 America under Woodrow Wilson was a Orwellian nightmare infact it was so bad that Fascist Italy looked like a free country in comparison. And also Comrade Woodrow Wilson was a KKK sympathiser

3353645
All true; his favorite movie was about the KKK.

Just as I have to remind some that Barrack Obama and George W. Bush aren't great politicians, I also have to remind others that it can still be a lot worse than it is...

3353712 I think if former New York City mayor Comrade Michael Bloomberg becomes president he could be just as bad as Woodrow Wilson. That guy scares me

3353712
Are you talking about "Birth of a Nation"? To be honest, the movie was exceptionally well made, and revolutionized the art of film making, even if it was about a subject that modern sensibilities disagree with.

Yes, it could be worse, but it could be a shit-ton better as well. The executive branch in the US used to have a lot more power, but then Nixon fucked up and people stopped trusting the president. After 9/11, Bush was able to reinstate the executive authority that was lost, moving the whole country back three decades. It's a moral responsibility to ensure that we only advocate for what we think is best, and that we spend every effort determining the logical best course for all of us.

3352469
Here's a short lesson in how the Tea Party came to be; it all revolves around a man named Karl Rove. It's 2009, and people hate Republicans. The Democrats had control of both branches of Congress and the White House. People saw the two wars that Bush got us into were bullshit, and a lot of Americans became disillusioned with the party as a whole. Rove decided the best course of action was re-branding, and created the Tea Party, who were supposedly Republicans that opposed Bush policies. He gave them money from the Republican coffers in the districts where Republicans were the least popular. The strategy worked, and Republicans won the 2010 election by a landslide. Fast forward to 2014. The ideas of the Tea Party are still popular, but instead of dissolving back into the Republican party, they start competing against established candidates in the primaries. So starts the war that you here about even now on the news. One side is going to win out.

There's been shifts in parties in the past. The Democratic party used to be a bunch of slavery-loving racists in the nineteenth century before reinventing themselves as the more liberal party in the early 20th. I'm hoping that the old Christian right dies out as well.

This is a circle-jerk.

p.s. Where your tax dollar goes:

3353902
You "circle-jerk", as you call it, all the time on your groups, and I don't usually burst right in rudely calling it "circle-jerking". That's because there's nothing wrong about general agreement with one another; there's nothing wrong with disagreement either so long as it's mature, which I actually see on this thread, on the most part. Not everyone can agree whether Obama's unpopularity is fair, and we're still friendly enough about our different opinions. There seems to be a double-standard as to what counts as "circle-jerking" and what doesn't, at least on FIMFiction. I think people can just say what they will, agreement or not, so long as it's mature, and which to be honest, use of the term "circle-jerk" is not exactly something that usually pops up in an adult discussion. If you don't like people having different opinions from you, try to either place your own opinions maturely or speak elsewhere.

However, I needed to clarify that it alone was not where your taxes go to, true; I didn't make it clear enough. I admit that.

3353902
Then care to break the circle of jerking and present a different opinion? Nobody can learn anything if everybody agrees.

3353905
That's true. There is a separate social security tax where all the welfare programs get funded from. This dollar bill only represents the main federal tax.

3353906

Online, the absolute most radical Liberals are not as prone to siding with Conservatives as they are prone to siding with Nazis because they'd rather side with racists and ableists than side with people who don't believe in Socialism and think Israel isn't a purely bad country.

This sentence of Grant's (and his tendency to accuse everyone who's at all left-wing, including me, of being radical liberals) sums up how ridiculous this discussion is really, but let's run down the list of reasons I'm not going to get any more seriously involved.

>Tea Party
>Andrew Klavan
>anyone agreeing with promonarchygenius, who is a pretty obvious polititroll (from a number of groups)
>citing facebook, twitter, and youtube as examples of how humanity actually behaves

I could go on, but the message is this: the amount of ridiculous bullshit y'all are patting each other on the backs for is just silly.

3353901
I don't agree with you entirely about Birth of a Nation, but I do agree with you at how Bush brought back old-fasioned Authoritarianism when he shouldn't have. The rule that politicians seem to live by it take advantages of situations, such as how Barrack Obama took advantage of numerous gun-deaths to instill more gun control. Neither Bush nor Obama causes these things to happen, but they took advantage of them.

3353914
I'm not one to bash liberals; in the end, I am one. In any classical analysis of liberal and conservative in both political and economic scales, libertarians are more liberal than Democrats are. People from both parties are often guilty of accusing people from the other of being everything that's wrong with the world, and I'm sick of it.

As for that quote--yeah, it's incredibly retarded. Generalization is bad for any logical thought, and that was excessive. Just because we agree about a point doesn't mean we agree about everything, and if we did, then there would be no point to discussing anything. It would just be repetitive and stupid. If you don't agree with what we're saying, then you're the most welcome person on here. Maybe by arguing we can both come out learning something. I'm not going to judge anyone for their viewpoints as long as they hold them with an open mind.

As for your list -
> How is talking about the Tea Party circle jerking? If you read the discussion thus far, we're not agreeing about it. What are your views?
> Klavan is a person with his own viewpoints about his own dumb shit that may be different or the same as my dumb shit. I didn't comment about him because I saw something else in this thread I wanted to talk about.
> I think the person who said that was actually trolling, so I didn't feed them.
> Yeah, I agree with you. That's stupid and ignorant. Let's circle jerk each other now!

3353918
As any halfway decent politician would. Luckily, we have a system where one man can't do everything themselves, as much as they'd want to. Hence why Obama didn't institute more gun control. You can look back several millennia and see the pattern of taking advantage of situations. Roosevelt did it after Pearl Harbor (he sent the first troops to Europe, after all). Bush did it with the Patriot act after 9/11. It doesn't mean they were necessarily right or wrong.

3353914

and his tendency to accuse everyone who's at all left-wing, including me, of being radical liberals

I didn't even bring up your name once. And I don't usually throw out names and accusations. In fact, this time, you did. I don't recall accusing anyone of the left of being radical except maybe some politician or celebrity (in fact, I get along fine with Timber Wolfe, even though his views are quite different from mine), which you're not; you don't really identify with the self-styled elites, do you? Otherwise, I don't see why you should react as if I insulted you when I express how little I like them. I wouldn't blame you for reacting as such if I said that about you, but I didn't, I meant the self-styled elites. They align themselves with Neo-Nazi Noam Chomsky just because he agrees with them on a couple of points.

I'm increasingly associated with the TEA party, and yet I didn't get that offended when Ocalhoun brought up the possibility of racist TEA party members, because I'm not part of a hive, I think independently from the rest; besides, racism is a relevant problem in America in general, and he's probably a little bit right anyway. I just explained that it's not really exclusive to them, and that there are real-world examples to prove it.

anyone agreeing with promonarchygenius, who is a pretty obvious polititroll (from a number of groups)

Unpopular views for FIMFiction doesn't automatically make one a polititroll; at least he's not the one going around claiming to be a Nazi, disrupting serious conversations with Nazi RPing, and using "Jew" as a slur and telling tasteless jokes related to them, which some users here actually do. That is polititrolling. And that's something your friends do all the time; this is a double-standard. They aren't real Nazis, but doing that is all in extremely bad taste.

citing facebook, twitter, and youtube as examples of how humanity actually behaves

That was only that one paragraph; most every other example is based on real politicians or what real people actually said. Shall I bring up more examples?

3353905
Holy edit batman. That's only ten times as long as it was when I decided not to reply initially. It still isn't true, incidentally.

If you don't like people having different opinions from you, try to either place your own opinions maturely or speak elsewhere.

I'm amused that you have the audacity to be condescending towards anyone on this.

3353922

How is talking about the Tea Party circle jerking?

But I was explaining why I wasn't going to get more seriously involved, not how this is a circle-jerk.

3353925
Hm, good points.

3353933
That's my fault. What I meant to ask was what is it about the Tea Party that makes it so you won't even discuss them? I can understand why some people don't agree with them, but I don't agree with either major party, but I will still discuss my differences with their politics. People in general have a huge animosity towards the Tea Party, and while I can't say I agree with them (Tea Party) completely, I don't understand it. If you just don't like talking about politics, that's fine, but why refuse to talk about something just because you don't agree with it?

3353930

Unpopular views for FIMFiction doesn't automatically make one a polititroll

Starting with his user name which includes "pro-monarchy" and going on to his claims to Monarchist beliefs, his membership in Monarchist groups, and his actually having started one of his own, one would think one has enough evidence that he is only in it for the trolling.

It's even more obvious when you consider that he says nothing which is not extreme and provocative. For example, his own group's mission statement:

This group is about promoting monarchism and exposing the evils of republicanism which led many nations to totalitarianism.

May I remind you that Monarchy tends to be diametrically opposed to Libertarians, particularly in its views on government involvement? No? Okay...

That's all I found worth replying to.

3353944
Like "Liberalism" and "Conservatism", "Republicanism" is a loose term. By that he means the concept of a Democratic Republic. He feels that perhaps Democracy and Republics can only result in masses being fed propagand, which will result in a hive-like mind that makes a mob rule, and later in absolute dictatorship, and the only way to prevent this is having an unambitious monarch.

I don't agree with this at all, but I'm not going around calling him a troll, or calling him an "Oxygen Waster" for that matter. Instead I nicely disagree with him in areas where we don't agree and agree with him in areas where we do. I sometimes support him when he needs it, and always respect him even if we disagree, and sometimes hope that at least he can understand my viewpoints, and maybe we can learn a little bit from each other.

If he really IS pro-big government, then I will accept the possibility that he's a troll, but virtually all my conversations with him seem to prove otherwise.

3353942
I don't mind the Tea Party platform so much as what actual Tea Party politicians and members use that platform for. As one example, I'm sure you already know how strongly most Tea Party candidates oppose any kind of equal rights for LGBT people, such as the right not to be fired simply because the wrong person found out who they get in bed with or whatever. I have too many LGBT friends to be friends of any party whose politicians use its platform to try to enforce their status as second-class citizens in a country touted as free and equal.

3353952
That's actually one of the things I greatly dislike about the Tea Party. This is why I consider myself more of a Libertarian and not a "Tea-partier" (besides the fact that I had Palin and Bachmann--those women are idiots). No platform will perfectly fit every political belief most of us have, but if I had to choose between the three (Democrat, establishment Republican, and Tea Party), I'd probably choose Tea Party. The Tea Party in general is not as rabidly anti-LGBT as the establishment, even if they're not as good as the Democrats. Even a lot of their leaders, such as Rand Paul, believe that it's not the federal governments job to define marriage. The Tea Party is very loosely associated, and it's up to us to pick out the assholes from the ones that legitimately believe they don't have a right to control our lives.

3353966

Even a lot of their leaders, such as Rand Paul, believe that it's not the federal governments job to define marriage.

This argument, though, is not used honestly. It's used to try to stop the federal government from stepping in and telling states to stop letting Christianity define marriage (because separation of church and state), it's used to force LGBT rights in general to be a slow, agonizing state-by-state battle, and basically, its use is just plain disingenuous.

If the platform were ever used honestly by actual politicians, I might be a little more sympathetic.

3353950

If he really IS pro-big government, then I will accept the possibility that he's a troll, but virtually all my conversations with him seem to prove otherwise.

So being big government means you're a troll? There are actually a lot of people who are statists. Hell, it's the reigning political ideology in most of the world. But they actually believe in it, however misguided I think they are. It doesn't mean that they don't have good points, or that what they say should be disregarded. It should be treated with logical consideration, with all ideas.

3353973
That's not what I meant; I meant that if he really claims to be pro-big government in one group and for small government in another, then he's probably trolling. But he's not as simple as that, from what I've seen.

3353969
As I said, I agree with you about a person's right to marry whom they will. Sure, there are better candidates out there than Rand Paul, but not many who have a chance. If all that mattered in this country was LGBT rights, then I'd probably vote Democrat. But there are more issues, like the deficit, the war on drugs, NSA, health care, immigration, etc. We all have to look at the overall picture. Just like Obama wasn't able to pass gun control, nobody's going to be able to pass anything anti-LGBT--the public support for it has just grown too high. I might disagree with him in principle, but politics don't mix well with emotions, and I have to consider things from a larger perspective.

3353966
3353969
Actually, many Evangelical Christians are concerned because they fear that the TEA party is "amoral". Why? Because many of them are pro-gay marriage. Not all of them, as they're not a hive, but most of them.

As for the argument of the State's rights, that really depends on the TEA party individual in question, because they vary on individuals. Again, they're not a hive, so they don't think as one.

3353981
I'm generally of the opinion that if it doesn't adversely affect anyone else, then it's not my business and not the government's business. I just wish the government would stay out of the whole issue. I'm not talking about just the gay marriage thing here, but laws in general. People feel like if society isn't quite the way they want it, or if something inconvenient's happening, the best and first solution is to go cry to mommy and daddy government. And the government is more than happy to oblige, because the politicians can brag about it later. People still continue to act like children, and the government's more than happy to tell them how much soda they're allowed to drink.

3353969
3353981
I think I'm going to head to bed. If you guys couldn't tell, I've been drunk off my ass this whole time and it's starting to get to me. Thanks for the interesting conversation and the luxury of intelligent argument. Feel free to drop in and say "Hi" sometime.

3353977

nobody's going to be able to pass anything anti-LGBT--the public support for it has just grown too high

In the wake of Arizona's failure to legalize it this year (and it was only vetoed on business interest grounds), several other states started passing bills through their own legislatures to effectively legalize discrimination for religious reasons. Some specifically stated that they were to allow religious discrimination against LGBT people. Some were knocked down immediately, but others are expected to pass, particularly in Mississippi, Georgia, and a number of other typically religious-conservative states.

Nobody, eh?

But there are more issues, like the deficit, the war on drugs, terrorism, health care, immigration, etc.

All parties, believe it or not, have an approach to address each of these. Most of them include their idea on how to address these problems in their platforms. Considering the mix of good and bad responses to these problems in all parties, can you give me a reason not to vote for the party that is also willing to treat my friends as human beings?

3353981
I just go by how Tea Party candidates vote in legislative sessions. The rest is a lot of bullshit rhetoric. I don't care what Tea Party-aligned constituents think because they vote for people who vote against good things and make the most hilariously awful gaffes.

3353981

What a nice crackpipe crackpot

3352127

Grant, you're making me lean towards the left more and more every day, I swear to god. Maybe total control is a better way of doing things, if imbeciles like you--idiots who don't even understand the basics of how nonprofit organizations work--represent the people. Maybe I'm starting to get just why people in the far, far left would feel humanity needs a guiding hand, solely from reading this thread.

3353944
3353950
3353973 Please check out these links Analysis Of Republics Throughout History and More On Why Republics Are Bad

3353930

Unpopular views for FIMFiction doesn't automatically make one a polititroll; at least he's not the one going around claiming to be a Nazi, disrupting serious conversations with Nazi RPing, and using "Jew" as a slur and telling tasteless jokes related to them, which some users here actually do. That is polititrolling. And that's something your friends do all the time; this is a double-standard. They aren't real Nazis, but doing that is all in extremely bad taste.

Excuse me, but nodamnbrakes is a courageous and intelligent man who served in his country's most elite military branch, fighting against international communism in the bloodiest war in modern history, long before you were ever born. I know for a fact that you detest people who disrespect soldiers, so don't call him a "troll" just because you disagree with his political views, you fascist.

3353413 Oh! I see what you did there. Because Michelle Obama holds vaguely socialistic political ideas, you attached the term "comrade" to her moniker to imply she is a communist. Clever.

3353950

... or calling him an "Oxygen Waster" for that matter.

I believe the term was actually "oxygen thief," but good to see I'm not completely irrelevant.

3354011
NPR is described as "privately and publically funded". "Publically funded" means through taxes. They're not like K-Love, which gets its cash through pledges, they actually get money from the government , which comes from us.

3354079 Well Michelle Obama is a lot like Elena Ceausescu

3354011
There's several different ways to look at how one differentiates "left" or "right", but usually, left means more individual control, while right means more government control. This is usually broken down into political and economic scales.

For example, an economic leftist believes in free market, while an economic rightist believes in government control over the economy. A political leftist believes in personal freedom, while a political rightist believes in bureaucracy and government involving in our personal lives. Democrats are politically left, economically right, while Republicans are the opposite. For example, Democrats want freedom to marry whom we will, while Republicans want the government to decide who we can marry. Democrats want the government to control our healthcare (an economical facet), while Republicans want people and industry to control it. That's not to say that they exclusively follow this pattern. Both Democrats and Republicans support the war on drugs, which is a rightist stance. Democrats believe in gun control, which makes them more right than Republicans concerning that issue.

Taking all this into account, by advocating a strong, statist central government, I believe that you are saying that you intend to move farther to the right.

3354020

Democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried. - Winston Churchill

The fact is, monarchy will quickly devolve into authoritarianism in modern times. With the advent of technology, the self-balance that old monarchies were able to perform is no longer possible. Even those that are limited by their religion, such as Saudi Arabia, is still very totalitarian. Look at North Korea, where there is no law, written or de facto, to limit it. It's a fucking cesspit. There's no longer any distinction; monarchy is just a form of dictatorship.