07-06-2013 11:24 PM
34 12
tools
  1. Aquila's Avatar
    I think about this on a few levels... obviously there exists a dichotomy between the red team and the blue team in politics, but at what level does it exist?

    To think about this honestly, it's necessary to make distinctions between what people say, what they do and what they believe. It's also necessary to think of people not only as individuals, but also as a separate organism when they combine voices. It's not simply red and blue or black and white. Indeed, with a little bit of education, the closer one gets to the far ends of the spectrum, the more aligned the positions on individual issues become to the opposite position on the spectrum. So why the conflict? In a word: perception.

    I'm going to focus on what people do, both because we know people lie and because it's quite obvious that the red team and the blue team are saying different things.. at least on the surface. What people actually do is a result of their beliefs, and I will attempt to show that the red team and the blue team, on an establishment level, have the exact same goals, methodology and win in the same way: therefore they are achieving the same actions and therefore share identical beliefs.

    Perception is a study of it's own, but for now let us make the following assumption: the perception of the majority of the people is carefully controlled by those in power.

    With this in mind, I make the following assertions:

    1. The media exists outside the context of the Constitutional consideration, which was to report, inform and to provide a check on the secret dealings of power. They are now merely mouthpieces of what is known as "the establishment", the microphone used by establishment "politicians".
    2. The majority of politics is in reality handled by people most of us will never hear about. The majority of the politicians that we see on camera, on the hill and in state houses across the country are themselves merely microphones to be used when they're popular, paraded as the downtrodden when they're not and discarded when they're useless.
    3. Those that make the decisions are not "owned" by the establishment business interests; they're not the pawns of corporations. They ARE the establishment business interests. This is called fascism and is the reason why there is no cry of fascism when both democrats and republicans agree to rob the public blind and pass those funds directly to corporations that seemingly have little to no alignment with the politicians leading the charge. This happens irregardless of what jersey they wear.
    4. By the time they rise to the national stage, 100% of politicians are employed by the fascist establishment, while receiving a paycheck and praise for their efforts from the people. Despite the openness of this conflict of interest, a very small percentage of the public is concerned. Many view the side effects as "corruption" of individual politicians, or a systemic system of bribery, etc. in which specific people are guilty of betraying their oath... when the reality, is that if they ever make a decision in the favor of the people, it's either coincidence or a direct betrayal of their real masters.... this is why this very rarely happens.
    5. The mechanism of the deception, the reason that the average Joe doesn't recognize fascism at work, or that they might smell it but believe it to be less rampant than it is, is a manipulation of focus and perception known as the hegelian dialectic. One creates a problem - thesis, creates a draconian solution, antithesis and then allows a compromise that was the true goal of the project anyways, synthesis.

    In this case it's the dialectic squared, squared. In a masterful perversion of one of the most basic and already perverse manners of human manipulation, the following scenario unfolds: The establishment creates a problem and lets their mouthpieces slowly leak the problem, spun appropriately, to the public. In this case they do it twice, once with red shirts and once with blue shirts and their respective media microphones. They then create a solution, following the same pattern. The resulting actions, taken as compromise, can be observed to be the true original intent of the establishment.

    This is the mastery in three parts:
    1. The entire public needs to buy into the existence of the problem, but they don't recognize the true allegiances of the red and blue teams to the same masters, they only trust their side. Thus, each side spins it through their channels. But, some people don't trust easily, so they take it a step forward to add emotional content... they each blame the other "side" for the problem. In this way, the media mouthpieces for both sides are all talking about the problem, all blaming the other team and creating a religiosity-esque fervor among the masses. On a psychological level, people need to feel aligned with society and opposed to the forces that would undo it. Clearly this step plays to both sides of that need in a passionate way. The exact same process is repeated for the solution, escalating the public's buy-in to their side's argument.
    2. The resulting synthesis can be perceived as a compromise or as a win for either side without harming the overall objective. Obviously, the synthesis was the original intent and thus, both sides playing for the same team, both sides win despite what the public believes.
    3. The resulting synthesis is but one step in a long ladder of these projects, and looking backwards it's easy to view the goal by observing the progress made: the erosion of the concept, believe in and power of Rights. Already, an immense part of the population believes that their Rights are granted to them by the government.

    The key to this entire thing is understanding the difference between controlling a person's actions and controlling their perspective. When people rail against being controlled, they believe it's in reference to someone somehow either magically, or technologically forcing them to do specific actions against their will. The reality is far darker. By controlling your perception, they allow you to choose the action they wanted and it is of your own free will, because you programmatically have no other choice. Like in chess, the goal is to create a situation in which no matter what move your opponent makes, it strengthens your position and weakens theirs.

    I'm not sure how well I've made my case, but we've covered some pixels here and have already entered the TLR status for many readers, so let me finish with one last statement and two questions:

    Statement: The goal of the establishment is clear, because fascism has but one goal: tyranny in totality.
    Question 1: Do you see a distinction between the red team and the blue team?
    Question 2: What color jersey do you wear?
    jdbii likes this.
    06-04-2013 05:05 AM
  2. gollum18's Avatar
    Man you think extremely deep into things. Honestly if you ran for president, I would vote for you.

    To answer your questions, no I don't see a difference. They may share opposing views, but in the end their goals are all the same.

    I officially classify myself as an independent. Although most of my beliefs would make me a socialist.

    Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2
    msndrstood, jdbii and Aquila like this.
    06-04-2013 09:27 AM
  3. jdbii's Avatar
    Question 1: Do you see a distinction between the red team and the blue team?
    No, I don't see much of a difference between the two sides. For instance, in budgetary matters, I regard the differences as negligible despite all the grandstanding -- one side is asking for 300 billion and the other side is asking for 320 billion. I know a billion is a lot of money, but a billion here or a billion there isn't going to balance the books. It never seems to me like they are serious about balancing the books.

    Question 2: What color jersey do you wear?
    I wear a blue jersey. Unless I'm applying for a job. I might slip on a red jersey if the boss wears one too.
    Aquila and msndrstood like this.
    06-04-2013 05:17 PM
  4. jdbii's Avatar
    Statement: The goal of the establishment is clear, because fascism has but one goal: tyranny in totality.
    Couldn't this be paraphrased to something that uses the word "power" in lieu of fascism and tyranny? Such as: "The goal of the establashment is clear, because power has but one goal: the pursuit of more power."
    Aquila likes this.
    06-04-2013 05:24 PM
  5. Aquila's Avatar
    Couldn't this be paraphrased to something that uses the word "power" in lieu of fascism and tyranny? Such as: "The goal of the establashment is clear, because power has but one goal: the pursuit of more power."
    It could, but power is just a tool; it's not sinister in nature, just in the corrupted use of it. Fascism is a specific kind of power seeking and tyranny is a specific goal. So we're saying the same thing, you're just being broader in the definition and I wanted to specify the depraved anti-humanist connotation.
    msndrstood and jdbii like this.
    06-04-2013 05:28 PM
  6. Fairclough's Avatar
    Different political system over Here but I follow the blue (liberal) mainly on state level they have done a great job. Labour (red) on federal level has been a joke and I respected the liberal government before them - as they actions werent often 'seen as correct' at the time but were needed.


    To be honest I like the liberal views, the state leader but not the federal leader. I wish they had their old leader back but he was announcing his retirement, lost his seat in his region to labour then they lost the election.

    Both parties do mean well, there is nothing in it for them. Parliament pays poor, well it does a bit above average pay but not too much. Unless your governor general (rep of the queen) they got paid 400k and no tax - till the queen said she will be taxed the gg gets taxed too now.

    PM is on similar pay, but most members are about 100k. To be honest in Aus it doesn't get your far a head as most thinks are extremely inflated in value over here.

    Posted via Android Central App
    Aquila likes this.
    06-04-2013 05:29 PM
  7. msndrstood's Avatar
    I think about this on a few levels... obviously there exists a dichotomy between the red team and the blue team in politics, but at what level does it exist?

    To think about this honestly, it's necessary to make distinctions between what people say, what they do and what they believe. It's also necessary to think of people not only as individuals, but also as a separate organism when they combine voices. It's not simply red and blue or black and white. Indeed, with a little bit of education, the closer one gets to the far ends of the spectrum, the more aligned the positions on individual issues become to the opposite position on the spectrum. So why the conflict? In a word: perception.

    I'm going to focus on what people do, both because we know people lie and because it's quite obvious that the red team and the blue team are saying different things.. at least on the surface. What people actually do is a result of their beliefs, and I will attempt to show that the red team and the blue team, on an establishment level, have the exact same goals, methodology and win in the same way: therefore they are achieving the same actions and therefore share identical beliefs.

    Perception is a study of it's own, but for now let us make the following assumption: the perception of the majority of the people is carefully controlled by those in power.

    With this in mind, I make the following assertions:

    1. The media exists outside the context of the Constitutional consideration, which was to report, inform and to provide a check on the secret dealings of power. They are now merely mouthpieces of what is known as "the establishment", the microphone used by establishment "politicians".
    2. The majority of politics is in reality handled by people most of us will never hear about. The majority of the politicians that we see on camera, on the hill and in state houses across the country are themselves merely microphones to be used when they're popular, paraded as the downtrodden when they're not and discarded when they're useless.
    3. Those that make the decisions are not "owned" by the establishment business interests; they're not the pawns of corporations. They ARE the establishment business interests. This is called fascism and is the reason why there is no cry of fascism when both democrats and republicans agree to rob the public blind and pass those funds directly to corporations that seemingly have little to no alignment with the politicians leading the charge. This happens irregardless of what jersey they wear.
    4. By the time they rise to the national stage, 100% of politicians are employed by the fascist establishment, while receiving a paycheck and praise for their efforts from the people. Despite the openness of this conflict of interest, a very small percentage of the public is concerned. Many view the side effects as "corruption" of individual politicians, or a systemic system of bribery, etc. in which specific people are guilty of betraying their oath... when the reality, is that if they ever make a decision in the favor of the people, it's either coincidence or a direct betrayal of their real masters.... this is why this very rarely happens.
    5. The mechanism of the deception, the reason that the average Joe doesn't recognize fascism at work, or that they might smell it but believe it to be less rampant than it is, is a manipulation of focus and perception known as the hegelian dialectic. One creates a problem - thesis, creates a draconian solution, antithesis and then allows a compromise that was the true goal of the project anyways, synthesis.

    In this case it's the dialectic squared, squared. In a masterful perversion of one of the most basic and already perverse manners of human manipulation, the following scenario unfolds: The establishment creates a problem and lets their mouthpieces slowly leak the problem, spun appropriately, to the public. In this case they do it twice, once with red shirts and once with blue shirts and their respective media microphones. They then create a solution, following the same pattern. The resulting actions, taken as compromise, can be observed to be the true original intent of the establishment.

    This is the mastery in three parts:
    1. The entire public needs to buy into the existence of the problem, but they don't recognize the true allegiances of the red and blue teams to the same masters, they only trust their side. Thus, each side spins it through their channels. But, some people don't trust easily, so they take it a step forward to add emotional content... they each blame the other "side" for the problem. In this way, the media mouthpieces for both sides are all talking about the problem, all blaming the other team and creating a religiosity-esque fervor among the masses. On a psychological level, people need to feel aligned with society and opposed to the forces that would undo it. Clearly this step plays to both sides of that need in a passionate way. The exact same process is repeated for the solution, escalating the public's buy-in to their side's argument.
    2. The resulting synthesis can be perceived as a compromise or as a win for either side without harming the overall objective. Obviously, the synthesis was the original intent and thus, both sides playing for the same team, both sides win despite what the public believes.
    3. The resulting synthesis is but one step in a long ladder of these projects, and looking backwards it's easy to view the goal by observing the progress made: the erosion of the concept, believe in and power of Rights. Already, an immense part of the population believes that their Rights are granted to them by the government.

    The key to this entire thing is understanding the difference between controlling a person's actions and controlling their perspective. When people rail against being controlled, they believe it's in reference to someone somehow either magically, or technologically forcing them to do specific actions against their will. The reality is far darker. By controlling your perception, they allow you to choose the action they wanted and it is of your own free will, because you programmatically have no other choice. Like in chess, the goal is to create a situation in which no matter what move your opponent makes, it strengthens your position and weakens theirs.

    I'm not sure how well I've made my case, but we've covered some pixels here and have already entered the TLR status for many readers, so let me finish with one last statement and two questions:

    Statement: The goal of the establishment is clear, because fascism has but one goal: tyranny in totality.
    Question 1: Do you see a distinction between the red team and the blue team?
    Question 2: What color jersey do you wear?
    All of that with a hangover!? You're out of my league, lol.

    I'm glad you brought up fascism. Most people don't have a clue what fascism really is, we've been living it for quite a while.

    I'm not in the frame of mind right now to detail any deep comment but I will say I wear the Blue shirt proudly.

    I'm sure NO one would have guessed that!



    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    jdbii and Aquila like this.
    06-04-2013 05:34 PM
  8. jdbii's Avatar
    Labour (red)
    Labour is red in Australia?
    06-04-2013 05:35 PM
  9. jdbii's Avatar
    All of that with a hangover!? You're out of my league, lol.
    wtf, a hangover??? you gotta be kidding me. he's out of my league too.

    I wear the Blue shirt proudly.
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-04-2013 05:38 PM
  10. Aquila's Avatar
    All of that with a hangover!? You're out of my league, lol.

    I'm glad you brought up fascism. Most people don't have a clue what fascism really is, we've been living it for quite a while.

    I'm not in the frame of mind right now to detail any deep comment but I will say I wear the Blue shirt proudly.

    I'm sure NO one would have guessed that!



    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    No, no that was written at 5AM. Hangover started around noon.
    jdbii likes this.
    06-04-2013 05:52 PM
  11. Fairclough's Avatar
    wtf, a hangover??? you gotta be kidding me. he's out of my league too.


    Yeah, least I presume so since Liberal's website is dark blue and Labors is bright red with their logo in red.
    06-04-2013 07:06 PM
  12. msndrstood's Avatar
    No, no that was written at 5AM. Hangover started around noon.
    I didn't look at the time, but still...



    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    Aquila likes this.
    06-04-2013 09:45 PM
  13. Aquila's Avatar
    I didn't look at the time, but still...



    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    As soon as you're in right frame, we're waiting for your rebuttal
    06-04-2013 10:05 PM
  14. msndrstood's Avatar
    As soon as you're in right frame, we're waiting for your rebuttal
    I'm due time, Obi-wan. I have a kindergarten graduation to attend today for my grand daughter which will take a lot of my concentration. Plus I'm taking my sister in law to pick up her S4 today. But then, my rebuttal you shall have, lol.

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    Aquila likes this.
    06-05-2013 07:34 AM
  15. ItnStln's Avatar
    I think about this on a few levels... obviously there exists a dichotomy between the red team and the blue team in politics, but at what level does it exist?

    To think about this honestly, it's necessary to make distinctions between what people say, what they do and what they believe. It's also necessary to think of people not only as individuals, but also as a separate organism when they combine voices. It's not simply red and blue or black and white. Indeed, with a little bit of education, the closer one gets to the far ends of the spectrum, the more aligned the positions on individual issues become to the opposite position on the spectrum. So why the conflict? In a word: perception.

    I'm going to focus on what people do, both because we know people lie and because it's quite obvious that the red team and the blue team are saying different things.. at least on the surface. What people actually do is a result of their beliefs, and I will attempt to show that the red team and the blue team, on an establishment level, have the exact same goals, methodology and win in the same way: therefore they are achieving the same actions and therefore share identical beliefs.

    Perception is a study of it's own, but for now let us make the following assumption: the perception of the majority of the people is carefully controlled by those in power.

    With this in mind, I make the following assertions:

    1. The media exists outside the context of the Constitutional consideration, which was to report, inform and to provide a check on the secret dealings of power. They are now merely mouthpieces of what is known as "the establishment", the microphone used by establishment "politicians".
    2. The majority of politics is in reality handled by people most of us will never hear about. The majority of the politicians that we see on camera, on the hill and in state houses across the country are themselves merely microphones to be used when they're popular, paraded as the downtrodden when they're not and discarded when they're useless.
    3. Those that make the decisions are not "owned" by the establishment business interests; they're not the pawns of corporations. They ARE the establishment business interests. This is called fascism and is the reason why there is no cry of fascism when both democrats and republicans agree to rob the public blind and pass those funds directly to corporations that seemingly have little to no alignment with the politicians leading the charge. This happens irregardless of what jersey they wear.
    4. By the time they rise to the national stage, 100% of politicians are employed by the fascist establishment, while receiving a paycheck and praise for their efforts from the people. Despite the openness of this conflict of interest, a very small percentage of the public is concerned. Many view the side effects as "corruption" of individual politicians, or a systemic system of bribery, etc. in which specific people are guilty of betraying their oath... when the reality, is that if they ever make a decision in the favor of the people, it's either coincidence or a direct betrayal of their real masters.... this is why this very rarely happens.
    5. The mechanism of the deception, the reason that the average Joe doesn't recognize fascism at work, or that they might smell it but believe it to be less rampant than it is, is a manipulation of focus and perception known as the hegelian dialectic. One creates a problem - thesis, creates a draconian solution, antithesis and then allows a compromise that was the true goal of the project anyways, synthesis.

    In this case it's the dialectic squared, squared. In a masterful perversion of one of the most basic and already perverse manners of human manipulation, the following scenario unfolds: The establishment creates a problem and lets their mouthpieces slowly leak the problem, spun appropriately, to the public. In this case they do it twice, once with red shirts and once with blue shirts and their respective media microphones. They then create a solution, following the same pattern. The resulting actions, taken as compromise, can be observed to be the true original intent of the establishment.

    This is the mastery in three parts:
    1. The entire public needs to buy into the existence of the problem, but they don't recognize the true allegiances of the red and blue teams to the same masters, they only trust their side. Thus, each side spins it through their channels. But, some people don't trust easily, so they take it a step forward to add emotional content... they each blame the other "side" for the problem. In this way, the media mouthpieces for both sides are all talking about the problem, all blaming the other team and creating a religiosity-esque fervor among the masses. On a psychological level, people need to feel aligned with society and opposed to the forces that would undo it. Clearly this step plays to both sides of that need in a passionate way. The exact same process is repeated for the solution, escalating the public's buy-in to their side's argument.
    2. The resulting synthesis can be perceived as a compromise or as a win for either side without harming the overall objective. Obviously, the synthesis was the original intent and thus, both sides playing for the same team, both sides win despite what the public believes.
    3. The resulting synthesis is but one step in a long ladder of these projects, and looking backwards it's easy to view the goal by observing the progress made: the erosion of the concept, believe in and power of Rights. Already, an immense part of the population believes that their Rights are granted to them by the government.

    The key to this entire thing is understanding the difference between controlling a person's actions and controlling their perspective. When people rail against being controlled, they believe it's in reference to someone somehow either magically, or technologically forcing them to do specific actions against their will. The reality is far darker. By controlling your perception, they allow you to choose the action they wanted and it is of your own free will, because you programmatically have no other choice. Like in chess, the goal is to create a situation in which no matter what move your opponent makes, it strengthens your position and weakens theirs.

    I'm not sure how well I've made my case, but we've covered some pixels here and have already entered the TLR status for many readers, so let me finish with one last statement and two questions:

    Statement: The goal of the establishment is clear, because fascism has but one goal: tyranny in totality.
    Question 1: Do you see a distinction between the red team and the blue team?
    Question 2: What color jersey do you wear?
    I do see a distinction, at least to a degree. The blue team wants to take my hard earned money, and give it to those who are too lazy to get off their asses and get a job. I am not okay with that, as I work very hard for what little money I make, and all the liberal idiots want to do is tax me. Also, I refuse to give up my second amendment rights. I'm sick of living under a fascist tyrant who wants to wants to tax the hell out of those who work, and give to the undeserving scum who refuse to get a job. Like I've said, I have earned everything I have, and have never had a handout from the government. Hell, I was denied financial aid for college.
    06-06-2013 06:52 PM
  16. Aquila's Avatar
    I do see a distinction, at least to a degree. The blue team wants to take my hard earned money, and give it to those who are too lazy to get off their asses and get a job. I am not okay with that, as I work very hard for what little money I make, and all the liberal idiots want to do is tax me. Also, I refuse to give up my second amendment rights. I'm sick of living under a fascist tyrant who wants to wants to tax the hell out of those who work, and give to the undeserving scum who refuse to get a job. Like I've said, I have earned everything I have, and have never had a handout from the government. Hell, I was denied financial aid for college.

    That's a distinction in the rhetoric. You don't live under a fascist tyrant individual, you live in a fascist establishment. It's the system, not the people or the teams. When you move past the phraseology of the arguments made to the public, the objectives, identified through analysis of their actions, are clear. Neither "side" represents you, nor your ideals. In big government, there are no liberals or conservatives, there is only the establishment. I'm asking you to look past the show, behind the curtain and to ignore the spin. The rhetoric is the distraction. As individual people, the public is highly susceptible to red team vs blue team, and on that level they're real. What I'm saying, is that neither team is actually real in high level politics. They just don't exist. It's a fabrication for the benefit of generating buy in to the concealment of the dialectic.

    Even at face value, if we assume all of my arguments are wrong, the dynamics of economics are far more complicated than either team is willing to attempt to comprehend. Are there lazy people? Yep. Are there thieves? Yep. We spend a lot of time worrying about people stealing $100 and completely ignore the systematic corruption that funnels hundreds of billions of "unearned" dollars from the people to the establishment. Is there a reason it bothers us in one case, and not the other? Those are the questions I'm proposing. Is the paradigm broken? Is it a lens provided by the establishment on accident or for a reason?

    Like 3D glasses, through one lens the world is red, the other it's blue. Put them both on and you see the intended picture, but I'm asking you to take them off, ignore the screen and look around at the audience, look at the projection booth and wonder why they put forth the show at all? Just like in the theater analogy, the money and control of what is shown goes from those who participate in the audience directly to someone not even in the room.

    jdbii and msndrstood like this.
    06-06-2013 07:06 PM
  17. llamabreath's Avatar


    I think signatures are stupid.
    msndrstood, jdbii and Aquila like this.
    06-06-2013 07:33 PM
  18. Aquila's Avatar
    I think I should start doing drugs. Well, maybe once my daughters are older and moved out. *shrug*
    06-07-2013 04:41 AM
  19. llamabreath's Avatar
    I think I should start doing drugs. Well, maybe once my daughters are older and moved out. *shrug*
    lol

    What?! ...I can't hear you.
    Aquila likes this.
    06-07-2013 04:59 AM
  20. msndrstood's Avatar
    I think I should start doing drugs. Well, maybe once my daughters are older and moved out. *shrug*
    You don't know what you're missing, lol!

    What?! ...I'm msndrstood.
    via Gnex
    Aquila likes this.
    06-07-2013 02:03 PM
  21. ItnStln's Avatar
    That's a distinction in the rhetoric. You don't live under a fascist tyrant individual, you live in a fascist establishment. It's the system, not the people or the teams. When you move past the phraseology of the arguments made to the public, the objectives, identified through analysis of their actions, are clear. Neither "side" represents you, nor your ideals. In big government, there are no liberals or conservatives, there is only the establishment. I'm asking you to look past the show, behind the curtain and to ignore the spin. The rhetoric is the distraction. As individual people, the public is highly susceptible to red team vs blue team, and on that level they're real. What I'm saying, is that neither team is actually real in high level politics. They just don't exist. It's a fabrication for the benefit of generating buy in to the concealment of the dialectic.

    Even at face value, if we assume all of my arguments are wrong, the dynamics of economics are far more complicated than either team is willing to attempt to comprehend. Are there lazy people? Yep. Are there thieves? Yep. We spend a lot of time worrying about people stealing $100 and completely ignore the systematic corruption that funnels hundreds of billions of "unearned" dollars from the people to the establishment. Is there a reason it bothers us in one case, and not the other? Those are the questions I'm proposing. Is the paradigm broken? Is it a lens provided by the establishment on accident or for a reason?

    Like 3D glasses, through one lens the world is red, the other it's blue. Put them both on and you see the intended picture, but I'm asking you to take them off, ignore the screen and look around at the audience, look at the projection booth and wonder why they put forth the show at all? Just like in the theater analogy, the money and control of what is shown goes from those who participate in the audience directly to someone not even in the room.

    http://rack.2.mshcdn.com/media/ZgkyM...4d1ade3c8a.jpg
    The blue side doesn't represent my ideas, or even come close. Like I said, I'm sick of working my *** off just to have the dems raise my taxes, like they did this year, and give my money to the lazy no good scum who refuses to get off their lazy *** and get a job. And I'll keep my guns, you can take this racist ***** in chief.
    06-07-2013 06:47 PM
  22. Jerry Hildenbrand's Avatar
    Further discriminatory comments will result in more bannings.
    06-07-2013 07:37 PM
  23. Aquila's Avatar
    Further discriminatory comments will result in more bannings.
    This is the exact opposite of the point of this thread. I thought the 3D glasses analogy would have worked for someone. Sorry
    msndrstood likes this.
    06-07-2013 07:39 PM
  24. Jerry Hildenbrand's Avatar
    This is the exact opposite of the point of this thread. I thought the 3D glasses analogy would have worked for someone. Sorry
    Nothing you did, no need to apologize.

    But I know everyone understands that we can not have that sort of posting going on here.
    Patrick Schroedl likes this.
    06-07-2013 07:48 PM
  25. GadgetGator's Avatar

    Statement: The goal of the establishment is clear, because fascism has but one goal: tyranny in totality.
    Question 1: Do you see a distinction between the red team and the blue team?
    Question 2: What color jersey do you wear?[/B]
    Yes I see a very big distinction between the red team and the blue team.

    The Blue Team:

    1. The blue team wants to help other people, lend a helping hand (yes it does extend too far sometimes), and in general make things better for poorer people, people without insurance, etc. etc.
    2. The blue team understands that everyone should have equality. That rights should be for all, not just some.
    3. The blue team seems to be mostly pro-choice or (like me) not in favor of them, but at least understand that banning abortions just makes women resort to coat hangers in a back alley somewhere.
    4. The blue team spends money like a drunken sailor, but doesn't claim to be fiscally conservative either.

    The Red Team

    1. The red team thinks people should mostly be on their own. Fall on hard times, run out of assistance? Sucks to be you.
    2. The red team's official party platform is one of discrimination. Certain people should be able to marry whom they love, others should not. They claim to be a big tent inclusive party, but they go out of their way to alienate gays, hispanics, women...lots of different groups.
    3. Red team is anti-choice. And for all their claim of smaller government, when it comes to this issue they want government even MORE involved...right into the doctors office.
    4. Red team spends money like a drunken sailor, but pretends it doesn't.

    As an additional point, I would say the red team has more crazy politicians then the blue team does.

    So are their similarities? Of course! But even hypothetically these teams are not cut from the same cloth. There are real differences, some of which I outlined above. Which is why I am a proud member of the blue team. Because I don't believe in discrimination against other people's rights. I don't believe voting on other people's marriages. And while I am not in favor of abortions, I know that banning them before solved nothing. Is it a perfect team? OH HELL NO. But of the two, it reflects my values better.
    06-07-2013 08:27 PM
34 12

Similar Threads

  1. Gray vs. blue icons.
    By mikebear in forum Verizon Galaxy Nexus
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 06-16-2014, 11:30 AM
  2. White vs. Blue S3
    By pstellato73 in forum Samsung Galaxy S3
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 07-08-2012, 10:44 PM
  3. Tl;Dr: HBOOT 1.5
    By AidenSurvival in forum HTC EVO 3D Rooting, ROMs, and Hacks
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-07-2012, 02:52 AM
  4. battery only displays arty team percent intervals?
    By kalldrexx in forum Motorola Droid
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 04-13-2010, 08:13 PM
  5. So is the Droid team the anticipated iPhone rival?
    By o2bnclemson in forum HTC Droid Eris
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:38 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD