Apparently New Zealand is governed by morons

"

Raycheetah wrote:

By the way, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, was a Republican. ='[.]'=

I find this topic interesting, I plan on watching that youtube video later. I did have to google this though, and according to wikipedia, Martin Luther King, Jr, didnt pick a political side. If anything, to me it reads like he leaned more democratic if anything (e.g. the Paul Douglas and JFK comments).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Politics

"

Rjkd12 wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

By the way, Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr, was a Republican. ='[.]'=

I find this topic interesting, I plan on watching that youtube video later. I did have to google this though, and according to wikipedia, Martin Luther King, Jr, didnt pick a political side. If anything, to me it reads like he leaned more democratic if anything (e.g. the Paul Douglas and JFK comments).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr.#Politics

Well, there's the Wiki, and then there's his own flesh and blood:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz6MMIZErp0

At any rate, that video is a starting point. One thing to think about when comparing the current values and aims of the GOP as opposed to the Democrat party is this: The GOP (for all its flaws, especially in its current incarnation as the party of weaklings and compromisers) is, and has always been, about personal liberty. Look at any law restricting what you can and cannot do in the US, at any level, and it is the Democrat party which seeks to abridge and control your rights to do as you will. Restrict soda sizes in NYC? Dems. Raise the legal smoking age in Hawai'i? Dems (who also have created a gun-control environment which is almost unmatched in the nation, and have also wrecked the state budget to the point that the school week has been reduced to FOUR days). Looking for a state which denies your right not to participate in activities which are against your religious beliefs (because your non-participation "offends" those who wish you to say, bake them a cake for their wedding), look for a BLUE state.

Every time someone legislates to relieve you of the right to decide when and where your kids can go out to play? Dems. Don't let those kids try to set up a lemonade stand in a blue municipality; they'd likely violate a slew of regulations, including business licensing. I could go on and on. Now, of what is the GOP accused? Of trying to create a theocratic tyranny? News flash: The Constitution forbids this. Denying women the right to have abortions? Well, that is another debate entirely, but killing a viable member of the human species is, by one not unreasonable interpretation, murder. YMMV.

Bottom line: Republicans (not necessarily the Beltway shysters in DC) support self-reliance, and the right to be left alone. Democrats believe in an all-powerful state which will level the playing field at any cost, no matter how damaging to society and the economy. They seek control of every aspect of your life, and won't stop until they get it.

Finally, here's an amusing email which has made the rounds:

Which side of the fence?

If you ever wondered which side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a Republican doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Democrat doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a Republican is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Democrat is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a Republican is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Democrat is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.

If a Republican is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Democrat wonders who is going to take care of him.

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a Republican is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Democrat non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced.

If a Republican decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it.
A Democrat demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a Republican reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Democrat will delete it because he's "offended".

It looks like this thread has been derailed. Might be a good idea for anyone who wishes to continue this discussion to make a new, more specific thread. ='[.]'=

is there a country that isn't Governed by morons?

@Raycheetah: you are somewhat biased, isn't it? Anyway, I agree a new thread should be created to discuss the whole MLK thing (the sources (like friends, colaborators, direct relatives and interviews) I found utterly contradict your info, n_nU, even if MLK's niece agrees with you)

@diablofdb: there are some capable people, but yes, most politicians are dangerously incompentent.

Anyone who claims to lack bias is a liar. I speak from my own perspective, with the information I possess. Others see things differently. I wouldn't expect any different from anyone else. =^[.]^=

"

Xavderion wrote:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/07/01/nz_swings_banhammer_at_trolls/

While this is kind of funny when thinking about the forum drama we had around here for the past couple of months, I still can't believe how fucking stupid these politicians have to be to pass such a bill.

TL;DR: If you hurt someones fee fees on Facebook, Twitter, Reddit or General Discussion, that someone can demand from the site owner to delete your post or else he can sue. Since no site will be bothered to thoroughly investigate if a post truly causes "serious emotional distress", it will of course delete everything that has been reported without thinking about it.



People on the internet can't take a hit or something. OMFG, a bill because someone hurt someone's feeling. WTF

"

Xavderion wrote:

"

Raycheetah wrote:

"

Disrupted wrote:

For that matter, the division on political sides nowadays should really be tackled as well. I mean, at least propaganda. The majority already learned the dangers of extreme right, but people are ignoring too much the dangers of extreme left, I see so much brainwashing that I, as a free-thinker and someone more moderate get to see people often calling me a right-winger as a defamatory definition whenever I dont agree 100% with their thoughts. that is pretty much the left boogeyman.
(hell, some people are so brainwashed they think the KKK was aligned with the conservatives... jesus)

This is a video outlining the documented facts of the Democrat party (and its historical support of racist policies) in the US:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5wz_0utCrm0

As the speaker, Bill Whittle, says, he doesn't expect you to take what he says at face value. He challenges you to look it up for yourself.

That said, if you can't be bothered to watch the whole video, you have no business commenting on it.

I only wish more black Americans would open their eyes to this. ='[.]'=

Interesting. So when did they switch sides? I've been told several times that yeah it's basically correct what the guy said in the video but at some point the parties switched sides so the Republicans are the racists now and the Democrats are the good people.

well lincoln was republican, part of the union. The Grand ole' party 'states rights democratic party' comes from southern confederate states. And there were other major political parties that dont exist anymore. Political party restructuring has happened a few times in american politics. It just fits the 'there is no such thing as a white racist' narrative being sewn by fox news and affiliates that at one time the lincoln-era republicans were pro-union and anti-slavery. (and clearly did not fly the confederate flag)

they didnt switch sides on racial issues. it was more along the lines of government powers during the 'reconstruction' and 'new deal' eras when the GOP 'states rights democratic party' started voting with the republicans and the full transition later over civil rights bill of 1964 (more of a switch of along racial lines by the segregationist 'states rights democratic party' ). The republicans did not want to spend a bunch of money on reconstucting the south and The GOP states rights democratic party was very keen on keeping the federal government powers limited to keep state laws like 3/5ths (a black land owner voted counted as 60% of a white land owner's vote) and segregation and no women voting in place. (jim crow poll taxes, the law requirement to be able to read in order to vote while simultaneously being illegal to teach black people to read, and other such nonsense )

I was wrong, GOP was lincoln's party.
'states rights democratic party' was what i was (incorrectly)referring as the GOP, but contained the likes of strom thurmond who became a republican in the 60's after running for president on a states rights segregationist ticket in the 40's.

"

If a Republican doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Democrats demand that those they don't like be shut down.

oh is that what happened between oreilly and brian williams (not sure if brian is the host but close enough)? bill just switched the channel eh?

The rest is pretty funny, and I have to agree with your disdain on the far left. One thing I do not understand though is why anyone would support the current GOP economic policies. I get the personal liberty stuff, i even get the racism denier stuff. I do not understand why working class americans are fighting so hard for broken policies like supply-side economics (or basically the backbone policy for ideas like illuminati or new world orders to even exist, which are being dubbed as liberal catechisms). In my mind, it can only be attributed to the grand old party states rights party age old tricks of systematically deny minorities.


Oh and by the way I will guarantee you, Guarantee, that MLK jr. and strom thurmond did not vote the same tickets.


found this pretty interesting:

"Blacks moved into the Democratic Party during the New Deal era; they could vote in the North but not in the South." - GOP wikipedia

and presumably supported government intervention in southern states for pretty obvious reason...like not being able to vote in the south.

Republican Party: Not to be confused with American Republican Party, Democratic-Republican Party, or National Republican Party. - Also from GOP wikipedia (as you can see there have been many iterations of parties calling themselves 'republican')

"

Look at any law restricting what you can and cannot do in the US, at any level, and it is the Democrat party which seeks to abridge and control your rights to do as you will.

emissions controls in california? arnold did a good thing by getting it in the books, but he wasnt a democrat.

"

Don't let those kids try to set up a lemonade stand in a blue municipality; they'd likely violate a slew of regulations, including business licensing.

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=zdWgAJc3eE-Y.k5aaXjT9YwuM&msa=0&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=36.093703,-102.069597&spn=20.61328,62.34518&t=h&source=embed

ya just look at those liberal strong holds of georgia, wisconsin, arizona, massachussets, south carolina, missouri. Those damn liberals...oh wait, those are red states? well, ignore this, it doesnt fit the liberal trashing narrative, k?

Well, did we have enough rightwing propaganda in this thread? I mean, the left is shitty too, but at least they have not people trying to rewrite history in a easy to catch fashion (at least in US) in significant numbers.

Democrats were racist...like one century ago. Things have switched since then. Also, the libertarian wing of the Republican party can't really be called racist (or homophobic or whatever). They are just unreasonable about the limits of freedom sometimes.

As a libertarian, I take umbrage as being referred to as a wing of the Republican Party. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats want big government and say so, while Republicans want big government and lie about it. Democrats are tax-and-spend, Republicans are debt-and-spend.

"

ScrotieMcB wrote:

As a libertarian, I take umbrage as being referred to as a wing of the Republican Party. As far as I'm concerned, Democrats want big government and say so, while Republicans want big government and lie about it. Democrats are tax-and-spend, Republicans are debt-and-spend.

"Somewhere in the history of libertarianism, this rejection of the State has been eroded to the point that anarchists are now aspiring politicians and can hear the words "anarchist Senator" without flinching. No longer is libertarianism directed against the positions of power, against the offices through which the State is manifested; the modern message — complete with straw hats, campaign rhetoric and strategic evasion — is "elect my man to office" as if it were the man disgracing the office and not the other way around. Those who point out that no one has the right to such a position, that such power is anathema to the concept of rights itself, are dismissed as negative, reactionary or crackpot."

- Wendy McElroy