Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

A General discussion about everything other than South Park

Moderator: Big-Will

ssouthparkk4602
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:49 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby ssouthparkk4602 » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:03 pm

nbabechenko wrote:I'm with you about changing the meaning of "Fagg" to liberals and Radicals. They piss me off. However I believe it should also remain a word that can be used according to the user.
It should still be used for homosexuals, annoying people, duschbags, maybe Harley riders, cigarettes, and whoever pisses anyone off.
This way everyone wins, and this whole indecisive argument can stop. This is my opinion, and if you don't like it, your a "liberal democrat"...........lol.

Well, I disagree so I guess I am one, then. At least I am not a piss-water, back-country redneck Conservative.

Oh. and Democrats piss me off, they are pussies.
"If the President has a BLT tomorrow, the Republicans will try to ban bacon."
-Alan Grayson

"Tolerance of intolerance is just as good as intolerance."
-TheAmazingAtheist

Formerly: gtaca2005 Member since: Thu Jan 06, 2005
Wii fit man
Posts: 11153
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby Wii fit man » Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:50 pm

nbabechenko wrote:I'm with you about changing the meaning of "Fagg" to liberals and Radicals. They piss me off. However I believe it should also remain a word that can be used according to the user.
It should still be used for homosexuals, annoying people, duschbags, maybe Harley riders, cigarettes, and whoever pisses anyone off.
This way everyone wins, and this whole indecisive argument can stop. This is my opinion, and if you don't like it, your a "liberal democrat"...........lol.

So conservatives are fags too.

Hah.
effses: Austin confirmed for turbo homosexual
gbrhuskers
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 8:52 pm

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby gbrhuskers » Mon Dec 14, 2009 9:05 pm

Are you kidding me with this? I don't get why you would try to demean a political party of the United States. You obviously don’t care much for your country if you feel the need to try and make fun of politicians. If you got a problem with it, you change it. That’s why we have a democracy, so the people have control over the government. I’m telling you I’m not a fan of a lot of the politicians we have both conservatives and liberals. Just don’t go making fun of the people that you were probably too lazy to vote against.
Beard
Posts: 1031
Joined: Fri Sep 25, 2009 9:24 pm

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby Beard » Mon Dec 14, 2009 10:42 pm

You obviously don't care much for your country if you feel the need to try and make fun of politicians


Bill Clinton had sexual relations with that women!
Formerly known as Master_Of_All

Consistent poster in the Character Discussion threads.
ssouthparkk4602
Posts: 906
Joined: Sun Aug 23, 2009 6:49 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby ssouthparkk4602 » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:00 pm

Beard wrote:
You obviously don't care much for your country if you feel the need to try and make fun of politicians


Bill Clinton had sexual relations with that women!

I love Bill. :D

The affair is none of our business. And I say the same for Gov. Sanford.
"If the President has a BLT tomorrow, the Republicans will try to ban bacon."
-Alan Grayson

"Tolerance of intolerance is just as good as intolerance."
-TheAmazingAtheist

Formerly: gtaca2005 Member since: Thu Jan 06, 2005
JohnHorn
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby JohnHorn » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:32 pm

My comment is what if a bunch of liberals we’re to protect your guns rights… orwhat if a bunch of liberals, where theonly people who would be willing to help your family are they fags then?
There is also a difference between how some members act and a group in general any one nazi may be lovely as hell and not support any form of murder and genocide, all would support dictatorships,
but by all meansthis alone hardly makes it worthy of using the word facsist even then, the point is that facsism supports such things that firstly we have knowledge of what happens in practice for a specific narrow system.
And we also have knowledge of the paterns fo belief that there modern counter parts hold, and overall they are a-lot more abrasive especially in there belief then that.
But the same applies not just to parties we agree to be extreme, but also to parties who are extreme,
or parties who are but aren't accepted as extreme,
further more we can go on… the same thing applies to moderates, as well as those who are moderates tet considered extreme of radicals,
and this also applies to thosewho appear moderate but are extreme in any direction, matter of fact it even applies to religion.
there may be corrupt banker jews,
but that doesn't mean
that all bankers jews are corrupt.
or ny other statement involving jews,
that is a steriotype and as for ethnicity an incidence in this doesn't prove it, just because the tendancy is that white politicians tend to be the corrupt politicians in a mixes bagdoesn't mean white politicians are per-se corrupt anymore or anyless then it does for any other racial group.
PS:Also there is a statistical heuristic that is something has got to be the biggest smallest etc, if all values appear to not be equal.
As only equal values can be in the same position.
so given random data someone will loose, and somone will win for every stat you can think of.
JohnHorn
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby JohnHorn » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:42 pm

PS: I was reffering when talking about facsism I was giving an example, of a political system, and I also want to clarify that, The example was arbitrary except for it being on a minority that is acused of such actions do to racsism the reason for this is to make the message more obvious.
I would also add that what we may from the outset see as a valid political ideology of a certain type may be fake in the sensethat it isn't part of such an ideology, just because some right wing folks who are against liberty have the word freedom in there logo doesn't mean they are peaceful so the same kind of phenonemon can also apply in the positive direction.
JohnHorn
Posts: 920
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:09 pm

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby JohnHorn » Mon Dec 14, 2009 11:44 pm

Lastly does anyone else here think it is absurd to add an definition for 1 political party?
why not for all?
nbabechenko
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:11 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby nbabechenko » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:09 am

Wow, where do I begin......

ssouthparkk4602- I am no piss-ass, redneck. I'm currently going to college to become a Veterinary Technician and I have achieved a 4.0 GPA after recently finishing my first quarter. Can you say the same??? Also, Bill Clinton's affair was our business. He had it while he was in office! The President of the United States isn't just the Commander and Chief, he is the main citizen and should set a respectable, moral example on and off the job. Worst of all, when confronted, he lied about it to the American public.

Wii fit man- I don't even know what to say to you. I respect everyone's opinion, but all of your comments, on all the threads you posted on, are nothing but short answers and blatant insults that make me wonder why I'm wasting two minutes of my life writing this paragraph.

qbrhuskers- Your political view is uneducated and naive. Politicians cannot be changed or kicked out of office that easily. Government has become to powerful for that. Which is why I am a conservative and support a weaker government that is more susceptible to the will of the American people. Also, how can you assume, without any evidence, that people on this site most likely didn't or don't vote.

continued on next post......
iloveyouguys
Posts: 5579
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:43 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby iloveyouguys » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:23 am

you know what I say to all of you political types?


you can GIT OUT!

just kidding. Libertarians FTW

(wow that was really gay of me)
This is my signature. I made it small so anyone who tries to read it has to copy and paste the text somewhere else only to find that it isn't interesting at all. Congratulations. Also, fuckshitcockassbitchtitspenisfagskankwhorecuntpoop.
nbabechenko
Posts: 98
Joined: Tue Nov 17, 2009 1:11 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby nbabechenko » Thu Dec 17, 2009 1:44 am

nbabechenko wrote:Wow, where do I begin......

ssouthparkk4602- I am no piss-ass, redneck. I'm currently going to college to become a Veterinary Technician and I have achieved a 4.0 GPA after recently finishing my first quarter. Can you say the same??? Also, Bill Clinton's affair was our business. He had it while he was in office! The President of the United States isn't just the Commander and Chief, he is the main citizen and should set a respectable, moral example on and off the job. Worst of all, when confronted, he lied about it to the American public.

Wii fit man- I don't even know what to say to you. I respect everyone's opinion, but all of your comments, on all the threads you posted on, are nothing but short answers and blatant insults that make me wonder why I'm wasting two minutes of my life writing this paragraph.

qbrhuskers- Your political view is uneducated and naive. Politicians cannot be changed or kicked out of office that easily. Government has become to powerful for that. Which is why I am a conservative and support a weaker government that is more susceptible to the will of the American people. Also, how can you assume, without any evidence, that people on this site most likely didn't or don't vote.

continued on next post......


Beard- I love your comment. It was totally relevant to the topic we were talking about, but at the same time totally irrelevant. Seriously, Bravo! [hands clapping] You Rock!

JohnHorn- On second view, You tried to hard in your post. It didn't make any sense because of this. And what did make sense didn't sound good to me.
Last edited by nbabechenko on Tue Dec 22, 2009 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
Wii fit man
Posts: 11153
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby Wii fit man » Thu Dec 17, 2009 2:01 am

OK, you want intelligent debate? I can do that too.

Also, Bill Clinton's affair was our business. He had it while he was in office! The President of the United States isn't just the Commander and Chief, he is the main citizen and should set a respectable, moral example on and off the job. Worst of all, when confronted, he lied about it to the American public.
Bush lied to the American public, and started a war based on misinformation, and that's not our business? I fail to see your logic here.

Wii fit man- I don't even know what to say to you. I respect everyone's opinion, but all of your comments, on all the threads you posted on, are nothing but short answers and blatant insults that make me wonder why I'm wasting two minutes of my life writing this paragraph.
I like to throw insults at people who say something stupid, gay, annoying, closed-minded, or fucked up. When I see such things, I will do my best to insult them. My comment above however was not even an insult, it was a joke, using your own logic against you.

I'm currently going to college to become a Veterinary Technician and I have achieved a 4.0 GPA after recently finishing my first quarter. Can you say the same???

That doesn't make you better.

qbrhuskers- Your political view is uneducated and naive. Politicians cannot be changed or kicked out of office that easily. Government has become to powerful for that. Which is why I am a conservative and support a weaker government that is more susceptible to the will of the American people. Also, how can you assume, without any evidence, that people on this site most likely didn't or don't vote.
I don't see why a smaller government is necessary, it would simply topple. We already got fucked by a smaller government once (Articles of Confederation) so why would we do it again?

Beard- I love your comment. It was totally relevant to the topic we were talking about, but at the same time totally irrelevant. Seriously, Bravo! [hands clapping] You Rock!
I forgot as well, I laugh at people who take the internet seriously.
effses: Austin confirmed for turbo homosexual
Frosty_D
Posts: 843
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2008 3:31 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby Frosty_D » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:26 am

*ahem*

I don't think it really matters what side of the political spectrum you are on. "They are on the left, fight em!", "They are republicans, go get them!", "Thar's some commies!", ect. It doesn't help anything by attacking a person before hearing out what their views are. But after hearing them, then you can attack their views and maybe afterward call them names.

To say that democratic is a bit harsh (and an ad hominem). That is unless you want the word to become nicer in views of democrats and meanish in the view of the republicans (possibly, not sure).


Wii: A big gov won't help much. it's more likely to try to look over everything. Just hope that we can keep it in check.



I do not want a huge government. I want a small one. I want it to continue to get smaller and smaller until we go to Anarchy. (Not a fast paced anarchy for that might have many fights and gangs and all that sh*t, and people would more than likely to abide by the old societies laws that way.)
iloveyouguys
Posts: 5579
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 10:43 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby iloveyouguys » Thu Dec 17, 2009 3:35 am

Frosty_D wrote:I do not want a huge government. I want a small one. I want it to continue to get smaller and smaller until we go to Anarchy. (Not a fast paced anarchy for that might have many fights and gangs and all that sh*t, and people would more than likely to abide by the old societies laws that way.)

yes.
This is my signature. I made it small so anyone who tries to read it has to copy and paste the text somewhere else only to find that it isn't interesting at all. Congratulations. Also, fuckshitcockassbitchtitspenisfagskankwhorecuntpoop.
triplemultiplex
Posts: 6056
Joined: Mon Jan 31, 2005 5:24 am

Re: Let's change the meaning of "Fagg" to liberal democrats

Postby triplemultiplex » Thu Dec 17, 2009 11:54 pm

It's simply not practical to have a small federal government in a post-industrial, first world nation like the United States. The vast majority of people are dependent on some type of service provided by the government whether they realize it or not. If one attempts to curtail the reach of the federal government in this country, that will simply transfer the burden of providing that service to state and local government.

As inefficient as one may consider the federal government as a regulatory body, it's far more effective than having a hodgepodge of state laws to navigate. For arguments sake, let's say we got rid of the Food & Drug Administration. Then the task of approving pharmaceuticals and monitoring the safety of our non-meat food supply goes to the states. We would quickly see disparate types of regulation; an item that passes inspection in one state might not pass inspection in a neighboring state. Interstate commerce would grind to a halt as business & private individuals have to navigate a perplex web of red tape.

The federal bureaucracy might often be a bumbling, incompetent monstrosity, but without it, I believe this country gets even worse. To me, it comes down to who do you trust less? A government that's supposed to be accountable to us citizens and over whom we theoretically have oversight via the power of election? Or private corporations who rightfully exist to make a profit, are accountable only to their shareholders and will disclose as much or as little as they want about their product or service?

At this point in our history, government is the lesser of two evils. And it will remain that way until we have an independent "inspector general" for Wal-Mart and Exxon-Mobile and Humana and Blackwater and DeBeers and a thousand other dominate corporations whose business practices have come into question in just my lifetime.
__________________________________________________

You read it! You can't unread it!

Return to “Off Topic Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests