XXXXXX

246 results
1
2
3
4
5

This topic is locked from further discussion.

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"][ Like I said, your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it. I also think it's funny you tried to cite Freakanomics on this considering it doesn't cite anything when talking about this either.

I've already cited it, so you lose again. Don't pretend to have actually read books, because you're gonna get called out on it. Unlike you, I'm not a poser. Additionally, you're a glutton for punishment, it seems, as you don't seem to get tired of getting wrecked over and over and over.. :D

12 years ago

13862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#152 Ravensmash

Member since 2010 • 13862 Posts

Yeah, still under the belief that spending limits should be imposed as they are here. Ridiculous to believe that someone campaigning with the backing of massive corporate interests doesn't have an advantage over someone with much less, even if their politics are similar.

12 years ago

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#153 DroidPhysX

Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

Unlike you, I'm not a poser. ADkraychik

12 years ago

9177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#154 BossPerson

Member since 2011 • 9177 Posts

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="kraychik"] What about CBS's "memogate/Rathergate" scandal with the false hit-piece against Bush accusing him of being AWOL from his military service for a year weeks before the election? Was that "dirty work"? You live in a dreamland where you think political speech should only be controlled if it comes from "big oil and wall street". It's also a lie that "rich companies" overwhelmingly support the right. It is in the interests of megacorporations to have extensive regulations to protect them from competitors and make it more difficult for new entries into the market, which is something the left can be expected to deliver. In the context of Canada, consider that CRTC protects the major telecommunication firms from foreign competition, while hurting the Canadian consumer. That's a product of leftism. You think these companies will fund politicians who want to dismantle the CRTC? kraychik

I don't believe that all republicans are vanguards of free market capitalism. Re: oil subsidies which are always supported by US republicans

"Oil subsidies"? Excuse me, oil companies are subsidizing the government by being among the most profitable corporations in America paying some of the largest amounts of taxes. Stop coming at me with all this socialist stupidity, you're just gonna get continually slapped around. People like you are why Arabs are terrible at politics and economics.

LOL. Oil subsidies don't exist? So the government should pay them money to get tax money in return? It seems you are the one with the lack of economic skill. Oil companies should pay taxes regardless of how much money they get from the gov (which is laughable since as you point out they are the most profitable companies in the world).

And if you use the defense that oil prices would go up thus we should pay them more, than you are siding with the paradigm of pragmatism trumping idealism (or an adherence to an absolute form of economics (lassez faire). Doing this would nullify your previous argument that people should be able to spend as much as they like since it is freedom of speech, regardless of the real world consequences of their actions. (ie: idealism trumping pragmatism)

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"][ Like I said, your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is demonstrably false.

Then demonstrate it. I also think it's funny you tried to cite Freakanomics on this considering it doesn't cite anything when talking about this either.

I've already cited it, so you lose again. Don't pretend to have actually read books, because you're gonna get called out on it. Unlike you, I'm not a poser. Additionally, you're a glutton for punishment, it seems, as you don't seem to get tired of getting wrecked over and over and over.. :D

Yes, you already cited it. It doesn't cite anything and makes a claim with nothing. A claim which other economists have called out. Citing nothingness isn't a good arguing strategy.

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="BossPerson"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="BossPerson"]The reason i wouldnt win even with 2 billion dollars is because nobody knows who I am. Money obviously buys election since it buys advertisements. Whether or not it is marxist to assume that the average person is a dumb sheep; the fact of the matter is money makes you speak louder. While I would love to believe all people are rational and free thinking and can see through advertisements and look up the issues for themselves (on the internet since mainstream media is an abomination [all of them]), the truth is the average person is not that smart. Call me a marxist if you want to, thats the truth. http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2008/11/money-wins-white-house-and.html And frankly, this is not even an attack on the right, I dont care if hollywood liberals spend 3times as much as business guys and corporations, its a perversion of democracy. You seem to think I follow the democrat-republican narrative. IMO they are both disgraces to American democracy. Its also the revolving door in washington that needs to be shut. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-12-19/siemens-hires-former-afghanistan-commander-stanley-mcchrystal.html

Like I said, your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is demonstrably false. Moreover, your attitude that money builds candidates and campaigns rather than the other way around is also demonstrably false. You think Obama won the 2008 election because he had much more money to campaign than McCain, or did money go to Obama because more people thought he was the better candidate? It's a sick mentality to control how people can spend their money and express themselves, which is one of the most basic liberties in a free society. As a leftist, though, of course you don't respect this. No matter how many times you try to parrot the leftist narrative of money determining outcomes, it'll never be true. I could give you ten times the campaign budget of Obama and Romney and you wouldn't even come *close* to winning the American Presidency, which shatters your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes. Like I said, your position is stupid and hypocritical, especially considering you rambled about "big oil and Wall Street" while ignoring all the leftist money spend in the news and Hollywood to perpetuate the leftist political narrative. We need MORE money in politics, not less. Let people express themselves as much as they are willing to.

Like I said earlier, rights are not absolute. Yes you are limiting free speech, but it is to prevent your democracy from revolving around money. And you keep mentioning the fact that hollywood liberals spend more than those on the right (please provide a reference for that if you keep saying that). I dont care if they do, its still a hijacking of democracy. It doesnt make a difference whether its GM or the UAW, money in politics is not a good thing. When money buys speech, its only logical to assume that one person will be able to speak louder than the other which overrides the debate about the two platforms and it instead turns the debate into an ad campaign. And your concept that even Hitler with a trillion dollars couldnt win an election here (which is of course true) is not because people are focusing on the actual substance of the issues, its because he's a goddamn Nazi that they will dismiss no matter how much airtime he bought.

Nobody's "hijacking" anything. Hollywood and news liberals should be free to say whatever they want and spend as much money as they want. It's none of my business. You can't regulate political speech effectively, which is what you think you can do with your mastermind leftism of babysitting the average person that you have contempt for (acting as if you're NOT an average person, also). Money doesn't "buy speech", either. You can say whatever you want, and if you've got money, take out an advertisement of support some movement or politician. Political speech is everywhere, and you can't control it or how people spend their money towards it. You're a hypocrite because you want to limit expenditures from "big oil and Wall Street" towards campaigns, but not from blatantly political entities like Jon Stewart, MSNBC, or Glenn Greenwald's blog. It's so pathetic how terrified you leftists are of true freedom. And rights are certainly absolute until you leftists begin chipping away at them in unjustifiable ways.

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"]Unlike you, I'm not a poser. ADDroidPhysX

I feel bad for the actual conservatives around here. I haven't seen any in awhile.

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

Yeah, still under the belief that spending limits should be imposed as they are here. Ridiculous to believe that someone campaigning with the backing of massive corporate interests doesn't have an advantage over someone with much less, even if their politics are similar.Ravensmash

"Massive corporate interests" as opposed to massive leftist interests from the media, Hollywood, unions, or other sources? Please. Also, I've already explained how certain large businesses actually benefit from leftist regulation that strangles competition and entrenches their position. I'm not surprised that a leftist like yourself can't divorce himself from his own illusions.

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] Then demonstrate it. I also think it's funny you tried to cite Freakanomics on this considering it doesn't cite anything when talking about this either.

I've already cited it, so you lose again. Don't pretend to have actually read books, because you're gonna get called out on it. Unlike you, I'm not a poser. Additionally, you're a glutton for punishment, it seems, as you don't seem to get tired of getting wrecked over and over and over.. :D

Yes, you already cited it. It doesn't cite anything and makes a claim with nothing. A claim which other economists have called out. Citing nothingness isn't a good arguing strategy.

Translation - You're embarrassed, again, and make a hilarious claim that what I linked "says nothing" while it's directly relevant to the discussion to which you've contributed nothing.

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
[QUOTE="kraychik"]Unlike you, I'm not a poser. ADAce6301

I feel bad for the actual conservatives around here. I haven't seen any in awhile.

Translation - I'm still embarrassed and need to resort to childish insults in order to unsuccessfully deflect from my embarrassment.

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
kraychik

I feel bad for the actual conservatives around here. I haven't seen any in awhile.

Translation - I'm still embarrassed and need to resort to childish insults in order to unsuccessfully deflect from my embarrassment.

I can read your posts just fine Kray, you needn't translate them for me.

12 years ago

13862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#162 Ravensmash

Member since 2010 • 13862 Posts

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"]Yeah, still under the belief that spending limits should be imposed as they are here. Ridiculous to believe that someone campaigning with the backing of massive corporate interests doesn't have an advantage over someone with much less, even if their politics are similar.kraychik

"Massive corporate interests" as opposed to massive leftist interests from the media, Hollywood, unions, or other sources? Please. Also, I've already explained how certain large businesses actually benefit from leftist regulation that strangles competition and entrenches their position. I'm not surprised that a leftist like yourself can't divorce himself from his own illusions.

Where did I say that I was for those things?

12 years ago

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#163 Darkman2007

Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"]
If I recall correctly, and I should, the current contribution limit from an individual in Canada to a political candidates is $1200. It's stupid and immoral, but it's the law.
kraychik

I actually think its a smart idea, anyone should be free to contribute, but Id rather have politics dictated by politics, not money.

Politics isn't dictated by money, though. That's a leftist mythology. How can you be so arrogant to think that people are so stupid as to be brainwashed by well-funded campaigns? Why don't we give the Nazi Party a hundred billion dollars to campaign in Canada and see how far they get? If your narrative is true, and it most certainly isn't and is actually demonstrably false, then better-funded campaigns will always win.

because as sad as it is , much of society is stupid, there are alot of people who will vote for the leader who is the best orator , makes the most impression , heck , even the best looking , the Kennedy Vs Nixon debate shows how appearances can change perceptions

12 years ago

180187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#164 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180187 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"]Yeah, still under the belief that spending limits should be imposed as they are here. Ridiculous to believe that someone campaigning with the backing of massive corporate interests doesn't have an advantage over someone with much less, even if their politics are similar.Ravensmash

"Massive corporate interests" as opposed to massive leftist interests from the media, Hollywood, unions, or other sources? Please. Also, I've already explained how certain large businesses actually benefit from leftist regulation that strangles competition and entrenches their position. I'm not surprised that a leftist like yourself can't divorce himself from his own illusions.

Where did I say that I was for those things?

Hey man just divorce yourself....:P

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] I actually think its a smart idea, anyone should be free to contribute, but Id rather have politics dictated by politics, not money.

Politics isn't dictated by money, though. That's a leftist mythology. How can you be so arrogant to think that people are so stupid as to be brainwashed by well-funded campaigns? Why don't we give the Nazi Party a hundred billion dollars to campaign in Canada and see how far they get? If your narrative is true, and it most certainly isn't and is actually demonstrably false, then better-funded campaigns will always win.

because as sad as it is , much of society is stupid, there are alot of people who will vote for the leader who is the best orator , makes the most impression , heck , even the best looking , the Kennedy Vs Nixon debate shows how appearances can change perceptions

That's just leftist contempt towards your illusions of the everyman/woman. They don't need your babysitting and management of what messages, and in what volume, they should be allowed to be exposed to. Like I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology.

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

ike I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology. kraychik

I know you don't like citing things (still waiting on your immigration citation btw) but you shouldn't claim you've cited anything when you haven't. Lying is bad Kray, your mom should have taught you that.

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#167 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"]ike I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology. Ace6301

I know you don't like citing things (still waiting on your immigration citation btw) but you shouldn't claim you've cited anything when you haven't. Lying is bad Kray, your mom should have taught you that.

He's right. Money has nothing to do with elections. That's why Ralph Nader won two terms in the oval office.

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"]

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"]Yeah, still under the belief that spending limits should be imposed as they are here. Ridiculous to believe that someone campaigning with the backing of massive corporate interests doesn't have an advantage over someone with much less, even if their politics are similar.Ravensmash

"Massive corporate interests" as opposed to massive leftist interests from the media, Hollywood, unions, or other sources? Please. Also, I've already explained how certain large businesses actually benefit from leftist regulation that strangles competition and entrenches their position. I'm not surprised that a leftist like yourself can't divorce himself from his own illusions.

Where did I say that I was for those things?

You reveal your leftism with what you say as well as what you don't say. Your mentioning of "massive corporate interests" was pretty transparent leftist rhetoric.

12 years ago

180187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#169 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180187 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"]ike I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology. Ninja-Hippo

I know you don't like citing things (still waiting on your immigration citation btw) but you shouldn't claim you've cited anything when you haven't. Lying is bad Kray, your mom should have taught you that.

He's right. Money has nothing to do with elections. That's why Ralph Nader won two terms in the oval office.

Lack of being in a major party was a factor.....more so than the money.

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"]ike I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology. Ninja-Hippo

I know you don't like citing things (still waiting on your immigration citation btw) but you shouldn't claim you've cited anything when you haven't. Lying is bad Kray, your mom should have taught you that.

He's right. Money has nothing to do with elections. That's why Ralph Nader won two terms in the oval office.

Did you read his "citation" that he posted? I think my favourite part was when it was counter to his statements.

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#171 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"] You reveal your leftism with what you say as well as what you don't say. Your mentioning of "massive corporate interests" was pretty transparent leftist rhetoric.

Is it not possible to be opposed to corporate interests in election funding without being pigeon-holed by yourself as a 'leftist'. Wouldn't it be much easier to just discuss the substantive merits of the argument, rather than to cast everybody you disagree with into some role, be it true or not?

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"]ike I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology. Ninja-Hippo

I know you don't like citing things (still waiting on your immigration citation btw) but you shouldn't claim you've cited anything when you haven't. Lying is bad Kray, your mom should have taught you that.

He's right. Money has nothing to do with elections. That's why Ralph Nader won two terms in the oval office.

I'd tell you to try responding to the substantial posts I've made, but you and I both know you're outmatched.

12 years ago

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#173 Darkman2007

Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Politics isn't dictated by money, though. That's a leftist mythology. How can you be so arrogant to think that people are so stupid as to be brainwashed by well-funded campaigns? Why don't we give the Nazi Party a hundred billion dollars to campaign in Canada and see how far they get? If your narrative is true, and it most certainly isn't and is actually demonstrably false, then better-funded campaigns will always win.

because as sad as it is , much of society is stupid, there are alot of people who will vote for the leader who is the best orator , makes the most impression , heck , even the best looking , the Kennedy Vs Nixon debate shows how appearances can change perceptions

That's just leftist contempt towards your illusions of the everyman/woman. They don't need your babysitting and management of what messages, and in what volume, they should be allowed to be exposed to. Like I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology.

calling me a leftist? thats funny, if Im a leftist than youre a communist. Im not telling people what messages or how many they should hear, but what I do know for a fact that money , and superficial things do have a big impact.

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#174 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] I know you don't like citing things (still waiting on your immigration citation btw) but you shouldn't claim you've cited anything when you haven't. Lying is bad Kray, your mom should have taught you that.

He's right. Money has nothing to do with elections. That's why Ralph Nader won two terms in the oval office.

Lack of being in a major party was a factor.....more so than the money.

I don't know why Mitt Romney hosted that massive fund raiser with all of those billionaires just the other day. He obviously doesn't need the money to get elected. Waste of cash.

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#175 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"] I'd tell you to try responding to the substantial posts I've made, but you and I both know you're outmatched.

You seem like a really nice, humble, well-rounded individual.

12 years ago

180187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#176 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180187 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] He's right. Money has nothing to do with elections. That's why Ralph Nader won two terms in the oval office.

Lack of being in a major party was a factor.....more so than the money.

I don't know why Mitt Romney hosted that massive fund raiser with all of those billionaires just the other day. He obviously doesn't need the money to get elected. Waste of cash.

Switching candidates does not a counterpoint make.

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] You reveal your leftism with what you say as well as what you don't say. Your mentioning of "massive corporate interests" was pretty transparent leftist rhetoric.

Is it not possible to be opposed to corporate interests in election funding without being pigeon-holed by yourself as a 'leftist'. Wouldn't it be much easier to just discuss the substantive merits of the argument, rather than to cast everybody you disagree with into some role, be it true or not?

Why should corporate interests be opposed? Aside from the fact that they have legal personhood, corporations are associations of flesh and blood human beings who have interests and rights to express their views. What's next, opposition to funding political speech (which is already impossible to clearly define) from people deemed too rich according to your politics of jealousy and envy? You leftists are so pathetic in how much you fear freedom of speech and how much contempt you have what you believe in the average person, which is especially ironic considering it's obvious that the majority of GameSpot participants in this form are clearly average.

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] I'd tell you to try responding to the substantial posts I've made, but you and I both know you're outmatched.

You seem like a really nice, humble, well-rounded individual.

His character suffers from crushing self esteem issues and seeks validation on the internet. I like it, it's more interesting than most other alts here.

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] because as sad as it is , much of society is stupid, there are alot of people who will vote for the leader who is the best orator , makes the most impression , heck , even the best looking , the Kennedy Vs Nixon debate shows how appearances can change perceptions

That's just leftist contempt towards your illusions of the everyman/woman. They don't need your babysitting and management of what messages, and in what volume, they should be allowed to be exposed to. Like I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology.

calling me a leftist? thats funny, if Im a leftist than youre a communist. Im not telling people what messages or how many they should hear, but what I do know for a fact that money , and superficial things do have a big impact.

I'm not saying you're a leftist, I'm saying you're advancing a leftist argument by perpetuating this mythology of electoral outcomes being determined by money. I already provided a great post from the Freakonomics blog that blows this mythology out of the water. Nobody addressed it, predictably.

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#180 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] You reveal your leftism with what you say as well as what you don't say. Your mentioning of "massive corporate interests" was pretty transparent leftist rhetoric.

Is it not possible to be opposed to corporate interests in election funding without being pigeon-holed by yourself as a 'leftist'. Wouldn't it be much easier to just discuss the substantive merits of the argument, rather than to cast everybody you disagree with into some role, be it true or not?

Why should corporate interests be opposed? Aside from the fact that they have legal personhood, corporations are associations of flesh and blood human beings who have interests and rights to express their views. What's next, opposition to funding political speech (which is already impossible to clearly define) from people deemed too rich according to your politics of jealousy and envy? You leftists are so pathetic in how much you fear freedom of speech and how much contempt you have what you believe in the average person, which is especially ironic considering it's obvious that the majority of GameSpot participants in this form are clearly average.

Now i'm a leftist too? :| Just like everyone you disagree with in the other thread is an anti-semite? You have a terrible persecution complex.

12 years ago

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#181 DroidPhysX

Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Is it not possible to be opposed to corporate interests in election funding without being pigeon-holed by yourself as a 'leftist'. Wouldn't it be much easier to just discuss the substantive merits of the argument, rather than to cast everybody you disagree with into some role, be it true or not? Ninja-Hippo

Why should corporate interests be opposed? Aside from the fact that they have legal personhood, corporations are associations of flesh and blood human beings who have interests and rights to express their views. What's next, opposition to funding political speech (which is already impossible to clearly define) from people deemed too rich according to your politics of jealousy and envy? You leftists are so pathetic in how much you fear freedom of speech and how much contempt you have what you believe in the average person, which is especially ironic considering it's obvious that the majority of GameSpot participants in this form are clearly average.

Now i'm a leftist too? :| Just like everyone you disagree with in the other thread is an anti-semite? You have a terrible persecution complex.

Anyone who disagrees with him = leftist.

Quite amusing.

12 years ago

13862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#182 Ravensmash

Member since 2010 • 13862 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="kraychik"] "Massive corporate interests" as opposed to massive leftist interests from the media, Hollywood, unions, or other sources? Please. Also, I've already explained how certain large businesses actually benefit from leftist regulation that strangles competition and entrenches their position. I'm not surprised that a leftist like yourself can't divorce himself from his own illusions.

Where did I say that I was for those things?

You reveal your leftism with what you say as well as what you don't say. Your mentioning of "massive corporate interests" was pretty transparent leftist rhetoric.

But I believe that regulations should be mandatory on either side, regardless of candidate or political leaning.

12 years ago

9177

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#183 BossPerson

Member since 2011 • 9177 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] You reveal your leftism with what you say as well as what you don't say. Your mentioning of "massive corporate interests" was pretty transparent leftist rhetoric.

Is it not possible to be opposed to corporate interests in election funding without being pigeon-holed by yourself as a 'leftist'. Wouldn't it be much easier to just discuss the substantive merits of the argument, rather than to cast everybody you disagree with into some role, be it true or not?

Why should corporate interests be opposed? Aside from the fact that they have legal personhood, corporations are associations of flesh and blood human beings who have interests and rights to express their views. What's next, opposition to funding political speech (which is already impossible to clearly define) from people deemed too rich according to your politics of jealousy and envy? You leftists are so pathetic in how much you fear freedom of speech and how much contempt you have what you believe in the average person, which is especially ironic considering it's obvious that the majority of GameSpot participants in this form are clearly average.

So you really dont care that corporate interests are adverse to the interests of the general public, since its clear the general public or the average person in the middle class is not who you're out protect or help. Thats ultimately the problem with people like you; you believe life is a free for all, and you dont mind that it is.

12 years ago

180187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#184 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180187 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] I'd tell you to try responding to the substantial posts I've made, but you and I both know you're outmatched.

You seem like a really nice, humble, well-rounded individual.

His character suffers from crushing self esteem issues and seeks validation on the internet. I like it, it's more interesting than most other alts here.

Alt of who?

12 years ago

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#185 Darkman2007

Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] That's just leftist contempt towards your illusions of the everyman/woman. They don't need your babysitting and management of what messages, and in what volume, they should be allowed to be exposed to. Like I said, I've already demonstrated that your narrative of money determining electoral outcomes is a mythology.

calling me a leftist? thats funny, if Im a leftist than youre a communist. Im not telling people what messages or how many they should hear, but what I do know for a fact that money , and superficial things do have a big impact.

I'm not saying you're a leftist, I'm saying you're advancing a leftist argument by perpetuating this mythology of electoral outcomes being determined by money. I already provided a great post from the Freakonomics blog that blows this mythology out of the water. Nobody addressed it, predictably.

money has a part in it, as do superficial things, again , I would refer you to the old Kennedy Vs Nixon debate for that one

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Is it not possible to be opposed to corporate interests in election funding without being pigeon-holed by yourself as a 'leftist'. Wouldn't it be much easier to just discuss the substantive merits of the argument, rather than to cast everybody you disagree with into some role, be it true or not?

Why should corporate interests be opposed? Aside from the fact that they have legal personhood, corporations are associations of flesh and blood human beings who have interests and rights to express their views. What's next, opposition to funding political speech (which is already impossible to clearly define) from people deemed too rich according to your politics of jealousy and envy? You leftists are so pathetic in how much you fear freedom of speech and how much contempt you have what you believe in the average person, which is especially ironic considering it's obvious that the majority of GameSpot participants in this form are clearly average.

Now i'm a leftist too? :| Just like everyone you disagree with in the other thread is an anti-semite? You have a terrible persecution complex.

I described one person as anti-Semitic in the other thread. More notably, you got wrecked in the other thread and had your ignorance and illusions repeatedly broken. You shouldn't be encouraging other people to visit a thread where you performed so poorly and demonstrated your ignorance so plainly.

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] You seem like a really nice, humble, well-rounded individual.

His character suffers from crushing self esteem issues and seeks validation on the internet. I like it, it's more interesting than most other alts here.

Alt of who?

I dunno, I don't really care. Maybe he's not an alt but he is a made up character.

12 years ago

13862

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#188 Ravensmash

Member since 2010 • 13862 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] Why should corporate interests be opposed? Aside from the fact that they have legal personhood, corporations are associations of flesh and blood human beings who have interests and rights to express their views. What's next, opposition to funding political speech (which is already impossible to clearly define) from people deemed too rich according to your politics of jealousy and envy? You leftists are so pathetic in how much you fear freedom of speech and how much contempt you have what you believe in the average person, which is especially ironic considering it's obvious that the majority of GameSpot participants in this form are clearly average.DroidPhysX

Now i'm a leftist too? :| Just like everyone you disagree with in the other thread is an anti-semite? You have a terrible persecution complex.

Anyone who disagrees with him = leftist.

Quite amusing.

As I've said before, it's quite amusing considering he's the one going on about tyrannical leftism and what not, yet is the most prominent person in this thread/board who responds to opposing views with such hostility and outright dismissal. If that's what his political ideology consists of then I'm glad I'm not with him.

12 years ago

180187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#189 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180187 Posts

[QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Ace6301"] His character suffers from crushing self esteem issues and seeks validation on the internet. I like it, it's more interesting than most other alts here.

Alt of who?

I dunno, I don't really care. Maybe he's not an alt but he is a made up character.

Tease...:(

12 years ago

2433

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

Member since 2009 • 2433 Posts

[QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"] calling me a leftist? thats funny, if Im a leftist than youre a communist. Im not telling people what messages or how many they should hear, but what I do know for a fact that money , and superficial things do have a big impact.

I'm not saying you're a leftist, I'm saying you're advancing a leftist argument by perpetuating this mythology of electoral outcomes being determined by money. I already provided a great post from the Freakonomics blog that blows this mythology out of the water. Nobody addressed it, predictably.

money has a part in it, as do superficial things, again , I would refer you to the old Kennedy Vs Nixon debate for that one

Ok fine, so you then extend this to supporting limits on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political contributions? It's one thing to recognize that people are fallible, it's something else altogether to think you can perfect people by controlling how they can spend their money on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political speech. If you're going to limit how much my corporation can contribute directly to a campaign or to a PAC, then you better limit how much MSNBC or CNN can charge for a 30-second advertisement spot on their channel, or how much Hollywood can spend on its next blockbuster.

12 years ago

28295

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 23

User Lists: 0

#191 parkurtommo

Member since 2009 • 28295 Posts

What a fine young chap

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#192 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"] I described one person as anti-Semitic in the other thread. More notably, you got wrecked in the other thread and had your ignorance and illusions repeatedly broken. You shouldn't be encouraging other people to visit a thread where you performed so poorly and demonstrated your ignorance so plainly.

Again with the delusions of grandeur. You come off as borderline sociopathic. I don't think i got 'wrecked' in the slightest. I got kingkong to stop calling everyone an anti-semite and got into a decent discussion with him eventually (by that thread's standards...), but it seems to have died now. In terms of contribution all you did was refer to your own brilliance, without actually doing anything to demonstrate it. Much like you're doing in this thread. I can only assume you're incredibly over-confident on the internet to make up for crippling self-esteem issues in real life? Either way, it hardly makes you a pleasant person to be around.

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Now i'm a leftist too? :| Just like everyone you disagree with in the other thread is an anti-semite? You have a terrible persecution complex. Ravensmash

Anyone who disagrees with him = leftist.

Quite amusing.

As I've said before, it's quite amusing considering he's the one going on about tyrannical leftism and what not, yet is the most prominent person in this thread/board who responds to opposing views with such hostility and outright dismissal. If that's what his political ideology consists of then I'm glad I'm not with him.

Try comparing his beliefs to Facism. There's some fun to be had there.

12 years ago

180187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#194 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180187 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] I described one person as anti-Semitic in the other thread. More notably, you got wrecked in the other thread and had your ignorance and illusions repeatedly broken. You shouldn't be encouraging other people to visit a thread where you performed so poorly and demonstrated your ignorance so plainly.

Again with the delusions of grandeur. You come off as borderline sociopathic. I don't think i got 'wrecked' in the slightest. I got kingkong to stop calling everyone an anti-semite and got into a decent discussion with him eventually (by that thread's standards...), but it seems to have died now. In terms of contribution all you did was refer to your own brilliance, without actually doing anything to demonstrate it. Much like you're doing in this thread. I can only assume you're incredibly over-confident on the internet to make up for crippling self-esteem issues in real life? Either way, it hardly makes you a pleasant person to be around.

Ninja-Hippo ladies and gentlemen the King of Irony....

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#195 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="kraychik"] I described one person as anti-Semitic in the other thread. More notably, you got wrecked in the other thread and had your ignorance and illusions repeatedly broken. You shouldn't be encouraging other people to visit a thread where you performed so poorly and demonstrated your ignorance so plainly.LJS9502_basic

Again with the delusions of grandeur. You come off as borderline sociopathic. I don't think i got 'wrecked' in the slightest. I got kingkong to stop calling everyone an anti-semite and got into a decent discussion with him eventually (by that thread's standards...), but it seems to have died now. In terms of contribution all you did was refer to your own brilliance, without actually doing anything to demonstrate it. Much like you're doing in this thread. I can only assume you're incredibly over-confident on the internet to make up for crippling self-esteem issues in real life? Either way, it hardly makes you a pleasant person to be around.

Ninja-Hippo ladies and gentlemen the King of Irony....

Yay for repeating the same post three times. Yay for nobody gives a sh!t.

EDIT: as a side-question - what exactly is ironic? You've said it three times, at least explain the point. One of your more irritating posting habits.

12 years ago

23434

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 7

User Lists: 0

#196 Ninja-Hippo

Member since 2008 • 23434 Posts

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
Anyone who disagrees with him = leftist.
Quite amusing.
Ace6301

As I've said before, it's quite amusing considering he's the one going on about tyrannical leftism and what not, yet is the most prominent person in this thread/board who responds to opposing views with such hostility and outright dismissal. If that's what his political ideology consists of then I'm glad I'm not with him.

Try comparing his beliefs to Facism. There's some fun to be had there.

I really don't get why people do this; if you think X, you must be a leftist. If you think Y, you must be anti-semitic. Where is the need to draw inferences? Just address what is actually being said, rather than speculating whether the person saying it is a member of an extreme ideology. Even if you're correct in your assumption, what difference does it make? Jackasses, jackasses everywhere.

12 years ago

17926

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 40

User Lists: 0

#197 Darkman2007

Member since 2007 • 17926 Posts

[QUOTE="kraychik"][QUOTE="Darkman2007"][QUOTE="kraychik"] I'm not saying you're a leftist, I'm saying you're advancing a leftist argument by perpetuating this mythology of electoral outcomes being determined by money. I already provided a great post from the Freakonomics blog that blows this mythology out of the water. Nobody addressed it, predictably.

money has a part in it, as do superficial things, again , I would refer you to the old Kennedy Vs Nixon debate for that one

Ok fine, so you then extend this to supporting limits on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political contributions? It's one thing to recognize that people are fallible, it's something else altogether to think you can perfect people by controlling how they can spend their money on (arbitrarily and inconsistently defined) political speech. If you're going to limit how much my corporation can contribute directly to a campaign or to a PAC, then you better limit how much MSNBC or CNN can charge for a 30-second advertisement spot on their channel, or how much Hollywood can spend on its next blockbuster.

again , Im not limiting speech , Im limiting how much external factors can influence that speech . and on the last point, I agree to a a certain extent, I think the media in general can play a very negative role in distorting the truth on alot of things.

12 years ago

180187

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#198 LJS9502_basic

Member since 2003 • 180187 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"] Jackasses, jackasses everywhere.

Looking in the mirror again?:lol:

12 years ago

21389

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

Member since 2005 • 21389 Posts

[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"][QUOTE="Ace6301"][QUOTE="Ravensmash"] As I've said before, it's quite amusing considering he's the one going on about tyrannical leftism and what not, yet is the most prominent person in this thread/board who responds to opposing views with such hostility and outright dismissal. If that's what his political ideology consists of then I'm glad I'm not with him.

Try comparing his beliefs to Facism. There's some fun to be had there.

I really don't get why people do this; if you think X, you must be a leftist. If you think Y, you must be anti-semitic. Where is the need to draw inferences? Just address what is actually being said, rather than speculating whether the person saying it is a member of an extreme ideology. Even if you're correct in your assumption, what difference does it make? Jackasses, jackasses everywhere.

>being butthurt on the internet >2012 You're also missing out the point of Kraychik. He's a facist caricature by design.

12 years ago

17098

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#200 DroidPhysX

Member since 2010 • 17098 Posts

[QUOTE="Ravensmash"][QUOTE="DroidPhysX"]
Anyone who disagrees with him = leftist.
Quite amusing.
Ace6301

As I've said before, it's quite amusing considering he's the one going on about tyrannical leftism and what not, yet is the most prominent person in this thread/board who responds to opposing views with such hostility and outright dismissal. If that's what his political ideology consists of then I'm glad I'm not with him.

Try comparing his beliefs to Facism. There's some fun to be had there.

The painful irony is in his fascist qualities.

12 years ago

246 results
1
2
3
4
5

Jump to Top

Please Log In to post.

Use your keyboard!

ESC

Log in to comment