Conquer Club

Who is she?

Now this thread is balanced for liberals and conservatives alike. Personally, I think both are pretty funny.

-rd

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Now this thread is balanced for liberals and conservatives alike. Personally, I think both are pretty funny.

-rd

LOL, yeah right

#1 Math n Science or the only thing that will be successful? Who the F loves math n science? btw, you don't have any chance in the music industry, or baseball or hockey or football, building houses, working for a charity. Things people actually love...

#2 The liberal media is liberal for a fact (90% of them are registered democrats?), and that has nothing to do with watching Fox or not....

#3 Your parents/family paying for your tuition = a free handout? I suppose paying the hospital bill after giving birth to the child is a free handout too...

#4 Never stopped by police? Why, because he is white? Is this just generalizing or making assumptions based on skin color? what is that called again oops never mind

#5 social darwinism is just part of the Creationist plan

#6 Not sure you can equate 21st century immigration to 15th century exploration.

The only thing your poster has in common with mine is the way it looks. All of those are total BS assumptions, all of the examples in the original poster are all too common, as evidenced in this forum, and 100% true.

Balance denied!

Neither images are funny, accurate or even remotely interesting, except for revealing some insights about the sort of people who make them.

Phatscotty wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Now this thread is balanced for liberals and conservatives alike. Personally, I think both are pretty funny.

-rd

LOL, yeah right

#1 Math n Science or the only thing that will be successful? Who the F loves math n science? btw, you don't have any chance in the music industry, or baseball or hockey or football, building houses, working for a charity. Things people actually love...

#2 The liberal media is liberal for a fact (90% of them are registered democrats?), and that has nothing to do with watching Fox or not....

#3 Your parents/family paying for your tuition = a free handout? I suppose paying the hospital bill after giving birth to the child is a free handout too...

#4 Never stopped by police? Why, because he is white? Is this just generalizing or making assumptions based on skin color? what is that called again oops never mind

#5 social darwinism is just part of the Creationist plan

#6 Not sure you can equate 21st century immigration to 15th century exploration.

The only thing your poster has in common with mine is the way it looks. All of those are total BS assumptions, all of the examples in the original poster are all too common, as evidenced in this forum, and 100% true.

Balance denied!

Phatscotty: Balance the way Fox News intended!

I consider myself a progressive. The person in the OP is most definitely not, so I'm not sure what you want from me.

Fair and balanced propaganda from Scotty.

Phatscotty wrote:

rdsrds2120 wrote:
Now this thread is balanced for liberals and conservatives alike. Personally, I think both are pretty funny.

-rd

LOL, yeah right

#1 Math n Science or the only thing that will be successful? Who the F loves math n science? btw, you don't have any chance in the music industry, or baseball or hockey or football, building houses, working for a charity. Things people actually love...

#2 The liberal media is liberal for a fact (90% of them are registered democrats?), and that has nothing to do with watching Fox or not....

#3 Your parents/family paying for your tuition = a free handout? I suppose paying the hospital bill after giving birth to the child is a free handout too...

#4 Never stopped by police? Why, because he is white? Is this just generalizing or making assumptions based on skin color? what is that called again oops never mind

#5 social darwinism is just part of the Creationist plan

#6 Not sure you can equate 21st century immigration to 15th century exploration.

The only thing your poster has in common with mine is the way it looks. All of those are total BS assumptions, all of the examples in the original poster are all too common, as evidenced in this forum, and 100% true.

Balance denied!

I thought that everyone already knew about both of these memes, and that we were just poking fun. Apparently not. In any event, you could easily debate each and every single one of yours as not being 100% true as you claim, but I try not to get too involved in political debates here.

-rd

Aradhus wrote:Neither images are funny, accurate or even remotely interesting, except for revealing some insights about the sort of people who make them.

Agreed. I enjoy them only when I picture the creator thinking, "heh, these are so extreme and biased, I bet people will complain about them in forums."

You are right RDS, your's was pretty funny. I should have laughed more so here's making up for that

Mine is still super serious tho and for realz

whats a ruprogressive

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Aradhus wrote:Neither images are funny, accurate or even remotely interesting, except for revealing some insights about the sort of people who make them.

Agreed. I enjoy them only when I picture the creator thinking, "heh, these are so extreme and biased, I bet people will complain about them in forums."

I like to think I appreciate the irony of them.

-rd

Weird. I thought both sets were funny. I didn't laugh out loud, but I smiled.

agree with greekdog, I was smiling at both, then realized someone was serious. You will find very few people anywhere today who will not say they support diversity. Here comes the humor, ask them to define it,and what it means to them the proceeding smiley faces are what you will get in a large amount of their responses. So arguing it here is probably futile with no real way to support either side of the claim.

Short explaination; you can say your diverse all you want, what is your diversity. Uh everyone is diverse in thier own way just maybe not the way you want or think.

I don't know anyone at Rutgers University, so I can't really comment on the political affiliations of students there.

jgordon1111 wrote:agree with greekdog, I was smiling at both, then realized someone was serious. You will find very few people anywhere today who will not say they support diversity. Here comes the humor, ask them to define it,and what it means to them the proceeding smiley faces are what you will get in a large amount of their responses. So arguing it here is probably futile with no real way to support either side of the claim.

Short explaination; you can say your diverse all you want, what is your diversity. Uh everyone is diverse in thier own way just maybe not the way you want or think.

Sure I smiled too.

I'm not trying to argue about these (RDS doesn't count), just sharing that I realized this is the place where the Original post rings truest.

The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents. The definition is a bit flaky, and mostly provincial when it comes to political philosophies. Progressivism has existed as a political term in the past, but with varying meanings.

What's odd about this one is that it mostly seems to be defined by people who disagree with the so called progressives, while so few of those identified in that way accept or use that label.

It just seems to be thrown around as a way for conservative minded people to label a person or policy they don't agree with.

Symmetry wrote:The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents. The definition is a bit flaky, and mostly provincial when it comes to political philosophies. Progressivism has existed as a political term in the past, but with varying meanings.

What's odd about this one is that it mostly seems to be defined by people who disagree with the so called progressives, while so few of those identified in that way accept or use that label.

It just seems to be thrown around as a way for conservative minded people to label a person or policy they don't agree with.

Hilary Clinton called herself an early 20th century progressive while she was running for president.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents. The definition is a bit flaky, and mostly provincial when it comes to political philosophies. Progressivism has existed as a political term in the past, but with varying meanings.

What's odd about this one is that it mostly seems to be defined by people who disagree with the so called progressives, while so few of those identified in that way accept or use that label.

It just seems to be thrown around as a way for conservative minded people to label a person or policy they don't agree with.

Hilary Clinton called herself an early 20th century progressive while she was running for president.

She may well have done, but I'm not sure she was using the term in quite the same way we are here, or the way it's being used now as an example of a political philosophy. Can you tell me what she meant by it?

i am worried that 'social darwinism' is in danger of misuse in that second set of photos. what are we saying in the picture that mentions 'social darwinism'?

other than help to clarify in this respect, i fear that a thread on politics is beyond salvation. people choose their politics for 1) their own self interest and for 2) the image they want to convey to other people by the politics they follow. this does not lend itself to rational and open-minded debate, as people fear to admit that their political opinions are based on 1, 2 or both.

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents. The definition is a bit flaky, and mostly provincial when it comes to political philosophies. Progressivism has existed as a political term in the past, but with varying meanings.

What's odd about this one is that it mostly seems to be defined by people who disagree with the so called progressives, while so few of those identified in that way accept or use that label.

It just seems to be thrown around as a way for conservative minded people to label a person or policy they don't agree with.

Hilary Clinton called herself an early 20th century progressive while she was running for president.

Excellent, you found an example! Therefore, you've clearly completely outwitted Symmetry and reversed his point entirely!

Symmetry wrote:The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents....

Hmmm__ There was a time 15 years ago in which people proudly wore the progressive label while peddling their own line of corruption.

ViperOverLord wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents....

Hmmm__ There was a time 15 years ago in which people proudly wore the progressive label while peddling their own line of corruption.

I really don't know. BBS posted a few definitions of what it meant in another thread, but they were from right wing sites that weren't exactly sympathetic to whatever progressivism is supposed to be.

Is it just a conservative pejorative for liberals?

Symmetry wrote:

Night Strike wrote:

Symmetry wrote:The thing for me is that the label "progressive" seems almost exclusively a term used by the US right at the moment as a way to somehow denigrate opponents. The definition is a bit flaky, and mostly provincial when it comes to political philosophies. Progressivism has existed as a political term in the past, but with varying meanings.

What's odd about this one is that it mostly seems to be defined by people who disagree with the so called progressives, while so few of those identified in that way accept or use that label.

It just seems to be thrown around as a way for conservative minded people to label a person or policy they don't agree with.

Hilary Clinton called herself an early 20th century progressive while she was running for president.

She may well have done, but I'm not sure she was using the term in quite the same way we are here, or the way it's being used now as an example of a political philosophy. Can you tell me what she meant by it?

Most people who label themselves as that don't realize what the REAL Progressives in the early 1900s were striving for. They explored and fought for eugenics, segregation, and governmental control. Birth control was developed in order to keep undesirables from procreating. They then realized that they were pushing too hard out in the open for their ideals, so they chose to begin a more subtle approach at subverting the Constitution in order to transform the country into what they wanted it to be: a socialist utopia. It was the early progressives who started putting out the notions that the founders were rich, white racists and that God and religion had nothing to do with the beginning of the country. They then began teaching (both in public and in the schools) that the government is the only solution to society's problems, real or conceived. It was early 20th century progressives that have given us the big-government culture and problems we have today.