Ron Paul Ads on V7n?

[cldnails]

WTF. Internet memes for president!

[Rankenstein]

They should set it up so it's subliminal - a brief flicker that gently washes your retina, so when you get to the polls you unaccountably tick Ron Paul's box.
"Why did I do that? It felt so right though!"

[backgammonnn123]

Originally Posted by Rankenstein

They should set it up so it's subliminal - a brief flicker that gently washes your retina, so when you get to the polls you unaccountably tick Ron Paul's box.
"Why did I do that? It felt so right though!"

This is one of those rare times when something that feels so right actually is right lol.
GO RP!!!!

[TechSup]

I noticed that the banners were removed from the top of the forum. Are they being added again?

[cldnails]

Originally Posted by Steven Myers

I noticed that the banners were removed from the top of the forum. Are they being added again?

I still see them, along with a well planted liberal mind banner.

[TechSup]

Ok, now I see them. My wife had the ABP on FF enabled for v7n.

[backgammonnn123]

Originally Posted by cldnails

I still see them, along with a well planted liberal mind banner.

there is nothing liberal about Ron Paul. He is a true conservative unlike the other puppets that are running today.

[cldnails]

Originally Posted by backgammonnn123

there is nothing liberal about Ron Paul. He is a true conservative unlike the other puppets that are running today.

yep, i realize that. I wasn't referring to Ron Paul, I was referring to the advertisement for the book 'The Liberal Mind'. It's in the rotation.

[Ferre]

Originally Posted by cldnails

yep, i realize that. I wasn't referring to Ron Paul, I was referring to the advertisement for the book 'The Liberal Mind'. It's in the rotation.

Hehhe, "the liberal mind" is a joke. It's just a personal opinion from someone who obviously doesn't really understand the word "liberal" but who is only expressing a right wing conservative view on "liberals" as they calll them. The "liberals described by the author are in fact only existing in the mind of he author and in the minds of so called right wing conservatives. Hehe, some people really believe that being a schrink for the military complex makes one an expert on political psychology.

Now, have a look at conservative right wingers like the author of "liberal minds"...

A REAL study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".
The report's four authors linked Hitler, Mussolini, Ronald Reagan and the rightwing talkshow host, Rush Limbaugh, arguing they all suffered from the same affliction.
All of them "preached a return to an idealised past and condoned inequality".

Here's the (Stanford) study I mention, and I doubt that the author of "liberal minds" is aware of this study.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~hannahk/bulletin.pdf

[John Scott]

Originally Posted by Ferre

Hehhe, "the liberal mind" is a joke. It's just a personal opinion from someone who obviously doesn't really understand the word "liberal" but who is only expressing a right wing conservative view on "liberals" as they calll them. The "liberals described by the author are in fact only existing in the mind of he author and in the minds of so called right wing conservatives.

What social policy that he refers to as Liberal do you claim to be not in actuality supported by American Liberals?

Originally Posted by Ferre

A REAL study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".

You can't be that stupid. Seriously, Ferre, are you so stupid that you think that American Conservatives (capital "c") are in any way associated with political conservativism, also known as "status quo conservativism"?

And don't you think you should read the book before commenting on it?

[Ferre]

Well John, I only read an excerpt, but that little bit I read already totally discredited the author, specially comparing his views with real studies on this subject, like the one study I linked to. I recommend reading it, it has more crediblity than the wild opinion from a military complex schrink who wrote a book to vent his bigoted prejustice views.

Unlike mr Rossiter's book, that study is a peer reviewed work. And unlike mr Rossiter's views, that study tells us that we cannot stereotype "liberals" nor "conservatives" the way mr Rossiter is doing in his book, which answers your first question.

If you want to know how I personally think about American "liberal" and "conservative" parties, I see little difference, both are the same brand of totalitarian corporatism, wrapped in different packages (like coca cola and pepsi cola), one is sporting a "liberal" label while the other is sporting a "conservative" label but in fact there's little difference and both have no respect whatsoever for the views of the people they represent.

Both are snake oil sellers, but apparently the American people got used to snake oil in such a manner that they don't recognize it anymore and just drink it thinking it will help them, as long as the label tells them it will help.

In my view, Americans lack the political flexibility to realize they can make other choices. This is the result of decades of propaganda and misinformation they received from the corporate media and their own "representatives".

[John Scott]

Ferre,

You're an adult, you made a claim, you get to support the claim.

Originally Posted by Ferre

The "liberals described by the author are in fact only existing in the mind of he author and in the minds of so called right wing conservatives.

What social policy that he refers to as Liberal do you claim to be not in actuality supported by American Liberals?

For what it's worth, from somebody who isn't helplessly lost like you appear to be, Dr Rossiter's description of Liberal values in precisely as Liberals describe them. One could read Liberal Paul Krugman's "The Conscience of a Liberal", and read Dr Rossiter's book, and find no noteworthy disparity between the two.

When you open your mouth, and wholesale ignorance comes out, do you think you're helping anybody?

Your ignorance of the core principles of Liberals and Conservatives is mind boggling. When you utter your ignorant comments on politics, you do the world a disservice.

[Ferre]

You are going ad hominem again John, it's your trademark somehow, but I don't play that game anymore.

As I told you before, in my view the American brand of "liberalism" is the same corporatism that the conservatives display, just labeled different, it's got nothing to do with the original political ideology behind those terms but all with marketing and branding and a race for popularity.

Down here the political spectrum is is much wider, anyone who makes statements like those mr Rossiter made would be regarded to be a nutter with little connection to reality, down here we have all sorts of liberals, conservatives and everything in between and they all have parties representing them, a two party system with stereotying like what we see in the US is just unthinkable, it's just too rediculous and absurd for our society to be busy with.

To give you an example, our government at present times has Christian democrats, socialists, fundamentalist christians, right wing conservatives, liberals (they too are considered right wing down here) and a couple of other political flavors all in the same government, all represented by their own parties. To label "liberals" as "lefties" is just plain rediculous down here, considering they support, and are supported by, the corporate industries, just like the "liberals" AND the "conservatives" in America.

For a guy like me, American politics means no real choice for the people, they are spoonfed two choices and they have the choice to either swallow or burst, as they say down here.

[John Scott]

anyone who makes statements like those mr Rossiter made would be regarded to be a nutter with little connection to reality

What statements? You haven't read the book, cannot provide even one statement, and expect anybody to take you seriously?

stereotying like what we see in the US is just unthinkable

What hypocrisy! You just posted a link to a discredited study where the authors claim that revolutionary and collectivist Mussolini and Hilter were called "conservative" along with individualist and laissez faire Reagan and Rush. Reagan was politically the antithesis of collectivism.

Now, you made a statement, and I've asked you to support your statement.

What social policy that he refers to as Liberal do you claim to be not in actuality supported by American Liberals?

Answer.

What social policy that he refers to as Liberal do you claim to be not in actuality supported by American Liberals?

Answer.

What social policy that he refers to as Liberal do you claim to be not in actuality supported by American Liberals?

Answer.

[cldnails]

Unlike mr Rossiter's book, that study is a peer reviewed work. And unlike mr Rossiter's views, that study tells us that we cannot stereotype "liberals" nor "conservatives" the way mr Rossiter is doing in his book, which answers your first question.

It's a feeling that I have, from the things I see, read, hear that force me to believe that this is the driving force in American liberalism. Why wouldn't we want to compare them, everyone 'should' be equal right? It's the easiest way to play on peoples hearts instead of their minds.

Afterall stereotyping 'evil coporations' and 'totalitarian corporatism' is a lot easier to build a socialist party on. Once we get to that point we should start having conversations on how you view the conservative party and liberal party.

Also, are you making big words up or did you leave out a comma somewhere? totalitarian corporatism

[stacy131]

The bottom line is that when a country derails, we all blame somebody else. God forbid if we once said "Yes, you're right" or "I'll help you regardless of who's to blame."

It's easier to point fingers and have a told-you-so-mentality. It's easier to attack before even knowing whether someone else wants to help or hurt you. The only reason why so many folks aren't satisfied with calling someone a liberal or conservative, but instead slap the word EXTREME in front of it is just to pass on more blame and push any responsibility away from themselves.

There is no such thing as an extreme liberal. There is no such thing as an extreme conservative. Heck, there never was such a thing as Communist Russia, but rather a Socialist Russia. Most of those things are just labels that look exaggerated on paper and that win people over.

Yes, we might go around and stereotype parties and groups of people. But you just can't stereotype or describe people as extremely one side or another as we have never experienced truly either side in existence.

Talking about extreme liberals and extreme conservatives is like talking about extreme pigs that fly. Why bother discussing something left to the imaginary? I believe I've outgrown that stag