• Miss Piggy: Attack on Muppets movie ‘as laughable as Fox being news’
    46 replies, posted
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34472109]No, this thread just has nothing to discuss and was obviously only posted for more republican bashing, as if we didn't have enough here in SH[/QUOTE] You always defend every Republican related thing ever. And this is a followup to the previous thread a while back where Fox News attacked the Muppets.
Remember that this is the party that is pro creationism and anti enviromentalism
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34472297]You always defend every Republican related thing ever. And this is a followup to the previous thread a while back where Fox News attacked the Muppets.[/QUOTE] Maybe he's *gasp* a conservative? [QUOTE=Lambeth;34472286]It's not really demonizing, it's pointing out what they themselves had said and mocking them for it.[/QUOTE] Republicans do the exact same thing with democrats. It causes both sides to become entrenched in their own views and be unwilling to compromise or reason with the other side.
[QUOTE=The Baconator;34472297]You always defend every Republican related thing ever. And this is a followup to the previous thread a while back where Fox News attacked the Muppets.[/QUOTE] Wow, because I offer an alternative perspective on some issues I must be a demon, right? God forbid someone isn't homogeneous on an internet forum.
Fox News are so stupid they probably think the Muppets are actual living beings not puppets.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34472260]Uh, yea. Demonizing the other side isn't in the spirit of compromise and progress.[/QUOTE] Between two sides, compromise is not always the 'correct' solution. Simply because two sides exist does not mean that the best solution will come from an even compromise. When, for example, Progressives in the Democratic Party (the largest faction) opposed the Iraq War and the largest equivalent Republican faction did not, was the proper solution to that to send in only half the forces we did? Or perhaps some other compromise? Or rather, most likely of all, should we have not gone in at all? In such a case compromise was not a better option.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34472481]Between two sides, compromise is not always the 'correct' solution. Simply because two sides exist does not mean that the best solution will come from an even compromise. When, for example, Progressives in the Democratic Party (the largest faction) opposed the Iraq War and the largest equivalent Republican faction did not, was the proper solution to that to send in only half the forces we did? Or perhaps some other compromise? Or rather, most likely of all, should we have not gone in at all? In such a case compromise was not a better option.[/QUOTE] Compromise in 90% of the cases is the most realistic solution. There are times when compromise is not possible, but those times are rare.
[QUOTE=Megafanx13;34472481]Between two sides, compromise is not always the 'correct' solution. Simply because two sides exist does not mean that the best solution will come from an even compromise. When, for example, Progressives in the Democratic Party (the largest faction) opposed the Iraq War and the largest equivalent Republican faction did not, was the proper solution to that to send in only half the forces we did? Or perhaps some other compromise? Or rather, most likely of all, should we have not gone in at all? In such a case compromise was not a better option.[/QUOTE] This is very true. Often people will find a position reasonable simply because it is between two extremes, even if it doesn't make much rational sense. For example, civil unions and decriminalization of drugs.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34472588]This is very true. Often people will find a position reasonable simply because it is between two extremes, even if it doesn't make much rational sense. For example, civil unions and decriminalization of drugs.[/QUOTE] Those are both excellent examples of good compromise. Not because they are necessarily a good end result, but because they are realistic end results that serve as a step towards a greater goal. You can't look at everything with an "it has to be perfect RIGHT NOW" mindset. Progress is not something that can be achieved in a day. People have been working since the renaissance at this progress thing, in small steps. Remember that the church used to control Europe, a buttload of compromises and years later the church has very little influence over the politics of Europe(relative to what it once had, anyways).
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34472635]Those are both excellent examples of good compromise. Not because they are necessarily a good end result, but because they are realistic end results that serve as a step towards a greater goal. You can't look at everything with an "it has to be perfect RIGHT NOW" mindset. Progress is not something that can be achieved in a day. People have been working since the renaissance at this progress thing, in small steps. Remember that the church used to control Europe, a buttload of compromises and years later the church has very little influence over the politics of Europe(relative to what it once had, anyways).[/QUOTE] Decriminalization makes zero sense. It makes people no longer afraid to buy drugs, but keeps the drugs in the hand of the cartels so drug use only increases. It does nothing to combat the drug problem and only increases sales for the cartels.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34472669]Decriminalization makes zero sense. It makes people no longer afraid to buy drugs, but keeps the drugs in the hand of the cartels so drug use only increases. It does nothing to combat the drug problem and only increases sales for the cartels.[/QUOTE] I guess we should try it then, see the worse it could do :v:.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34472669]Decriminalization makes zero sense. It makes people no longer afraid to buy drugs, but keeps the drugs in the hand of the cartels so drug use only increases. It does nothing to combat the drug problem and only increases sales for the cartels.[/QUOTE] It helps shift society into a more tolerant view concerning drugs. When you can get put in prison for possession of a substance, society tends to view that substance as bad. If that substance then becomes just a fine, society begins to shift. Decriminalization doesn't make sense as a permanent stance, but most people who vouch for decriminalization generally don't think of it as a permanent solution.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;34472703]It helps shift society into a more tolerant view concerning drugs. When you can get put in prison for possession of a substance, society tends to view that substance as bad. If that substance then becomes just a fine, society begins to shift. Decriminalization doesn't make sense as a permanent stance, but most people who vouch for decriminalization generally don't think of it as a permanent solution.[/QUOTE] And besides, our three strikes rule on it is just fucking stupid.
[QUOTE=Nikota;34472712]And besides, our three strikes rule on it is just fucking stupid.[/QUOTE] The three strikes rule is fucking stupid anyways, so nothing new there.
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34472407]Wow, because I offer an alternative perspective on some issues I must be a demon, right? God forbid someone isn't homogeneous on an internet forum.[/QUOTE] Of course not Everyone knows only liberals are demons
[QUOTE=SomeRandomGuy16;34470472]Hurr derr GOP Faux News lol Ok thread over move on[/QUOTE] Actually it was just a funny retort to a ridiculous news story. If MSNBC or CNN did a similar report it would be the same way. Why are you so upset?
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.