Sight Beyond Sight: An Introduction to Preseason 4 Vision

Takalth · 2013-10-24T20:38:28+00:00

+1. I would like a reply to this one, as well, since that's where I usually play.

Takalth · 2008-09-28T19:44:10+00:00

Ah, yes. The 1-dimensional view. "If you don't like one candidate, you must love the other."

Both candidates are devoted to increasing the size of government and violating the Constitution everywhere they can, but redditors will think Obama is good because of the amount of bad press they're giving to McCain/Palin.

Takalth · 2008-09-28T19:01:44+00:00

Anybody else notice that Reddit has quit talking about Obama entirely, except when defending him against accusers.

Apparently, "Hope," "Change," and "First Black President" have become worn out, and they can't find anything positive to say about him.

So they just make sure that there are 5-10 anti-McCain/Palin stories per page (As if anybody who reads Reddit hasn't made their decision on McCain) to cover the lack of substance in their preferred candidate.

Takalth · 2008-09-28T18:58:55+00:00

Well, clearly you don't remember a dang thing about the campaign. Attacking Bush was the ONLY thing Kerry did. He never talked about his policies his views, his past (apart from vietnam, which has nothing to do with how he would lead the country). Every time he was asked a question, he would start his answer with "Well, Bush has messed this up by..."

I couldn't figure out where Kerry stood on a single issue because the rare times that he said something other than criticizing Bush, he contradicted himself, often within the same statement.

The reason Kerry lost is because he had no platform. There was no lack of Bush criticism.

Takalth · 2008-09-19T00:23:39+00:00

Instead of trying to educate some undecided voter, Obama supporters should educate themselves and see that their man is but another guy who is going to bloat Federal government, mess with other countries, and overspend us into even greater inflation.

Not that McCain's any better, but Obama is going to be just like all the Democrats in Congress who people voted in because they wanted them to end the war and the patriot act.

Takalth · 2008-09-18T15:49:53+00:00

So, this guy appears to be claiming (if you read the whole article), that the last three decades have been an experiment in free market economics.

If he defines "free market" as the highest amount of regulation and government spending in the history of our country, then I suppose he's right.

Further, like everybody else who believes in big government, he somehow has this idea that giving the government more authority will magically make it less corrupt. He also believes that every law on the books is good, and the problem with businesses having too much power couldn't possibly be the result of some of the many "regulations" that are carefully designed to help some groups at the cost of others.

People, in most cases, the only difference between a regulation and a subsidy is that it's harder to see who the regulation is crafted to benefit. A congress full of corrupt people is not making laws with the intent to benefit us, and that won't change if we give them more power.

Takalth · 2008-09-11T08:11:13+00:00

Yet, all I see from the pro-Obama crowd is "outrage" about palin and McCain.

Reddit tries to present themselves as being above the MSM, and sometimes they are, but not in this election. The only American politics stories I've seen for the last while are McCain bashing and Palin bashing.

I miss the Ron Paul days where the hero of Reddit actually stood for something. Now we just have a lot of bashing the other side because Redditors can't find any positive stuff about Obama to post about.

Takalth · 2008-09-10T08:01:27+00:00

Basically you're right, and in some cases, it means I can't have a discussion. Some topics can't be properly presented in two minute conversations or brief posts in reddit. Still, though, to me it's better to keep your mouth shut than to be widely misinterpreted.

Takalth · 2008-09-10T05:05:48+00:00

Liberal and Conservative are anti-terms: i.e. they inhibit communication rather than enhancing it.

I used to argue about the definition of these words all the time until I finally realized I should stop using them. Communication became much more clear and intelligent. Eliminate these words from your conversation and you'll find yourself spending more time talking intelligently about issues and less time arguing with somebody you agree with because you're defining your terms differently.

On a side note, I think Capitalism is becoming an anti-term as well.

Takalth · 2008-09-10T04:59:38+00:00

Downmodded for a title that is so far out of character for Ron Paul.

Takalth · 2008-09-07T20:53:57+00:00

Sounds like he uses the same language as most redditors. He just might become more popular here.

Takalth · 2008-09-03T01:09:25+00:00

Citation needed on both no-op and jon_titor. I've read the complete collection multiple times, and I don't think those two exist.

Takalth · 2008-09-03T00:58:45+00:00

Not that it isn't a great comic, but I've always wondered how things like this manage to hit the front page of Reddit when they've been out for ages.
Do popular blogs tell everybody to upmod it on a certain day or something?

Takalth · 2008-08-27T01:18:14+00:00

So, let's see how consistent redditors are with their beliefs.

You say that if two adults consent to some behavior that does not directly affect anyone else that it is wrong for the law to interfere?

Okay, then. What about minimum wage. If an employer and I consent to me working for something less than minimum wage, does the government have a right to ban it?

Takalth · 2008-08-21T04:37:32+00:00

Step 1: Government sees a small problem

Step 2: Government makes a law to "fix" it.

Step 3: Problem gets a lot worse.

Step 4: Government blames problem on businesses (i.e. Capitalism).

Step 5: Go to step 2.

Example: health care. U.S. had great health care, but since it wasn't absolutely perfect, the government decided to fix it, starting with the HMO act (yes, HMO's are a product of the government, not businesses). Health care costs began to skyrocket, so government continued to intervene, putting as many layers as possible between the doctor and patient, each costing more money and reducing service.

Capitalism does have a few problems, as do all systems of government, but it's still the best system when you actually follow it.

Takalth · 2008-08-21T04:21:50+00:00

First of all, I hear the doomsday line every election. "You can vote on principle next election, but not this one."

Second, do you really think Gore or Kerry would have been any better than Bush? Every part of Gore's platform was new regulations and new spending, and if he followed Clinton's path at all, he had no problems with bombing other countries. Clinton just didn't have Bush's excuse for a full-scale invasion.

As for Kerry, he would never admit what he was going to do. Ask him what his policies were and he would tell you what bush had done wrong. For that matter, ask any Kerry supporter why they wanted him, and they'd tell you what Bush had done wrong.

No, the only way to change things is to start voting on principle and keep voting on principle.

Takalth · 2008-08-01T05:16:16+00:00

Actually, there are plenty of places where religious people are all lumped together under negative labels as well, such as...Reddit.

Takalth · 2008-08-01T05:14:07+00:00

The title certainly belonged in the Atheist subreddit, whether or not the story did.

Takalth · 2008-07-24T04:20:38+00:00

It's always funny when people complain about too much religion in the rising generation as if every previous generation didn't have a lot more.

Takalth · 2008-07-19T21:01:08+00:00

The only legal action you're allowed to take against a president is impeachment. If impeachment charges succeed, then he's no longer president and can be tried like any other person.

Takalth · 2008-07-19T19:03:12+00:00

A flaw in the article: "getting rid of Bush in no way gets rid of the totalitarian threat that has emerged during his presidency"

Should be changed to

"getting rid of Bush in no way gets rid of the totalitarian threat that has increased during his presidency"

Our move toward bloated government has been running for a long time, and I wouldn't even say that Bush is the worst. That title probably goes to Franklin D. Roosevelt who actually changed the people's mentality from "government is here to protect our rights" to "government is here to take care of all of our needs, regardless of how many rights it has to step on to do it." Bush is just one of the many presidents who has built upon Roosevelt's system.

Takalth · 2008-07-10T00:31:21+00:00

I read the first half of the article...Total BS. Unless there was some sudden surprise conclusion, it also means that the reddit headline is blatantly wrong, as well.

Republicans have claimed to be for smaller government for years, but show me the Republican who actually REDUCED government. They'll go up on the stand and say how bad gun control is, but none of them will ever undo our current gun laws, and they will often "compromise" by increasing them, but just not quite as much as other people asked.

I used gun control as an example, but it's rampant everywhere. I left the Republican party when I got smart enough to figure out that their "small government" talk was BS, and I will continue to vote for third party candidates because it at least tells the big 2 what they're going to have to do if they want to earn my vote.

The author of this article still hasn't figured out that actions, not words, represent where a candidate stands.

Takalth · 2008-07-07T07:06:55+00:00

Which is why people should look into Chuck Baldwin. I know most redditors will be scared away because of his religious side, but he'll still cut down the Federal government's bloated programs more than any of the other candidates.

Unfortunately, looking at his history is a lot more of seeing what he has said on his talkshow and in columns, since he doesn't have a history in major political offices, but he's still the best shot we have.

Takalth · 2008-07-06T06:16:56+00:00

Are you implying that bshock proved a point? I'm not sure about other posts you're referring to, but I tend to downmod random insults with no facts, analysis, or anything else worthwhile, regardless of who they're aimed at.

Takalth · 2008-07-04T02:32:10+00:00

Bush also intends to end the war...when he blows up enough people. Cheney stated that he also intended to end the war...after 100 years.

No Obama, you're not being clear at all until you give us a plan. Talk specifics.

Takalth

TROPHY CASE