Words That Gave No Place In Political Debates

[Waffles731]

I am writing this after seeing someone user the term; Kool Aide Drinker as a political insult.

Regardless of your political beliefs there are words that no one should use in political debates as they are immature and make you impossible to take seriously; Here are several that need to go away.

1. Sheeple

This term is so hard to take seriously that I'm amazed that anyone uses it for anything other than a joke. Now comparing your political opponents to sheep does nothing for your cause and really just makes you look bad.

2; libtard, conservatard, really adding tard to any ideology you don't agree with.

These terms do nothing for you and quite honestly they make you sound like a middle schooler and honestly middle schoolers have an excuse for being so immature.

3. Seriously using the term fascist for anything other than actual fascists,

Here are two pictures of actual modern day fascists

Thats the head of the British National Party; An Actual Fascist.

That is George Lincoln Rockwell the founder of the American Nazi Party; An Actual Fascist.

Here are pictures of people who are not fascists;

Former President George W. Bush; Not a fascist, a decent if incredibly stupid and guillible man but not a fascist.

President Barack Obama; Not a Fascist.

You see Fascism is a very specific ideology and the fact is that people throw it around all willy nilly without realizing that. Nazis are Fascists, Joseph Stalin was a Fascist disguised as a communist, Benito Mussolini was a Fascist. However Fascist is not simply an ideology you disagree with, it is a very specific ideology.

Anyway, thats really all I have to say about this at the moment.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

this is exactly why i don't get into politics. people are way too stupid to argue with. and the few times i do, i'm just further proven right. we have a real problem. and yes, we have sheeple. not in the sense of people being sheep to a side and sipping on that sick kool-aid. we have sheeple in the sense of people take these 2 sides and go to extremes with them and use it to form their ideologies.

i have stated this before. the sad thing and what parties should be for, is a representation of how you view your own ideas, not how they can shape yours. i'm an independent. because of the sheer stupidity of the republican party, i align more with democrats. this isn't to say i don't agree with republican tropes, but just turn on fox news or listen to most republicans. they make as much sense as eating a bowl of cereal with soda. not to say that the democratic side is that much better cause they're a bunch of cookie cutter bimbos, but at least they pretend to make sense. and the people eat this shit up. they just regurgitate everything each candidate or party says and will justify it to no end without even thinking about it. people will gravitate towards certain candidates based on their own values, but people treat the parties and their representatives as fucking bibles and what the candidates say is law. that's the real sad part, to me

[Spirit_Is_Free]

Very good points - When politics dumbs down to the vocabulary of the schoolyard - I get all butthurt and walk away to do something more constructive with my time - In reality when any terms of insults/abuse come to the fore, I pay no attention to it - I am all for healthy debate then there is a chance that any negative stereotypes can be pushed aside and some constructive concerns/compromises can be pushed forward - It is highly unlikely everyone will agree on an issue but if the 80% discuss it rationately they highlight the absurdity of the claims of the extremists.

[WalterRadio]

I have met George W. Bush more than once. He is neither stupid nor gullible. He is very sharp and knows details that few others do. It is like he is walking around with one of those little ear pieces you see in the movies with someone feeding him information (but he is not).

What he is not is photogenic. He doesn't do well in front of cameras.

I have not met Obama, but I know people that have. In person, he is aloof and uninterested. He is great at reading from a teleprompter.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

if you think he's sharp, then that might say more about you than him :/

[WalterRadio]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau
How much time have you talked with him?

[Waffles731]

Look I'm actually distantly related to the guy.
8th cousin nine times removed or something. (My grandfather does geneology for a hobby)
He's a good man however he is not the smartest guy

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

not at all, but i don't think a person that sharp would have let the biggest economic collapse since the great depression and start a pointless war (maybe 2, but 1 was over fairly quick) over things we knew didn't exist and 1 that had no purpose... also, no shit he knows details that few others do. same way a cia op knows classified information not known to the public. that's literally part of his (their) job

[WalterRadio]

I am related to the Bush's too. We are descended from some of the Kings of England and France.

[WalterRadio]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau
I did financially extremely well under GW. It was the highest income years I ever had, I had the most number of employees. Business was great. Lifestyle was great.

Obamadisaster personally cost me a thirteen million dollar loss.

No, what I mean about the details is about the subject matter and the people who worked for him. I forgot to mention, one of my high school friends worked in the WH at the time.

I know it is useless, you are talking about someone you never met.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

so you obviously don't have a biased opinion. this is why i don't argue politics. too many stupid people to argue with. also, check the timeline dickhead. the financial crash happened in 2007/2008. obama didn't come into office until 2009.

and again, no shit. of course he knew shit about what he does. a brain surgeon knows shit about the brain. that's their job...

and i don't have to meet him to know how smart he is. i don't have to meet jeffrey dahmer to know he's a psychopath

[WalterRadio]

@Other_Tommy_Wiseau
I do know the timeline. I didn't lose all that money until well into Obama's administration, although I did start laying people off as soon as it started looking like he was going to get elected in 2008.

The economic problems some experienced under the Bush Administration were strictly due to the fallout from 9/11, whose root cause is Jimmy Carter, and exacerbated by Clinton for not taking custody of bin Laden when he had the chance and for neglecting counter terrorism.

Several months before 9/11, I had a meeting with a 4 star. He had just come from the planning session at the Pentagon, having been given the new marching orders. International terrorism was near the top of the list, which wasn't on the list under Clinton. Had Bush been president four years earlier, 9/11 would not have happened.

[Other_Tommy_Wiseau]

well, you wouldn't've lost it if not for the economic crash, dumbass. it happened literally in the last year of his term. also, you laying off people is your fault, not his cause you did it before he was elected.

and again, there was an economic boom that happened, which resulted in a crash. that's how economies work. that's literally what a bubble burst is.

you're actually retarded. like, i don't understand this... no shit it was bush's list. he was behind 9/11. of course a direct attack on us soil in the biggest city will put him on the list of priorities. and if you think he was that high of a priority before 9/11 for bush, look up all the shit that led up to 9/11. the government new what was going down. and besides the point, the dude started a war and had 8 years and still couldn't find him. obama's team found him in 3... in a fucking house