File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
he's fucked america long enough, now america gets to fuck him back
>> Anonymous
ya and the jackass with the flag is has it on the floor, doesnt make him look much better then a dumbass tryig hard and a dumbass not trying
>> Anonymous
sage for liberal faggotry.
>> Anonymous
way to let the flag touch the ground, u fucken commies.
>> Anonymous
somehow a flag touching the ground seems less offensive than a war against an imagined enemy
>> Anonymous
>>464525

fukken signed
>> Anonymous
Somehow holding on to an archaic custom and in the process blasting a smokescreen across any relevant issues seems less offensive than being a screaming moron in charge of massive amounts of power.

Wait no I take it back. Ignoring the world around you and covering your ears and yelling "I CAN'T HEAR YOU I CAN'T HEAR YOU" is pretty fucking offensive... Just like being a dipshit who refuses to read the newspaper or listen to people who have experience before you launch your resources and people into an offensive without a plan to end the maneuver.
>> Anonymous
jesus was a nigger
>> Anonymous
>>464730
douchebag i read all sorts of newspapers and magazines lol
>> Anonymous
>>464730
carefully worded arguments, easily ignored, etc etc
>> slowandcreepy
305-666-4366
tell him how you feel
>> Anonymous
bush is a dumb faggot, and of you that support him are dumb faggots
>> Anonymous
>>464713
somehow you come across as a complete tool, brainwashed by some liberal faggotry. Never let the flag touch the ground.

And Jesus was a jew
>> Anonymous
>>464735
Keep those fingers in your ears, champ
>> Anonymous
anyone who lets their flag represent who they are obviously have nothing to show for themselves

keep hanging off the nuts of the liberal states, fucking useless neocons
>> Anonymous
>>464768Unless you've been a Boy Scout or something (which has got to be over 90% of Americans) you have no real concept of what the rules for flag display even are. I am not a gung-ho flag-waver, and the flag stopped being a symbol for the America that I believed in a long time ago. So someone noticed that the guy is letting the flag touch the floor in the picture.
Oh. Shocking. Look outside on your street at night and how many of your neighbors are flying the flag at night? No-no. Not unless its properly illuminated. Or how many leave it up during foul weather? Again, its supposed to be taken down. Proper disposal is by burning it, and that door-mat with the flag emblazoned on it is just completely "disrespectful". Give it up. Its a gaudily-colored piece of cloth that has no intrinsic meaning or value. It is a false idol.
And any attempt to make an intelligent political argument on /b/ is a complete waste of time as the average brain-pan of users here is about the size of a thimble. Me, I'm just one more loser that has nothing better to do with his time than waste it here with the rest of you morons.
>> Anonymous
I have got an american flag as a door mat what do i win?
>> Anonymous
Oh...sorry. I'm in /gif/. See that, you had me thinking that I was in /b/.
>> Anonymous
I'm from New Zealand. Are you guys serious about this flag not touching the ground shit or is it trolling? I mean.. I can't tell anymore.
>> Anonymous
>>464800
it's serious, flag isn't supposed to touch the ground.

>>464786
oh, but you're wrong, it's the PERFECT symbol for the US, flag mats, shitty magnetic ribbons, it's all there as a perfect representation of our capitalist society.
>> Anonymous
>>464804
Makes a great mop though, man.
>> Anonymous
Liberals are such useless twits. They're completely defined by what their against and don't actually stand for anything. That's why every time they open their mouths they bitch about President Bush. History will eventually remember Bush as a great president, so enjoy your mud-slinging while you can.
Oh and by the way, despite the 8 year hate-Bush campaign by democrats and the liberal media, Republicans are still going to win again in 2008. Just look at who's running.
>> Anonymous
>>464804
haha.. wow.

Aren't you like.. embarrassed for your country sometimes?

>>464814
I like how you think peoples moral convictions are "standing for nothing", whilst taking action blindly is much more admirable.
>> Anonymous
>>464814Republicans are still going to win again in 2008. Just look at who's running.

I fuckin lol'd. Here's your Republican candidates (who have a chance):
A shitty mayor who isn't in contact with his own adult children, and is pro-abortion, a major no-no for Republicans.
An insane Vietnam POW who didn't even stand a chance the last time he ran in 2000.
A charismatic, young politician who is known for being a flip-flopper, and is doing horribly in the polls.

Yeah, I'm really sure the Republicans are going to win.
>> Anonymous
>>464814
This is why your doctor prescribed that medicine. Take it so you can live with the rest of society and not in an institution.
>> Anonymous
>>464826
lol. 'Moral convictions'? Please. Conservatives had moral convictions before modern day liberals even existed. A liberal's idea of moral convictions is waiting for a conservative to act based on their beliefs and then go against it regardless.
I also noticed you had no 'clever' remarks about the election comment. Not very confident are we? Honestly, liberals are just weak individuals who posture themselves as the official opposition to the people actually running things.
>> GFY k0mat0se
>>464814

because your opinion matters to everyoneeeee ehehehe
>> Anonymous
>>464834
Sand in vagina much? Seriously get that stick out of your ass, you'll live longer afterwards.
>> Anonymous
>>464835
>>464836
same idiot
>> ahem... Anonymous
If a conservative says we should go to war, liberals will automatically say not to, stating the ‘potential’ for disaster.
If a conservative says we should go to church, liberals will automatically say not to, stating the ‘potential’ for bigotry.
If a conservative practices his/her culture or tradition, liberals will automatically say not to, stating the ‘potential’ for infringing on someone else’s culture or tradition.
If a conservative acknowledges race, liberals will automatically say not to, stating the ‘potential’ for racism, or outright accusing them of it.
If a conservative states the right to bare arms, liberals will automatically say not to, stating the ‘potential’ for a gun related accident or crime, even though criminals obviously have no intention of obey the costly laws that liberals propose.
Etc. ect.

Liberal ‘moral conviction’ reads like a list of minor (sometimes imaginary) concerns trumped up as genuine issues, all of which are contingent on the ridiculous idea that conservatives are ‘mean’ and want to control you. The only thing conservatives really want to stop you from doing is turning our countries into big-government controlled wastelands riddled with drugs, aids, and people who don’t know how to make ends meet. If liberals really ran things the free world would be promptly conquered by countries like Russia, and China, that left-wingers applaud for their supposed ‘progression‘.
>> Anonymous
OMG Brandon what are you doing to the prez???
>> Anonymous
>>464844

who said anything about progress? or in your words 'progression.'

and aren't those who consider themselves 'conservatives' simply reacting to those who call themselves 'liberals' (as much as liberals are reacting to conservatives)? why align oneself to a set of produced ideals? why take a side in a binary opposition? why keep insisting on oppressing yourself and others by modernist ideas more than a century old?
>> Anonymous
>>464852
Um... because I'm not a moral relativist douche-bag like you, and have no interest in seeing the free world fall apart in order to appease liberal ass-hats who glorify irresponsible behavior.
>> Anonymous
>>464854
go work the Man and stop posting on my boards.
>> Anonymous
>>464834
I'm not from USA. I don't know, or give a shit about, your election. We don't even have liberals or whatever here. I was making specific staements about your post, you are making blanket statements about people based on some label YOU give them. Brilliant.
>> Anonymous
are you guys SERIOUS?
political arguments on 4CHAN!?
don't you realise how much that utterly utterly fails??
>> Anonymous
>>464859
I'm not American either, fucktard. Still, American elections always matter because, more than any other country, America effects the world. Oh and fyi: there are liberals everywhere you pathetic jack-ass.
>> Anonymous
>>464861
And now you're involved. Ironic.
>> Anonymous
Hmm...now where's one of those funny DO NOT WANT images when you need one...
>> Anonymous
>>464861
Yeah I guess.. I was seriousyl wondering about the flag stuff.
Then that other guy got all mad. poor other guy.
>> Anonymous
eurofag
>> Anonymous
Who's mad? Rebutting the stupid shit the liberals say is great fun. I wouldn't have it any other way. Liberals serve as a constant reminder of what not to do.
>> Anonymous
>>464878
???
>> Anonymous
>>464880
Except you didn't rebutt anything.
>> Anonymous
>>464854

those who propagate irresponsible behavior vs those who propagate responsible behavior -- again, simple binary oppositions. what does it mean to be responsible, anyway? and what the fuck is the "free world"? and who over the age of 18 makes responses with sentences starting with a sarcastic "um..."?

there's no reason for anyone to lash out at liberals except for embarrassing themselves. liberal ideology is just as conservative as conservative ideology -- it just rehashes preconceived ideas, which are mostly in direct opposition to conservative ideology (another set of preconceived, consumable ideas) -- there's nothing 'liberal' about liberals. liberals are caricatures of caricatures of caricatures. political satire is centuries and centuries old -- making fun of bush is nothing revolutionary, nothing subversive. calling bush names or making silly photoshops with his face only serves to reaffirm simulated consumer culture. a liberal speaking out against capitalism is himself participating in comsumer culture. do you see all those ads tempting you with a free ipod for answering suggestive questions like, "is bush a bad president"?

point is, the liberals that you put so much time into complaining about are not a threat to anyone, and especially not to you, the 'non-liberal' camp (read mostly likely as conservative). in fact, you should be happy that being liberal is so fashionable. they are actually supporting your ultimate cause.
>> Anonymous
>>464887
The reaction of 'rebutting' is constituted by a simple attempt, not by actual success. Like liberals ever admit when they're wrong anyway.
>> Cats777 !ZMTjkDFhqY
Too bad all politicians are scumbags.
>> TheAdmiral
That's supposed to be Bush? Damn, I couldn't identify him at first. Crappy waxwork.
>> Anonymous
>>464888
The fact that liberals aren't actually 'liberal' is the crux of any anti-liberal point (ie: They're hypocrites). When the rank and file liberal imagines some ludicrous socialist ‘utopia’ he may be naïve enough to imagine himself being content as part of the unwashed masses, being controlled, but the liberal politician imagines himself above said socialist society, living like a king while his constituents believe the lie. The only brand of freedom liberals believe in is their own. This is precisely why there is no equivalency between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives make no bones about who they are and what they believe. Apart from that, the most obvious flaw in your point is when you imply that a liberal not really being liberal, must then be conservative, and therefore the same as conservatives. That’s not necessarily the case. Nice failure of logic, shit-head.
>> Anonymous
>>464888
The 'free world' refers to the countries of the world that collectively practice and perpetuate freedom, as opposed to those parts of the world where people are not free. Hope that clears things up for you faggotron. Don't get me wrong, I just love idiots like you who act like their refusal to acknowledge the dictionary definition of actual words, is the height of profound thought. Who do you think you're fooling with that bush-league pseudo intellectual crap anyway? Let me guess: You go to collage, and it makes you feel smart? lol. Typical.
>> Anonymous
>>464905

nope, i should have made it clearer, but by saying that liberals were 'conservative' i wasn't saying that they were (for example republican) conservative. i was talking about two different kinds of conservative. let's call the conservatives in opposition to liberals "blue conservatives" and the new kind of liberal i brought up as Conservatives with a capital 'C'. it's my fault for assuming that this wasn't clear.

Conservatives with a capital C are those that, whether they know it or not, are continuously reaffirming, rebuilding, strengthening the present societal/political condition. participating in debates where one takes sides as liberal/conservative, democrat/republican, or even green; making fun of or defending presidents or parties; engaging in big talks about domestic/foreign policy, etc. -- all of this is Conservative. so anyone that identifies themselves (whether they are cognizant of it or not) with a political ideology through practice or discourse is Conservative.

it just so happens that the ultimate goal of "blue conservatives" aligns mostly with Conservatism. thus, those who are "liberal" are supporting the blue conservative cause indirectly by playing a key role in Conservatism with a capital C.
>> Anonymous
All this political talk has made me attempt to remember a word. Just cant pinpoint it exactly.

Its the commonly used word in politics in reference to political supporters.
>> Anonymous
Oh to elaborate it is often used with senators. Much like they are trying to appease their ____.
>> Anonymous
fuck nm got it i kept thinking concubines. If anybody even cared what the shit i was just looking for, it was constituent
>> Anonymous
>>464912

your definition of freedom presupposes that those with the most power in the world (mainly the western capitalist nations) are free, and those other nations that are underdeveloped and trying to catch up are not free. for example, those under oppressive militarist rule. yes, these nations are under a very visible, obvious form oppression. but one could very easily argue that those people in 'free' nations such as the US are under a just as much oppression, if not more. what makes this second kind of oppression more terrible is that those that are under it are not aware of it. in fact, they believe very strongly, very violently, that they are the most free in the world, and make it their humanistic goal to spread their kind of freedom to other nations. and anyone who question this idea of freedom immediately becomes a crazy commie pseudo-intellectual to those who adhere to this idea of a "free world."

plus, "profound thought" is another Conservative myth, as is the idea that "collage" with an "a" makes people "smart," when in fact college is one of the most sinister indoctrinating institutions that internalize the above myth of "intelligence" and "freedom."
>> Anonymous
>>464917
I live in Canada in which there is a political party known as the ‘Conservative’ party (proper noun) not all of the members of which are ideologically conservative. I am well aware of the difference between the figurative and literal without your condescending explanation.
You want to use the word ‘conservative’ in reference to a political stance (such as say, pro-life on abortion) and then pretend to be utilizing the literal meaning when it suits you. What a silly argument that is too. In the context of a political discussion the difference between social conservatism and literal conservatism (as it pertains to a fucking squirrel saving up nuts for the winter) is implied by the issue being discussed (ie: gay ‘rights’ vs. taxes). Paying respect to the flag of the country you live in is obviously an issue of social conservatism as opposed to capitalism. That’s the folly of trying to make everything seem relative for your own convenience- you end up twisting logic so much that you totally lose perspective and are revealed to be making excuses (such as pretending that you were referring to the type of conservatism that mysteriously has nothing to do with proper flag conduct).
>> Anonymous
I WANT MY FREEDOM FRIES!!!!!

DROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
>> Anonymous
>>464929
Once again: I didn’t mention ANYTHING about capitalism. The free world is free quite simply because you don’t get put against a wall and shot for speaking out of place.
The reason why you keep pretending that we’re talking about financial conservatism and capitalism is so that you can point to America’s wealth and elude to the tired notion that ‘might makes right’ as a means to imply that America and the free world are not actually more moral, but simply stronger and wealthier. The only problem there (apart from lame tactics) is that money has nothing to do with this conversation.
>> Anonymous
>>464929
Lol. You’re just another anti-establishment jackass who is basically the embodiment of (figurative) liberalism but thinks of himself as ’centrist’ or ’above the fray’.
>> Anonymous
apparently flags > freedom

gg patriotism
>> Anonymous
freedom costs a buck-o-five
>> Anonymous
>>464954
No one said that, idiot.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>464950

you're right, you didn't every bring up capitalism -- i did. but i never connected Conservatism with financial conservation. nor did i ever intend to address flag conduct, which wasn't that important to my point -- that it's silly to bash liberals because they don't pose any threat to anyone, and further, that doing so is counter-productive. participating in a liberal versus conservative debate is ultimately a joke that ends up reproducing and propagating the same counter-productive, oppressive behavior and thinking. i jumped in because that's what you were doing -- bashing liberals.

my elaboration of my use of Conservatism wasn't meant to be condescending -- it only became condescending when you assumed that you already knew how i was using it in my specific context. Conservatism in my use doesn't imply a tendency to conserve very obvious social norms, or conserving nuts. it implies a tendency to continuously support and propagate oppressive mechanisms like bipartisan debate -- something people (both liberal and conservative) participate in intending to fight or preserve what they believe is conservatism. this is what you were doing, engaging in a sort of bipartisanism.

although i didn't connect it explicitly, this in fact does ultimately relate to capitalism. not because wealthy nations are the most powerful (which is true, but not my point) and they thereby get to define 'freedom,' but because capitalism has become the dominant mode of production/consumption in the world. this, ultimately, whether you are rich or poor, is oppressive. so the problem is not money or financial conservatism. it's the dominant mode of production.

i wasn't talking about money, so it's difficult for me to argue against what you've said about my point being about money. but here's my attempt.
>> Anonymous
>>464966
I know your point isn’t about money, because you have no point. Capitalism is one among many things you are elaborating on in an attempt to hide the fact that you yourself are a liberal which is itself is a trend as opposed to a belief system. When confronted with ‘liberal bashing’ you don’t like it, but because it is just a trend with no foundation, you have no means of defending it and are reduced to deflecting the topic to virtually everything that ISN’T being discussed.
The idea that ideological debate is futile and counterproductive is probably one of the most asinine things I’ve ever heard. The reason why you think that way is because for people like you it IS just a debate. You don’t see how it effects people, and you don’t care. You’ll go through life without taking a real stand on anything let alone effecting positive change. But for responsible people who don’t thrive on excuse making, there is a very real practical application of ideology, like the fact that our fucking laws are based on them. The fact that your neighbor can’t just shoot you because he wants your property is grounded in ideology. Conservative ideology. Grow the hell up.
>> Anonymous
>>464985

this is the perfect point for me to end my side of the debate. in one way you are right -- it was pointless for me to have jumped in. in fact, it goes against what i what i was trying to say. getting into this sort of debate is exactly the kind of thing i want to avoid. but the anonymity of this board provides me a place to verbally test what i rarely vocalize.

but everything you've said in your last post confirms the fact that there is no way for us to see eye to eye. everything i'm saying is irrelevant to you, whereas they are the most relevant points for me. i talk about things by talking about what they are not, and this is problematic for you, whereas it's the least oppressive way for me to communicate what i'm trying to say. you see caring for other people as a real thing, whereas i see caring for (most) other people as another form of ideology what feeds into oppression. you believe in 'taking stands,' and positive chagnes. you believe in laws. you believe in ideologies, while i see ideologies in general as oppressive (while this may seem like an ideology in itself, one might suggest that it be called a anti-ideology to differentiate -- but this is also problematic because that's basically the definition you gave for liberals). basically, i'm just another immature pseudo-intellectual liberal in your eyes, and you're just another positivist in mine.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
This argument started out stupid, then got super ultra retarded when the person complaining about liberals said that they weren't actually liberals. Die in a fire, jackass.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
INTERNET ARGUMENT
>> Anonymous
>>465002
The only reason why you have the luxury of such lax opinions, is because idealists put their ass on the line while you sit on the other side of the thin red line pampered as can be, humoring out-of-touch notions like moral relativism. You’re the ultimate armchair general.
>> Anonymous
>>465007

and it kept on getting stupider when people who actually took the time to read an internet argument made the obvious complaints about it.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>> Anonymous
>>465012
like you?
>> Anonymous
We're entering into some kind of meta-stupid now, the kind that pretty much every argument on the internet gets to at some point if allowed to.
>> Anonymous
oh noes the flag is touching the ground, DOOOOM!!!!
>> Anonymous
that flag isnt good enough to wipe my ass
>> Anonymous
>>465019

exactly!
>> Anonymous
>>465011

postmodern thought =/= relativism
>> Anonymous
is it me or do we have one of the fugliest flags in the world.
>> Anonymous
>>465042
Don't be coy, shit-head.
>> Anonymous
>>465042

it's interesting, now that you mention it -- it's intricate and detailed, but not in the way that, say, the mexican flag is. i'm sure there are exceptions, but it seems that most nation flags are either simple spaces of divided color, or detailed depictions of real objects. the US flag is one of the unique ones that is intricate and dense, but through the use of patterns and not images.
>> Anonymous
Seriously, this is laughable. Get over it now.
>> Anonymous
>>465070
You first.
>> Anonymous
>>465070

get over what? it doesn't look like anybody's been arguing since people started calling the thread meta-stupid.
>> Anonymous
>>465089
meta?
>> Anonymous
Oh noes! TEH FLAG IS TOUCHING TEH GROUND!!!11!11!!