Pissing off America

[MadJoker]

What do you believe is the biggest Problem in America right now?
or What is the most Controversial Idea that you believe will piss off the most Americans?

[shetlan]

The biggest problem in America is the politicians running it.
Forget the economy. In the last 50 years, we've had a dozen recessions - we always get out of them. The real problem is the liberal government trying to control and take over the private sector - which is costing people their jobs, homes, businesses, and more importantly their freedom.

The most controversial idea? Electing Obama.
Forget gays, abortion, racial issues, and the rest. At the moment the most controversial thing in the country is Obama and whether or not it was a mistake to elect him, which quite a few democrats have been changing their minds about.

[Rage]

Originally Posted by shetlan

The biggest problem in America is the politicians running it.
Forget the economy. In the last 50 years, we've had a dozen recessions - we always get out of them. The real problem is the liberal government trying to control and take over the private sector - which is costing people their jobs, homes, businesses, and more importantly their freedom.

The most controversial idea? Electing Obama.
Forget gays, abortion, racial issues, and the rest. At the moment the most controversial thing in the country is Obama and whether or not it was a mistake to elect him, which quite a few democrats have been changing their minds about.

I completely agree with Shetlan on this. The economy is at the worst it has been in a long time and the bailout is a hunk of shit. What happened to free enterprise?

Obama is a mistake and a huge threat to everyones personal life. He is very inexperienced and the only reason people elected him was because they were pissed at Bush in my opinion. Democrats should have no place in this country, They are against freedom and free choice.

[headcase]

This isn't really philosophical or moral so I'm moving it to GD.

[MadJoker]

Sorry, wasn't sure exactly to put it.

Rage How are Democrats against Freedom. All we try to do is make sure everyone has a chance. tried to get everyone to play in the game as much as possible to help stimulate the economy. problem is that not everyone can and we screw up, but how are we against Freedom?

and Free Enterprise is good, but never great. with a free Enterprise the Seller has the Advantage and can control the market far too easy and start raising prices way too much. and in Free Enterprise, monopoly's can form and than have great control over the sellers. buyer is at a disadvantage and now has lost his freedom to the slavery of high market prices. so whats wrong with government assistance?

and Shetlan i like your ideas.
i agree Obama was a mistake i never really wanted him at all, but to me he was the lesser of two evils.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by MadJoker

Sorry, wasn't sure exactly to put it.

Rage How are Democrats against Freedom. All we try to do is make sure everyone has a chance. tried to get everyone to play in the game as much as possible to help stimulate the economy. problem is that not everyone can and we screw up, but how are we against Freedom?

Robbing the rich to give to the poor isn't "giving everyone a chance" Joker; and what about the rich person's right to his property? Why do his rights matter less than anyone elses?

The concept of a progressive tax (taxes that require a higher percentage of income as you earn more money) is entirely a construct of the democratic party. What do you think happens when progressive taxes are in place - it simply stops being worth it to make more money. There's no reason to succeed, no reason to try.

They've legislated everything from what kinds of cars we can drive to what kind of lightbulbs we can use - since when does the government have that power?

Originally Posted by MadJoker

and Free Enterprise is good, but never great. with a free Enterprise the Seller has the Advantage and can control the market far too easy and start raising prices way too much.

BS. Sellers and buyers have exactly the same level of power, always have always will.
Just as the seller is free to sell whatever he wants to sell, you're free to buy whatever you want to buy - you're also free to buy something else.

YOU decide where to spend your money - except when the government forces you to spend it.

Think of it this way Joker - You're a consumer and you want to buy a shirt at Target.
You want the shirt - Target wants your money.
The shirt costs less at Wal-mart, so you go there instead.
You can just as easily change your mind and buy pants - the seller has no power over you - you decide where to spend you money.

Your conception of how prices are raised is also completely false. Companies don't just raise prices because they "can" (in many cases they can't). When prices go up, it's usually in response to an increase in the price of labor (an increase in the minimum wage). When salaries go up, the companies need to raise prices to compensate. Increases in price also occur when the feds decide they need to tax or regulate something - a new tax on cigarettes means the price per pack goes up.

Do you realize how much competition there is to get your business? If a company raised its prices just for the sake of raising them - they'd go broke! Nobody would shop there anymore, and all the other stores would be flooded. Competition: This is the beauty of the very nature of free trade. A company that arbitrarally raises its prices is automatically punished by the buyers - no government intervention is needed, no congressional boards need to be assembled, it works all on its own.

Originally Posted by MadJoker

and in Free Enterprise, monopoly's can form and than have great control over the sellers. buyer is at a disadvantage and now has lost his freedom to the slavery of high market prices. so whats wrong with government assistance?

First off, what you just described is government interfearance and/or regulation - "government assistance" is welfare and other related programs (you know, when some lazy bastard takes my tax money).

The United States Anti-Trust law delt with that issue in the early 1900s. There was a re-enforcement of the law in the 1970's to update it to deal with modern concerns. These laws where passed for the sake of national security, not to regulate the market - which most people have forgotten.

Monopoly's are extrememly rare, not to mention difficult to form. Since they're illegal in the US, they don't have much place in this conversation - but I'd like you to consider something.
The democratic party is seeking a universal healthcare system, which will be mandatory for all citizens - this is a monopoly on medical care.
The democratic party has long been seeking to abolish private and home schooling and require everyone to attend public schools (where the parents have no say in what their children are told) - this is a monopoly on education.

Monopoly's can only exist when there is a conscious agreement to form them and a conscious attempt to form them. We have laws to prevent this from happening in the private sector, but who's going to stop the feds?

Originally Posted by MadJoker

and Shetlan i like your ideas.
i agree Obama was a mistake i never really wanted him at all, but to me he was the lesser of two evils.

I dis-agree. I don't particularly like McCain, but I would have preferred to see him in office right now.
With the issues at the border, we need a stong leader who's not afraid to defend the country (Obama's a coward).
We needed a leader with enough experience and common sense to know when to keep his nose out of other people's business (neither of which does Obama have).
We needed someone who was thinking about the common man and the small business owner (who Obama is blatantly trying to punish for making too much money).
I also would have preferred to see a more suitable person become the first black president. Personally, I really don't care about that distinction (black or white he's still incompetant), but there are several senators and congressman who would have been much better "first black presidents".

[hrril]

yea, as for compensating my downfalls, they (the gov't) have really looked out and had my back. So I am going to let that be known. Besides I was able to get out of jail free on a monopoly anyway! I was as board as a 2x2 w-h-y-b-e-a-g-a-i-n-s-t when you can B4. So therefore collectively have interest in such rank. @d/\/\!raL

[Rage]

Thanks Shetlan for you wise insites, Its like we think alike.

More on the Democrats though, They are for large government. That's anti freedom right there. One of our founding fathers said "Freedom ends where government begins." I see that there is a need for a government but not one that tries to control everything. Social security is an example of the government taking away rights, just like universal medical coverage. When we (the tax payers) no longer have a say into what our funds go into we lose freedom.

Democrats want everything equal, Almost communist like. They try appear to try and help the small man but they are really just trying to get it easy for themselves. No one will ever help a small average man like us.

To Shetlan's statement about them trying to make no more private schools. That's unconstitutional, The tenth amendment protects the states rights and one of them is to provide education without the federal government getting involved.

Again Democrats are against what this country was founded on.

[bloodlusta]

Americans are really obsessed with freedom aren't you?

What is freedom to you? Free to do what ever you like? Are you saying that police stopping someone from killing is removing their freedom? Does this not mean that America is taking away other peoples freedom by not letting the freedom fighters in Iraq fight each other?

Freedom is a word that is tossed around so much in America, to me it just sounds like a political weapon to be hurled at the opposition.

Also you could say that not taxing people who are earning more is oppressing the poor, why should they have to pay as much as some fat cat working with the rich mans knife to their backs?

The idea of progressive tax is founded on sound micro economic systems. The idea is that the more someone earns the smaller percentage they will spend on 'needs' and the greater they will spend on 'wants' and 'savings', this means that they will be more able to afford a higher tax rate.

e.g. A worker earns 1X amount he spend 25% on wants, 25% on tax, 45% on needs and saves 5%.

However the owner of the factory earns 20X amount. He will spend 30% on wants 35% on tax, 5% on needs and saves 30%.

Even with a higher tax rate they are still better off due to the fact that the price of needs does not rise a great deal.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Americans are really obsessed with freedom aren't you?

What is freedom to you? Free to do what ever you like? Are you saying that police stopping someone from killing is removing their freedom? Does this not mean that America is taking away other peoples freedom by not letting the freedom fighters in Iraq fight each other?

Even freedom has its limits bloodlusta. Your freedom ends when you begin to encroach upon someone else's freedom. There's an old saying, "I'm free to swing my fist anywhere I like, until my fist meets your face." My freedom to swing my fist around can be enjoyed without limit as long as I don't encroach on someone else's freedom to not be hit.

By the way, the "freedom fighters" in Iraq? The insurgents the military is fighting now are mercenaries - not freedom fighers.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also you could say that not taxing people who are earning more is oppressing the poor, why should they have to pay as much as some fat cat working with the rich mans knife to their backs?

Why shouldn't they? What makes them special?
They aren't required to pay the same amount, they're required to pay the same "percentage".
If you make $50,000 a year and pay 10% you pay $5,000 in taxes.
If you make $100,000 a year and pay 10% you pay $10,000 in taxes.
Ther percentage didn't change, but you made more money and you paid more money. If everyone pays 10% of their income, everyone is being treated the same.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

The idea of progressive tax is founded on sound micro economic systems. The idea is that the more someone earns the smaller percentage they will spend on 'needs' and the greater they will spend on 'wants' and 'savings', this means that they will be more able to afford a higher tax rate.

What's your point? As you said, they earned it. Why should someone who works to get more be punished? If he earns more, he's also earned the right to spend the money on his "wants" and to save if he so desires.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

e.g. A worker earns 1X amount he spend 25% on wants, 25% on tax, 45% on needs and saves 5%.

However the owner of the factory earns 20X amount. He will spend 30% on wants 35% on tax, 5% on needs and saves 30%.

Even with a higher tax rate they are still better off due to the fact that the price of needs does not rise a great deal.

Whether or not he can afford a higher tax rate is irrelevant. If it was a question of what he can afford then let us look at another road:
Everyone in the US is now only allowed to earn a certain amount of money per year - no more than $60,000. No matter what you do, no matter how hard you try, you can never earn more than that. If you make more, all excess funds will be confiscated by the federal government. Secondly, if you make less than $60,000 - the federal government will send you a check for the difference.
In such a world, is there a reason to start a business? Is there a reason to become a doctor? A lawyer? Is there a reason to work at all? No. You're not going to make anymore money from your business, your years in medical or law school will never be rewarded. For that matter, there's no reason to work at all. Why bother?

Nobody works, nobody produces anything, there are no goods to buy, and TA DA, society collapses.

How would you like it if you worked hard, started a business, made something of yourself, and started earning $100,000 a year - then the government decided you could get by with $60,000 - so they took the $40,000 and gave it to somebody else? Would you bother to run the business anymore? Why should you? Running a business is alot of work, and if you're not going to make anymore money you ay as well work form someone else.

A progressive tax undermines the very motivation for working. It seeks to punish one who has accomplishments and increasingly punish those who accomplish more. To what end? The only end one could logically seek by punishing success is to end success - to legislate mediocrity by punishing excellence.

[bloodlusta]

Ha! that is a really bad argument. You think that people will not work because they will be taxed higher! Or are you just joking?

The whole point is that if you tax them at the same rate then the low earners will struggle to pay. People earn their money? Yes you could argue that if the work place was fair and equal to all which it is not. People with rich parents always have a massive advantage over poor families.

Im pretty sure you are a white American who would know a hard days work if it slapped him across the face. its not an insult, just an educated guess, don't take it personally. My point is that you think rich and poor should be treated the same, which thy shouldn't.

Also the insurgents are fighting against an oppressive occupation, they are fighting for their freedom, therefor they are freedom fighters.

[Aequitas]

Bloodlusta, it's the reason people in the U.S. aren't that happy when they win a million bucks in the lottery. Why celebrate when the government is gonna take off a few hundred thousand right off the top? Why should anyone work their finger to the bone and make it big, just so the can pay more taxes. I heard on the Dave Ramsey show a while back that 5% pay fifty percent of all tax money in the U.S. Why should a select few pay more then 95% of the country?

And white american? I'm white and my family has been poor or middle class all the way back to the middle ages. I dig ditches for a landscaping crew to earn money, and my brother who went to college lost a job to a hispanic man because the company needed "racial diversity." The time of whites being treated better in the U.S. is gone and has been passed on to any other "minority" Have you ever tried to find a scholarship for a low middle class white boy? None to be found I tell you.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Ha! that is a really bad argument. You think that people will not work because they will be taxed higher! Or are you just joking?

Not even close to what I said.
I said there's no reason to work "harder". Here's a scenario for you:
You're making $60,000 and being taxed 10% (Net $54,000).
You have the option of starting your own business and making $100,000 a year, but then you're taxed at 20% (Net $80,000). For all your work, effort, and the risk taken to start your business, you're only going to make $16,000 more. Is it worth it? Not really, that's the problem with the progressive tax.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

The whole point is that if you tax them at the same rate then the low earners will struggle to pay. People earn their money? Yes you could argue that if the work place was fair and equal to all which it is not. People with rich parents always have a massive advantage over poor families.

Not everyone pays taxes in the first place, below a certain level you aren't required to pay taxes at all.

You yourself said that people earn their money bloodlusta. Whether or not a person's family had influence that helped them is irrelevant. That simply means that members of their family had worked hard and earned enough to pass down to their children.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Im pretty sure you are a white American who would know a hard days work if it slapped him across the face. its not an insult, just an educated guess, don't take it personally. My point is that you think rich and poor should be treated the same, which thy shouldn't.

Really? Working full time, putting myself through school at night, six years in the armed forces . . . no I'm pretty familiar with work.

You got one thing right, I am white. What does that mean? Well, it mostly means that there are absolutely no scholarships I can apply for, I can't sue a company for not hiring me, and I don't get to complain about how oppressed I am.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also the insurgents are fighting against an oppressive occupation, they are fighting for their freedom, therefor they are freedom fighters.

You need to spend some time there son. The insurgents aren't even Iraqis; the majority are Syrian, Lebanese, or Jordanian. When their pay runs out they leave, and they don't give a rat's behind who wins or loses.

[bloodlusta]

You miss understand when I said you haven't done real work. I meant the kind of work that poor immigrants do e.g. working 10 our days doing the something over and over again, the kind of jobs that keep your country afloat.

I myself have not done a days work when compared to those people.

It is because those 5% earn 50% (or something) of the wags. Im earning about $40,000 (NZ$) a year and im being taxed 30%. However my boss gets around $300,000 per and pays about 36% tax. I think that is fair because that tax is less of a strain on him.

Someone once said, when the government sees the lower class and the upper class as one entirety and treats them as such the gap between the two only grows.

Most of the fighters in Iraq are ex army who lost their jobs and status when they US invaded their country. Sorry but I know longer believe anything an American says about the war, I have heard so much BS on here about it, like that Osama was in Iraq ect ect. Nothing personal.

Aequitas you miss understood, in New Zealand 'white American' is a mind set, not a race thing, you could have a black person who was a 'white American''

Also shetlan thank you for not resorting to petty name calling as other members have done in the past, and thank you for providing a good argument, go to see their is still some life left in Bombshock. +1 rep

[Fayle]

How is that guy not fucking banned??

Do not argue with bloodlusta he is completely correct in his statements.

You need to spend some time there son. The insurgents aren't even Iraqis; the majority are Syrian, Lebanese, or Jordanian. When their pay runs out they leave, and they don't give a rat's behind who wins or loses.

That is a biased statement because i completely doubt you can prove this statement. Not all middle eastern soldiers are insurgents, not all are freedom fighters, but most of all not all of the are mercenaries. Those who are fighting the U.S right now with their IED's and such are not Freedom Fighters nor are they Mercenaries, they are pure insurgents. Do not say they are FF because they are being oppressed by another force bloodlusta because that statement is wrong we are in war not just randomly attacking a nations people for the sake of controlling them under wrongful actions.

On top of the whole business monopoly crap i have been reading, ignorance is quite shown. These arguments are based off if the government was flawless. There are PLENTY of monopolies in the U.S because it is simple to pay off government officials for this bullshit.

I think the biggest fucking problem in America is how little people know before shooting their mouths off, which shows all the bad in a situation instead of the enormous amounts of good.

Also what would piss Americans off the most is for the government to say "we are taking back everything we have given you and starting from scratch with no corruption" because hundreds of businesses rely on this corruption to stay in operation. And most Americans are greedy bastards to a degree.

[Aequitas]

Bloodlusta, you don't understand that increasing taxes on the rich and middle class only encourages people to stop working. I personally knew people who would not find a job because they received unemployment and welfare benefits anyways. They were on the food stamps program and yet they had a big flat-screen TV! Why should my tax money feed some lazy bastard who won't even work to support his kids?

You also mentioned that kids with wealthy parents will always have advantages over those without. Not true. Did you know that 90% of the U.S. millionaires are first generation? Bill Gates and Michael Dell both started their businesses from almost nothing. Why should their hard work and determination go to a lazy bum who is too lazy to stand in the unemployment line? By your way of thinking, everyone with an extra car should give it to those without one, even if they don't have a license. If the government did this people would be screaming about private property rights, so why should their money be any different? They worked for their money just like they worked for their cars, so why should either of them be taken away?

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

You miss understand when I said you haven't done real work. I meant the kind of work that poor immigrants do e.g. working 10 our days doing the something over and over again, the kind of jobs that keep your country afloat.

I myself have not done a days work when compared to those people.

And those people pay no taxes, this is irrelevant to the conversation.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

It is because those 5% earn 50% (or something) of the wags. Im earning about $40,000 (NZ$) a year and im being taxed 30%. However my boss gets around $300,000 per and pays about 36% tax. I think that is fair because that tax is less of a strain on him.

It's unfair by definition. For something to be "fair" it must treat all people the same reguardless of color, creed, race, or economic status. If a tax system taxes people at different rates because of how much money they make, it is unfair by the very definition of fairness.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Someone once said, when the government sees the lower class and the upper class as one entirety and treats them as such the gap between the two only grows.

That person was mistaken. Since establishing a progressive tax and forcing higher taxes on the wealthy, the gap between the rich and poor has only gotten wider. Many economists place the blame for this gap squarely on the progressive tax. ie: With a progressive tax in place, one can either stay below the tax increase line (remain poor) or he can be at the heights of wealth where he doesn't feel the sting of the taxes. There is no middle ground - so there is no middle class.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Most of the fighters in Iraq are ex army who lost their jobs and status when they US invaded their country. Sorry but I know longer believe anything an American says about the war, I have heard so much BS on here about it, like that Osama was in Iraq ect ect. Nothing personal.

Who told you that bs about the ex army guys who lost their jobs?
The previous Iraqi army is largely serving in the new army (contrary to what the media has been telling people). At the beginning of the war many of Saddam's generals betrayed him. They provided the US with intelligence, guided troops away from war zones, and gave us an edge to find Saddam. The only loyalists where the Republican Guard, which was a meager 60,000. After the second year, they'd lost most of their men, most of their supplies, and all of their will to fight. Many tried to return to civillian life under new names, and we havn't heard from them in a while.

I don't remember anyone claiming that Bin Laden was in Iraq, I remember CNN saying that people said it, but I don't remember anyone actually saying it.

I understand scepticism of anything you hear in the American media. Our media has become little more than a political machine with each network choosing a side and trying to pander to its whims.

--------------

Fayle,
When a shootout is over you gather up the prisoners and you ask where they're from so you know where to send them. Most of the insurgents we found in Iraq have been professional soldiers, many of them veterans of the first war in Afganistan, and the Iran Iraq war. These guys don't have any loyalty to their employers and they're happy to tell you who hired them, what they where paid, and how long they've been hired to fight. Though most of the insurgents have been hired and funded by Iran, there's a growing number that lead back to Hezbollah.

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

Also shetlan thank you for not resorting to petty name calling as other members have done in the past, and thank you for providing a good argument, go to see their is still some life left in Bombshock. +1 rep

I've never seen a point in that. It's unusual to find people who can keep an argument civil, and it's unfathomable to find them on the internet.

[CaptainTesticles666]

I would recommend talking about gay rights. Some Americans are sane, but there are many that just act like massive phallics when it comes to this issue.

[Aequitas]

I disagree, I think the only people who really give half cent about gay rights are homosexuals and homophobes. Everyone else I have talked to might have an opinion on it but don't really care about it.

I think if you want to piss off an American, criticize the soldiers from any U.S. conflict and see what happens. That or make a racial slur against black people, that will get you in pretty big trouble.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by Aequitas

I disagree, I think the only people who really give half cent about gay rights are homosexuals and homophobes. Everyone else I have talked to might have an opinion on it but don't really care about it.

That's largely true.
Polls taken before elections have shown consistently that only 8-15% of the country cares about gay rights - "caring" meaning that they could be on either side of the issue.

[bloodlusta]

Why do people care what gays do? Its not really affecting them, so why care?

[shetlan]

Well, the motivations are different on both sides and could be sub-divided even further).

Against Gays
Moral standpoint: Homosexuality is specifically named in the Talmud, Bible, and Koran as being an abomination to God. A large percentage of anti-gay groups base their positions on this.

Children: They can't have them. Many people are also upset at the prospect that their children would have to learn about gay marriage in schools.


For Gays
Who cares: The simple argument that everyone should be able to do whatever they want.

Political hot button: A huge amount of the support you see for the gays has nothing to do with them personally. They've become a political issue, and hence they've become tools for the left-wing.

[MadJoker]

For my two cents on gays:

Moral standpoint: Homosexuality is specifically named in the Talmud, Bible, and Koran as being an abomination to God. A large percentage of anti-gay groups base their positions on this.

Not everyone believes what they do, why push your believes, and restrict their love. Sex is not the enemy no matter how much you portray it to be.

They can't have them. Many people are also upset at the prospect that their children would have to learn about gay marriage in schools.

I learned mine from my gay next door neighbors. They had such a nice lawn. lol

Polls taken before elections have shown consistently that only 8-15% of the country cares about gay rights - "caring" meaning that they could be on either side of the issue.

I live in Cali, and when they made a proposition to ban gay marriage, only people from Los Angeles, and San Francisco voted no. ha ha and Cali is supposed to be the most open state. lol too bad it passed, but yeah, most don't give a rat's ass.

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by MadJoker

Not everyone believes what they do, why push your believes, and restrict their love. Sex is not the enemy no matter how much you portray it to be.

"Sex" itself isn't the point, nor did I ever say it was.

If you're going to play the "push your views on others" game - when the gays keep their gay-ness in the bedroom, I'll stop caring.

Originally Posted by MadJoker

I live in Cali, and when they made a proposition to ban gay marriage, only people from Los Angeles, and San Francisco voted no. ha ha and Cali is supposed to be the most open state. lol too bad it passed, but yeah, most don't give a rat's ass.

I to live in California, I was pleased to see it pass.

It's funny, the "No on Prop. 8" crowd didn't show up until after the law had already passed. The voters had spoken (for the third time) and banned gay marriage from the state and the rally's didn't start till after the bill was passed - now why do you think that was?

[CHEVY_454_POWER]

"If you're going to play the "push your views on others" game - when the gays keep their gay-ness in the bedroom, I'll stop caring. "

Bingo. Stated perfectly, couldn't say it any better. I would be happy if they packed the hell up and got the hell out. But that ain't going to happen, unfortunately.

Chevy

[shetlan]

Originally Posted by CHEVY_454_POWER

Bingo. Stated perfectly, couldn't say it any better. I would be happy if they packed the hell up and got the hell out. But that ain't going to happen, unfortunately.

Chevy

Incidentally. . . I thought gays liked having things "shoved down their throats" - isn't that the whole point?

HA! - sorry, I had to sneak that one in "the back door".

HA! again - I've got a million of 'em.

[CHEVY_454_POWER]

I laughed out loud on that one. Good shit.

On a serious note, I don't think there is any "one" thing that would piss Americans off the most. Below are some suggestions...

To piss off white blue collar America, bashing the constitution and the amendments would get the job done. Or making fun of Christianity.

To piss off black America, I would "dis" BET, or call all the rappers "stupid niggers". Which coincedentally, most of them are...

To piss off anyone else, poke fun at whatever the hold close. Be it, guns, freedom of speech, religion, family origins, etc.

Not sure why I am helping someone piss me off. But maybe I just want a reason to get the dust of the 12 gauge.

Chevy

[bloodlusta]

I think the thing is America is made up of so many social groups even within races (i.e Neo Cons and white liberal, Black 'gangstaz' and black Muslims ect) that to ask what is pissing America off is a stupid question because there as so many people thinking in different ways.

Therefor I challenge myself to piss off every different social group in America (espilly PETA) equally so no group feels left out.

[Atma]

Originally Posted by bloodlusta

I think the thing is America is made up of so many social groups even within races (i.e Neo Cons and white liberal, Black 'gangstaz' and black Muslims ect) that to ask what is pissing America off is a stupid question because there as so many people thinking in different ways.

I agree, and would also like to add that it's likely that when trying to piss off one social group, you'd be pleasing another.

IE: If you're poking fun of guns (using one of CHEVY_454_POWER's examples), you may be pissing off anyone associated with the right-wing, but pleasing anyone associated with the left-wing.

About the gays, I personally don't give a shit, but am annoyed to no end with gay pride parades and gay pride in general. They're just making themselves a target for persecution instead of gaining tolerance.

[O Diskordia]

Originally Posted by Atma

About the gays, I personally don't give a shit, but am annoyed to no end with gay pride parades and gay pride in general. They're just making themselves a target for persecution instead of gaining tolerance.

I wonder how well a "straight pride" parade would go over, if some of the things that go on during gay parades were happening... methinks it'd be decried as "pornographic and indecent", rather than a "beautiful expression of human sexuality."
Personally I think the persecution is part of the reason for events like that. There are *lots* of people who exist only because of their sexual preference, and have little else to live for (the straight equivalent's probably the "neighborhood bike"), and attracting any attention, even if it's just notoriety, is enough to help them feel validated. I think these events are for little else than pissing off straight people; if gays didn't waste so much time trying to get under the skin of everybody around them, there wouldn't be a "gay rights issue"- it probably would be far less controversial. Besides, even *Elton John* doesn't think homosexual couples should marry, and has publicly said so. All that gay pride posturing is for attention, and, weirdly, the media makes it out to be some unbelievably important question of "human rights" (one of the cheapest phrases on the planet anymore) with vast, far-reaching, earth-shattering implications. Attention and notoriety and some half-baked "agenda" are all that whole business is about.