78 replies to this topic

[Tetiel]

My apologies if I'm not a natural Jonathan Swift, but everything I've written up to this point has been satirical in nature.

Honestly I was rolling with laughter at the fact that no one saw it. I was like... jeebus had they not seen your posts before? Do they not know where you stand?

[Amagius]

That's real nice, you made my blood boil and made me waste my time when you were just kidding..

You know we have this smiley for a reason

Eh, for one reason, I gained a large amount of Slack when I realized you didn't catch on. Sorry for that part. But, satire is used for a reason--if I represent the average Republican rhetoric for its truly inane and silly ideas, it may become easier for some to see the forest for the trees. Thirdly, I try to entertain anyone who happens to be on the same wavelength as me at the time.

[Nick]

doesn't want to sacrifice economic stability for welfare bullshit

Have you been paying attention to the stock market since Monday? It's abysmal. McCain's plans for the economy are not different from the current blueprint we're using now - it's a bad idea.

[travis]

The thing is...
The rich & well off always swing republican. Why? Because they don't give a fuck about the economy. They already have money. Why vote Democratic, which will raise the tax bracket on their end?
The lower and middles classes will vote D, because they want to raise taxes on the 500+/yr bracket by 2%, and send that down our way. the Democratic party falls in favor of the lower and middle classes- the backbone of america.

TLDR rest of thread.

[Tetiel]

The thing is...
The rich & well off always swing republican. Why? Because they don't give a fuck about the economy. They already have money. Why vote Democratic, which will raise the tax bracket on their end?
The lower and middles classes will vote D, because they want to raise taxes on the 500+/yr bracket by 2%, and send that down our way. the Democratic party falls in favor of the lower and middle classes- the backbone of america.

TLDR rest of thread.

No, you've got it all wrong. It's almost the exact opposite. If that were true why would all of Hollywood be democrat or why would almost all of the elite rich be democrat? Why would the majority of farmers be republican? Now the upper middle class can honestly swing both ways. It usually depends on what region they are in but a huge amount of lower class are actually republican depending on if they live in a city or what their jobs are (or while I don't like to make it a factor what their race or cultural background is. I don't like to make it a factor but it is true that the majority of blacks are democrats and the majority of hispanics specifically cubans are republican). What you said may be true for some but it's not true for the mass. :\

[travis]

If you vote McCain after eight years of Bush, you're just begging for fascism.

+1

Don't patronize me--I know McCain's policies. They're damn good policies.

We're going through an oil crisis right now, and McCain is in support of bringing those oil extractors into domestic territory so we don't have to depend on Saudis. If McCain gets elected, I'm sure that the price I pay on gas will quickly descend into obscurity, much like Obama's strategy to win in Iraq. Since you mentioned the war on Iraq, I want to further suggest that we will not win this war if Obama is elected. How can you win the soccer game if you quit in the third quarter? Exactly.

I was about to call you an idiot. But I read the thread.
Not sure if you were serious about the oil crisis...farthest from it.

@tet: funny. everyone I know that doesn't work 40-60 hours a week (like my parents) and still makes over $100,000 a year (not my parents) wants to vote republican. eg. My brother's adopted parents.

[Tetiel]

@tet: funny. everyone I know that doesn't work 40-60 hours a week (like my parents) and still makes over $100,000 a year (not my parents) wants to vote republican. eg. My brother's adopted parents.

You're basing what you say off of everyone you know? That's not a very good sampling of the country o.o Maybe that's their reasoning for voting republican and if so shame on them, but they're not exactly the majority of the republican party as we don't have too many people like that in our nation and republicans do make up about 50% of the population based on the last couple presidential elections.

Job and cultural background has a lot to do with it though. A lot of union workers (depending on the union) do vote democrat and most teachers vote democrat as well. Most farmers and some other union workers vote republican because of which party supports their work. It's how it goes. Most of red state america I assure you... they're not the richest folk

[Amagius]

No, you've got it all wrong. It's almost the exact opposite. If that were true why would all of Hollywood be democrat or why would almost all of the elite rich be democrat? Why would the majority of farmers be republican? Now the upper middle class can honestly swing both ways. It usually depends on what region they are in but a huge amount of lower class are actually republican depending on if they live in a city or what their jobs are (or while I don't like to make it a factor what their race or cultural background is. I don't like to make it a factor but it is true that the majority of blacks are democrats and the majority of hispanics specifically cubans are republican). What you said may be true for some but it's not true for the mass. :\

If I asked you to show some recent statistics on who the majority of the Hollywood locals, elite rich, or farmers support, could you find them? I don't think I could--it sounds like psuedo-common knowledge. Republicanism is sold by values--the lower socioeconomic classes bite for things like family values, the war, or various polarized things. Somehow, policy escapes a few people...

Also, I'm unsure if this is correlated, but the subsidies for corn usage was pushed more by the Republican ticket, which may offer a reason if farmers do vote Republican.

[Tetiel]

If I asked you to show some recent statistics on who the majority of the Hollywood locals, elite rich, or farmers support, could you find them? I don't think I could--it sounds like psuedo-common knowledge. Republicanism is sold by values--the lower socioeconomic classes bite for things like family values, the war, or various polarized things. Somehow, policy escapes a few people...

Also, I'm unsure if this is correlated, but the subsidies for corn usage was pushed more by the Republican ticket, which may offer a reason if farmers do vote Republican.

I'm sure I could probably find them, but for the most part you are correct. It is generally just how people are and have traditionally been. The Hollywood locals it should be MORE than obvious with the amount who have spoken out against Bush, Palin, McCain and pro-Obama in general. There are, however a fair few Republicans but they typically do not make statements. I'm sure they do keep voting statistics somewhere and I could find them. I'll post them as soon as I can or PM them if it takes me that long.

Republicanism is indeed sold by certain values and many people vote - mind you the democrat side sometimes they do just vote on one issue as well - just on one issue like I said and I would be a fool to argue that point. Some people vote primarily on moralistic issues which is why I think it is important that we have a variety of candidates if for example you are morally right and economially left like I am (there is no good candidate for people like me, sadly nor the opposite of me). So essentially I am agreeing with you on every point. I don't quite know about the corn thing, but I'm sure I could read up on it. Farmers have been more republican even if they do not grow corn, though. I'll take a look at those statistics, though.

Semi-update: you are correct. It is certainly difficult to find this information! Mostly people are only interested in finding statistics for what race, gender, and family status is voting for whom. Interesting factoid... supposedly republicans have a much higher population of people with four year degrees than democrats. I would have honestly thought them to be equal. But I am still searching on and I will try to find that data as soon as I can. I do know for a fact, however, that several unions have endorsed Obama. Google doesn't like my farming searches

[zigzag]

Tetiel, Hollywood actors are leftists because they own no means of production (petty bourgeoise) so they have nobody to exploit on a mass scale; this compared to someone who owns a factory (bourgeois) therefore has incentive then to vote for Republican for deregulation to further chisel at the workers he hired (because the compromise to them is more money in the owners' pockets) and tax cuts for the rich.

Actors are petty bourgeoise. The elites you speak of are completely bourgeoise, two very different classes with different sets of interests. The actors themselves face exploitation or have at a point to get to where they are now. Even during a recession such as this one, they are upto their neck paying to prevent living like poor people which they could previously identify with. Factory owners and other bourgeoisie often inherit their wealth and means of production, this goes to show the complete pointlessness of the pinnacle of the capitalist hierarchy as it exists today - their status is unproductive and unnecessary, otherwise they wouldn't be hiring administrators and technocrats while they bathe on a pile of money with no worry of going bankrupt.

Often the means of production include major media outlets (FOX, CNN, Sky, NBC, etc), thus is the procedure of capitalism and the peanut gallery that is made of leftism (and politics in general) in America. This is obvious, the more capital you have in a capitalist society, the more political power you have; the state will then always work in the benefit of the rich and corporates over the workers, because the workers own no means of production/mass inheritance so she can not exert political power, and is then swayed by hegemonic media owned by the elites telling her to vote for the guise of family/socially conservative values while the economic policy that candidate represents is one that chisels at the class whose population creates the majority of western society: the worker.

It's basically a group of mice in Mouseland voting in cats to represent them.

(Skip to 1:11) Mouseland, a speech by Tommy Douglas who introduced Canada to Universal Healthcare, back when the New Democratic Party (major third party) had a class conscious political patform.

Edited by Fred Hampton, 18 September 2008 - 04:43 AM.

[Waser Lave]

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/7623256.stm

Their research, published in the journal Science, indicates that people who are sensitive to fear or threat are likely to support a right wing agenda.

Those who perceived less danger in a series of images and sounds were more inclined to support liberal policies.

There you go. Right wing people are pussies apparently...

[Nick]

Brilliant LW. Haha, it's just as I always thought.

[redlion]

I'm sure I could probably find them, but for the most part you are correct. It is generally just how people are and have traditionally been. The Hollywood locals it should be MORE than obvious with the amount who have spoken out against Bush, Palin, McCain and pro-Obama in general. There are, however a fair few Republicans but they typically do not make statements. I'm sure they do keep voting statistics somewhere and I could find them. I'll post them as soon as I can or PM them if it takes me that long.

And the conservatives/republicans in Hollywood are traditionally less than successful with their attempts to sway people. Ben Stein's Expelled is a prime example. Pseudo-science and sob stories aren't grounds for a documentary.

'The Anti-Defamation League has condemned the film for its linking of evolutionary theory and the Holocaust: "Using the Holocaust in order to tarnish those who promote the theory of evolution is outrageous and trivializes the complex factors that led to the mass extermination of European Jewry." Promoting the movie in Canada, Stein told the Vancouver Sun that "It's none of their [expletive] business".'

Just an example, but you get the idea. Perhaps there is a reason that liberals work in television and movies. I'd relate it to the statistic LW posted.

[Grizzly]

What the fuck is going through your mind?

Now, really, I want the people who are voting for the McCain & Palin duo to provide me with some sort of explanation, because, even if I did consider myself a conservative republican, I still would be unable to see myself voting for either.

Go for it - I'm all ears.

You're an idiot

[Ives]

Kucinich isn't too dissimilar to Ron Paul on some issues.

Yeah...Kucinich is probably the closest thing you can get in America to a libertarian-leaning social democrat.

lol
that doesn't even seem like youre voting for him because you agree with his policies, or know what they mean, or know what consequences they would have.
Yea sure McCain has amazing foreign policy experience. Because presidential candidates should be singing stuff like "Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" and provoking the east before they even become presidents...
And he's a straight talker alright. No his statements about the economy being fine weren't hastily retracted at all!

Dude, you're really bright. He's joking.

[Ender]

[Frizzle]

So you'd rather rest your future with a man who could, quite possibly, die, and leave the country to the control of a maniac Alaskan hockey mom who knows absolutely nothing of foreign policy?

What, is the life expectancy in America? 14 or something? And you have to remember that a VP does not automatically assume the role.

Dennis Kucinich ftw!

Two party politics ftl.

Two party politics always provides a stronger government.

Pfft, speak for yourself, I'm still bitter that people voted for Boris Johnson to be mayor of London.

Why? The guys done well so far. To be fair, I voted and will still vote for Richard barnbrook

I thought it was pretty funny personally, he's the political equivalent of Prince Philip.

I guess his type of politics goes straight over your northern head.

If you vote McCain after eight years of Bush, you're just begging for fascism.

Please describe fascism for me, because last time I checked, a system that incorporates a checks/balances system does not incorporate a facist political system. Stop using that term Simon, you're wrong on so many levels.

lol
that doesn't even seem like youre voting for him because you agree with his policies, or know what they mean, or know what consequences they would have.
Yea sure McCain has amazing foreign policy experience. Because presidential candidates should be singing stuff like "Bomb, Bomb Bomb Iran" and provoking the east before they even become presidents...
And he's a straight talker alright. No his statements about the economy being fine weren't hastily retracted at all!

Yes because no other politican in the world of politics has ever done that! Everyone always makes mistakes and changes their mind, it's what makes some politicans versatile and felxible. Plus, McCain admits his economic policies are quite weak.

How the fuck do you we win the war in Iraq? I still dont understand that. Yea whatever lets stay there even longer. Why not. Where's the harm in that.
And I didn't even mention Iraq. Did you misread Iran? That's ok, just a letter off, we'll invade them too, and win that war.

Simple, you set up and regulate a democractic society. Simple in theory, almost impossible in practice. But to leave now would undo the whole point of it. I think all politicans, even McCain, agrees that leaving Iraq in the near future is for the best, just both disagree on timescales.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ech/7623256.stm



There you go. Right wing people are pussies apparently...

Yeah, I'm sure the Nazi's were shitting themselves when they killed 6 million jews

"What if they get out? We only have submachine guns and grenades!"
"WE'RE DONE FOR!!"

[Waser Lave]

I guess his type of politics goes straight over your northern head.

He's a politician?

[redlion]

What, is the life expectancy in America? 14 or something? And you have to remember that a VP does not automatically assume the role.

Two party politics always provides a stronger government.

Please describe fascism for me, because last time I checked, a system that incorporates a checks/balances system does not incorporate a facist political system. Stop using that term Simon, you're wrong on so many levels.

Yes because no other politican in the world of politics has ever done that! Everyone always makes mistakes and changes their mind, it's what makes some politicans versatile and felxible. Plus, McCain admits his economic policies are quite weak.

Simple, you set up and regulate a democractic society. Simple in theory, almost impossible in practice. But to leave now would undo the whole point of it. I think all politicans, even McCain, agrees that leaving Iraq in the near future is for the best, just both disagree on timescales.

Actually, the VP does assume the presidency in the event that the President dies. I know, you're English, whatever. We're kind of autocratic about our democracy over here.

And two party politics basically screws anyone who doesn't line up with one of the two. At least in Britain you've got three with a shot at forming a coalition government. Lib-Dem is a minority, but no one can have a majority without them, right? Because we know that Labour and Conservatives won't agree enough to form a coalition government. But with three parties, you can find something that is at least close to your beliefs, allowing, of course, that you're not the PIRA.

Okay, so from what we've seen, McCain has admitted he is weak on economics. He has also made comments like 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran' that completely invalidate his 'experience' in foreign policy. No economics, no foreign policy; What exactly does he have going for him? I don't care if you change your mind, you aren't allowed to say things like that about sovereign countries and be MY political leader. That just doesn't gel.

[Waser Lave]

What exactly does he have going for him?

He's a white, pro-life conservative?

[pyke]

Okay, so from what we've seen, McCain has admitted he is weak on economics. He has also made comments like 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran' that completely invalidate his 'experience' in foreign policy. No economics, no foreign policy; What exactly does he have going for him? I don't care if you change your mind, you aren't allowed to say things like that about sovereign countries and be MY political leader. That just doesn't gel.

To be fair, I'm sure most people have said much worse. They just haven't said it in front of a camera.

[Frizzle]

He's a politician?

I know northern politics is just about mining, cider and pies, but remember, London runs the country ok? Now get back in the mine.

Actually, the VP does assume the presidency in the event that the President dies. I know, you're English, whatever. We're kind of autocratic about our democracy over here.

To be fair, I thought the Senate voted on it, but that may be the next VP. But it doesn't matter really, no one person runs a country, as much as Simon would want you to believe.

And two party politics basically screws anyone who doesn't line up with one of the two. At least in Britain you've got three with a shot at forming a coalition government. Lib-Dem is a minority, but no one can have a majority without them, right? Because we know that Labour and Conservatives won't agree enough to form a coalition government. But with three parties, you can find something that is at least close to your beliefs, allowing, of course, that you're not the PIRA.

The lib dems are a party? I thought they just sat around making up stupid policies.

"Ok, let's make every friday, craaaaaaaazzzzzy hat day!"
"Why the fuck not, we're never getting into power!"

Okay, so from what we've seen, McCain has admitted he is weak on economics. He has also made comments like 'Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran' that completely invalidate his 'experience' in foreign policy. No economics, no foreign policy; What exactly does he have going for him? I don't care if you change your mind, you aren't allowed to say things like that about sovereign countries and be MY political leader. That just doesn't gel.

So according to you, the only things that affect a country are economics and foreign policy. I got to admit, Americans are very short sighted.

Also, Bomb Iran is a catchy tune. Plus who's going to miss that shithole?

[redlion]

He's a white, pro-life conservative?

You bring a fair point.

To be fair, I'm sure most people have said much worse. They just haven't said it in front of a camera.

Ugh. Granted, they probably have.

What is the point of the argument though? He has publicly stated that he'd bomb them, as well as take action against North Korea. We've never warred with a nation that has actual WMDs before, and I don't want to see what happens when we do. I'm done with military intervention as a means of securing our borders.

[Waser Lave]

I know northern politics is just about mining, cider and pies, but remember, London runs the country ok? Now get back in the mine.

Will do, you clearly know best since you happened to be born in a specific geographical locale.

We all love environmental determinism don't we.

[redlion]

So according to you, the only things that affect a country are economics and foreign policy. I got to admit, Americans are very short sighted.

Also, Bomb Iran is a catchy tune. Plus who's going to miss that shithole?

Economics and foreign policy have been cited as his strong points. If he doesn't have those, what does he have? A conservative social agenda? I don't need that in the white house either.

And as obtuse as you're being, I think the millions of innocents in persian lands might not like it if we bombed the Ayatollahs 'just because'.

''To be fair, I thought the Senate voted on it, but that may be the next VP. But it doesn't matter really, no one person runs a country, as much as Simon would want you to believe.''
One person (and his buddies) got us into two wars halfway around the world with no evidence, no support, and a congress that wasn't his party. Makes a pretty good case for autocracy.