TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
The purpose of that label is not to accurately inform, it is to get voters not to vote for the candidate.
There's a shortcut from the attack "tax and spend" to the voting lever which for many voters bypasses the "is it true" question. The big lie, just repeat it, remember?
Of course, as the attack became embarrassingly ironic, the generically appealing 'fiscal conservative' label for themselves got more press, while 'radical' is a popular attack.
While in the midwest this week, I listened to some right-wing talk radio and they frequently called all the democrats 'radicals'. Then he had a Republican congressman on who is part of the group demonstrating on the floor and called him a 'radical' as a compliment and caught himself and corrected the label to 'rebel'. The propaganda is thick.
Another amusing example: a caller said the two candidates by not doing more on immigration are not loyal to the US. The host said 'he has to disagree on their loyalty, McCain has proven his loyalty'. Note the 'balanced' 'they', but only McCain mentioned by name.
Another: on oil, he started off saying it's not a democrat or republican issue, it's an American issue (a hackneyed cliche that sets off the propaganda alarm), but then went on to say all the reasons Republicans are right and concluded that only the Republican position makes sense. They seem very careful to try for the 'non-partisan' image with the throwaway comments like he started with during this period of low Republican ratings in the polls, while keeping the partisan message.
Now, why am I typing this Friday night on the strip in Las Vegas? I'm going out.
TastesLikeChicken
Lifer
- Sep 12, 2004
- 16,852
- 59
- 86
Yes, of course. Since the left-wingers are innocent and haven't mired this country in a debt it can't possibly pay they should enjoy ceviche and caviar on the beach while others suffer in their stead.
:roll:
Some of you in here just don't get it, do you? You're so wrankled about the other side that you can't even see straight. This is about all "wingers" and both sides are going to have to make concessions to straighten things out. The sooner both sides realize this and stop pointing their fingers at each other the faster we can take care of the problem.
Nice spin, TLC, if utterly dishonest. Which faction of the political spectrum steamrollered PayGo out of existence? The so-called "Left"? Hardly.
Which faction championed big pharma and insurance co windfalls at huge expense as a so-called "senior drug benefiit"? Who fearmongers huge increases in military/security spending and elective war as an answer to "Terrarism!"? To the former boogeyman of the "Evil Empire"?
Whose tax policies have created an enormous shift in income to the top 1%, largely to the top .1%? Whose policies have allowed offshoring to change from a trickle to a torrent? Whose policies have allowed, encouraged a huge overreach in the financial markets threatening collapse and requiring bailouts?
The "Left"? Get real. We both know it's the Right who'll be sitting on the beach, quaffing a nice fruity drink, searching for their new trophy wife...
I'll agree that sacrifice will be required to turn things around, but we need to look to those who've gained the most and who have something to sacrifice first and foremost since much of America doesn't have much to give up other than consumer debt and negative equity on overpriced housing.
Or are you suggesting that we can, indeed, get blood out of a turnip?
Engineer
Elite Member
- Oct 9, 1999
- 39,230
- 701
- 126
Republicans only control spending with a Democrat president, as history shows. With a Republican president and Republican Congress, spending goes completely "fucked up" wild.
What 4 balanced budgets did the GOP have during 12 years out of curiosity (since there has only been one since 1969 and that was only because of SS money added in)?
Oh, and the title is about Presidents. You're more than welcome to create your own cartoon and thred about it though.
One of the interesting things I've found is that the right-wingers actually are happier with less prosperity, but with their ideological policies in place.
When I've looked back at periods of poverty where reforms that helped were under consideration, there's never a lack of people who are defending the bad policies.
I think it's a combination of things such as simple resistance to any change, and a preference for authoritarian governance.
I see it as well in the right's disproortionate preference for authoritarian religion, where authority figures instruct them in an authoritarian - and often highly fallacious - style.
Contrast that to arguably the most liberal church, the Unitarians, who not only differ on the content, but who are also in a church without any 'authority figures'.
Liberals tend to set economic policy by saying 'what works?' Right-wingers IMO tend to be split between the policy setters (the wealthy and the ideologues) and the masses who accept the 'authority message' which is based on things like 'values' applied without much consideration for empirical analysis.
This is why the red states with their relative poverty are happy to continue the policies increasing that poverty; it meets other needs.
For example, even if welfare were shown to enrich society/reduce poverty, they'll have a large bias against it based on opinion, not the facts.
Nebor
Lifer
- Jun 24, 2003
- 29,582
- 12
- 76
Because the basic principal of stealing from one person to give to another is wrong. You're advocating a government without conscience. I mean if "what works" is rounding up all the homeless people and shooting them in the head, it sounds like you'd endorse that for "enrichment of society."
America was founded by individualists, not socialists. The greater good of society is not my concern.
JSt0rm
Lifer
- Sep 5, 2000
- 27,399
- 3,948
- 126
If the greater good of society is not your concern, then why would you sign up for the military? Just to kill brown skinned people?
I guess your right in a way. I mean if we make the schools worse and worse then there will be less competition for my job in the future and i can charge more for what I do. Sweet. Those kids and the future of this country are not my concern. My only concern is my audi, my 50" plasma, my apartment in beverly hills and my stocks. If they really want it they will do it on their own.
I've had the same observation - especially the obsession with authority. It's some deep psychological thing that I'm afraid to delve into. I believe there's a connection between this and the sites that have dominating fraulein pics and stories.
What happens if you roll over all Medicare spending from 1965 > 2003 in the Democrat column since the program was proposed by a Democrat?
GroundedSailor
Platinum Member
- Feb 18, 2001
- 2,502
- 0
- 76
Medicare Part D was a complete R program with the obvious giveaway to Pharma companies and the less obvious long term intent of bankrupting the whole Medicare program itself.
Who signature are on the bills? The president.
Who has veto authority? The president.
What's this thread about? The president.
Nice attempt at diversion. You tried, but didn't try well enough.
That's why I stopped at 2003. Plus, that has nothing to do with Medicare A and B which have been and were already on progress to bankrupt the country.
I guess someone wasnt paying attention when Al Gore campaigned on Prescription drugs for seniors.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter