Have you ever heard the saying, "If you want to live like a republican, vote for the democrats?"
Well, I vote for the democrats in all close/important elections, and for the greens and "grassroots" when I'm looking at local candidates and I don't know enough about the democrat or republican to give my vote to one of the two majors.
I believe that society works better for all classes (because there are definitely different classes!) when everybody is at least semi-happy, and the democrats are better at keeping more people across different social lines happy.
Sound crazy? Well I disagree. I'll take a bleeding-heart over heartless any Goddamn day! (Because at least, they keep the real bums in society out of my way, in drug rehab, mental hospitals, shelters, public housing, and perhaps (indirectly) even jobs that actually pay the rent, keeping them from accosting me on a daily basis asking for my spare change, which I never give anyway. (Or worse, trying to rob me because they see me as having more than them and they're desperate in addition to stupid.) That, and they generally care about public education, seeing it as the investment that it is, rather than a cost.) <--There. Bottom line: They take care of those who are too pathetic or stupid to take care of themselves and keep them out of my way. I really said it.
Well, I vote for the democrats in all close/important elections, and for the greens and "grassroots" when I'm looking at local candidates and I don't know enough about the democrat or republican to give my vote to one of the two majors.
I believe that society works better for all classes (because there are definitely different classes!) when everybody is at least semi-happy, and the democrats are better at keeping more people across different social lines happy.
Sound crazy? Well I disagree. I'll take a bleeding-heart over heartless any Goddamn day! (Because at least, they keep the real bums in society out of my way, in drug rehab, mental hospitals, shelters, public housing, and perhaps (indirectly) even jobs that actually pay the rent, keeping them from accosting me on a daily basis asking for my spare change, which I never give anyway. (Or worse, trying to rob me because they see me as having more than them and they're desperate in addition to stupid.) That, and they generally care about public education, seeing it as the investment that it is, rather than a cost.) <--There. Bottom line: They take care of those who are too pathetic or stupid to take care of themselves and keep them out of my way. I really said it.
What a great way to pick our president! Which one would I rather get drunk with?
Even if youre kidding, some people are stupid enough to read it and decide its a great idea, promoting idiotic sheepility (trust me, its a word) instead of encouraging them to educate themselves on the issues, which is what we need now more than ever.
Give me a break...:disgust:
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
Originally posted by: Bowfinger
So, you're a Republican because you misquoted some moldy platitude? Gotta love a well-informed electorate.
By the way, the most common modern credit for that "quote" is Winston Churchill who apparently did NOT say:Note it says "conservative", not Republican. There is a difference, especially lately.
- If a man is not a socialist by the time he is 20, he has no heart.
If he is not a conservative by the time he is 40, he has no brain.
I suppose I am misunderestimating you, however. You are an educated man. I'm sure you know the Churchill attribution is merely legend. You undoubtedly meant the original. The earliest known version of this observation is attributed to mid-nineteenth century historian and statesman François Guizot:That leaves only one question. Are you a high school student, or are you a little light above the shoulders?
- Not to be a republican at 20 is proof of want of heart;
to be one at 30 is proof of want of head.
(For busmaster11 and PELarson)
If our government followed the 10 commandments, we'd be a theocracy. I don't think most libertarians would be happy under a theocracy.
GoPackGo
Diamond Member
- Oct 10, 2003
- 6,528
- 605
- 126
The Democratic party is pro-pandering, pro-government dependence.
The Democrats really haven't done anything for anyone except keep them dependent on the government and to keep telling minorities that they can't make it without them.
Democrats do nothing but perpetuate hate and racism. It helps keep them in power.
The problem we have is people are put in to groups based on sex, who they have sex with, and the color of their skin. We should quit looking at those things and look at the individual.
What burns my crank is when someone like John Kerry tries to make like he is " a regular person" wanting to be "the next black president"
There is no better example of an elite white american male than john kerry...everything he has done has been part of a plan and he has lived a rich lifestyle without to many hardships...heck even his purple hearts came easy.
If the government took a serious look at waste and corruption there would be probably be more than enough money left to pay for healthcare for everyone but both sides wont because both sides get rich off of it.
LOL!!
Some people will vote based on that type of standard. Bush's speech and personality are more appealing to the average guy. I wouldn't look down on someone for voting on that basis alone. Just look at all the "educated" liberals that consistently vote for the inferior candidate. But seriously, I agree that people need to be more educated on the issues. Actually, people need to be more educated in general.
Since you're so upset about my joke, I'll assume you're voting for Kerry. I'll also assume that you're not crazy about the concept of free speech.
HAHAHAHA Priceless..a French academic! Mon Dieu! He's probably Dominque de Villipen's great-great-grandpere
as for health insurance..many people with no apparent source of income spend 150-200/month on cigarettes (cost for 1-2 packs/day). You can get individual health insurance coverage for $180/month. Yes, people make choices, and frequently those choices include spending money on crap like booze and cigarettes, but not on health insurance. This is not an isolated situation, i see this ALL THE TIME. Now tell me why i am obligated to spend my money providing health insurance for someone who choses to spend their own money on vices which are killing them?
why don't YOU donate more money to charities to help these poor folks out if you feel so strongly about it.
Bowfinger
Lifer
- Nov 17, 2002
- 15,776
- 392
- 126
You mean like a Constitutional amendment to outlaw gay marriage? You mean like giving amnesty to illegal aliens? You mean like promising the world to first responders (e.g., firemen) and promoting No Child Left Behind ... without actually delivering the funding? You mean that pandering?
Dude. Lay off the drugs.
No better example than George W. Bush, you mean. The biggest differences are Kerry actually served in combat and Kerry actually succeeded in his plans. Bush failed at almost everything he did, an unpleasant truth that doesn't appear to be changing with his current gig either.
Stop parroting the Bush party line and educate yourself. Both parties have strengths and weaknesses. Your list of stereotypes is so absurdly partisan it is a self-parody.
Shamelssly stolen from slashdot, but makes you stop and think:
The really awful thing is that a major thing we used to think despicable about Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany was the identification papers and the restrictions on travel.
With computer databases, your image and your fingerprints *are* identification papers, and now you are being forced to hand them over at checkpoints.
Seriously, it was all very funny when we *started* to point out the amazing number of similarities between Hitler and Bush's rise. There was a terrorist act on a national monument (and even, in the 9/11 case, *attempted* on the national legislature, same as Germany) that produced national fear, whipped up by leader, used to convince legislature to pass through critical bills granting extensive police powers. Political opponents were accused of being soft on terrorism. Fear and xenophobia against religious (Islamic/Christian) and racial (Arabic/Jewish) groups was used to greatly infringe those people's rights and persecute them. A number of undesireable people, in violation of national law, were locked up in a camp to isolate them from the rest of society (Guantanamo Bay/Nazi concentration camps). Nationalistic fervor was whipped up and whipped up again to build up a popular base. Personal vendettas were made good upon with the new power (Bush-Hussein/Hitler-a number of enemies). Other countries were invaded and occupied on poor pretexts, banking on the fact that other, less powerful, countries would not be willing to organize or do more than protest (Iraq/several countries). A primary motivation for the invasion was resources (and later Nazi invasion into the USSR was significantly for oil). Business and government had close ties, and war profiteer corporations did a number of nasty things to take advantage of cronyism with major political figures (Schindler's List is a nice example). Right now the third largest employer of armed forces in Iraq (after the US and Britain)are private corporations -- big companies that are answerable only to an extremely friendly occupational government that grants Iraqis almost no rights and consists mostly of people trying to curry favor with their US occupiers to try to get a more advantageous political position in the future. Neither leader is brilliant, but both are prone to violence and grudge-holding. Both managed to seize control of the legislature at about the time they gained office. Neither has much regard for the lives of the people they have conquered -- we have been using unarmed Iraqi guards as inspectors of cars into restricted areas before US personnel come close, making human shields out of them. Neither feels that international opinion is of much import. Both quickly established powerful police organizations with far stronger powers than their predecessors, little oversight, and the ability to bypass much of the judicial system (OHS/Gestapo). Both started their invasions based on punishing the terrorists that attacked their nation, and immediately spread out once they had the power they needed. Both had rising unemployment in their countries, and a growing degree of xenophobia towards foreign laborers.
There are some differences. Hitler respected and even idolized what Britain had done -- Bush treats Britain as a lapdog. Hitler actively physically intimidated his physical opponents -- Bush does not. Hitler invaded, occupied, and eliminated the governments of no countries within his first four years as ruler, whereas Bush invaded, occupied, and eliminated the governments of two countries within his first four years as ruler. Hitler wound up eventually killing many more people than Bush has thus far, though Bush is currently ahead for the first four years of rule. Hitler did not actively attempt to control other countries through diplomatic means -- Bush has a team that works hard to control other contries without needing to overthrow their government. Bush has computers and telecommunication monitoring systems, but Hitler did not.
Screw Goodwin's Law. The man didn't write it in 2004.
I'll leave you with the following thoughts:
* Bush has many times the campaign money (due to business ties) that Kerry does, and has just finished a round of ads that have pushed him ahead in the polls again. If you thought Bush was bad in his first term, wait until his second, when he has no incentive to act with any kind of restraint, without the possibility of being re-elected.
* (A quote written by a Jew about the Holocaust) I believe it is imperative that they are taught about the tragedy that is the Holocaust. They must be made aware that this should never happen again.
We currently have the luxury of being able to vote against Bush -- as far as we know, voting computers can be trusted and used to put him out of office. Hitler, four years into his rule, had become the Father.
* A sobering quote:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller
* What you do and say between now and the November elections and at that time will affect not only you and your countrymen, but the lives and fortunes of many other people in countries around the world. I hope that you will consider your actions carefully, and consider that day four years ago in Florida, where a handful of people convincing their friends to act differently could have made all the difference.
The really awful thing is that a major thing we used to think despicable about Soviet Russia and Nazi Germany was the identification papers and the restrictions on travel.
With computer databases, your image and your fingerprints *are* identification papers, and now you are being forced to hand them over at checkpoints.
Seriously, it was all very funny when we *started* to point out the amazing number of similarities between Hitler and Bush's rise. There was a terrorist act on a national monument (and even, in the 9/11 case, *attempted* on the national legislature, same as Germany) that produced national fear, whipped up by leader, used to convince legislature to pass through critical bills granting extensive police powers. Political opponents were accused of being soft on terrorism. Fear and xenophobia against religious (Islamic/Christian) and racial (Arabic/Jewish) groups was used to greatly infringe those people's rights and persecute them. A number of undesireable people, in violation of national law, were locked up in a camp to isolate them from the rest of society (Guantanamo Bay/Nazi concentration camps). Nationalistic fervor was whipped up and whipped up again to build up a popular base. Personal vendettas were made good upon with the new power (Bush-Hussein/Hitler-a number of enemies). Other countries were invaded and occupied on poor pretexts, banking on the fact that other, less powerful, countries would not be willing to organize or do more than protest (Iraq/several countries). A primary motivation for the invasion was resources (and later Nazi invasion into the USSR was significantly for oil). Business and government had close ties, and war profiteer corporations did a number of nasty things to take advantage of cronyism with major political figures (Schindler's List is a nice example). Right now the third largest employer of armed forces in Iraq (after the US and Britain)are private corporations -- big companies that are answerable only to an extremely friendly occupational government that grants Iraqis almost no rights and consists mostly of people trying to curry favor with their US occupiers to try to get a more advantageous political position in the future. Neither leader is brilliant, but both are prone to violence and grudge-holding. Both managed to seize control of the legislature at about the time they gained office. Neither has much regard for the lives of the people they have conquered -- we have been using unarmed Iraqi guards as inspectors of cars into restricted areas before US personnel come close, making human shields out of them. Neither feels that international opinion is of much import. Both quickly established powerful police organizations with far stronger powers than their predecessors, little oversight, and the ability to bypass much of the judicial system (OHS/Gestapo). Both started their invasions based on punishing the terrorists that attacked their nation, and immediately spread out once they had the power they needed. Both had rising unemployment in their countries, and a growing degree of xenophobia towards foreign laborers.
There are some differences. Hitler respected and even idolized what Britain had done -- Bush treats Britain as a lapdog. Hitler actively physically intimidated his physical opponents -- Bush does not. Hitler invaded, occupied, and eliminated the governments of no countries within his first four years as ruler, whereas Bush invaded, occupied, and eliminated the governments of two countries within his first four years as ruler. Hitler wound up eventually killing many more people than Bush has thus far, though Bush is currently ahead for the first four years of rule. Hitler did not actively attempt to control other countries through diplomatic means -- Bush has a team that works hard to control other contries without needing to overthrow their government. Bush has computers and telecommunication monitoring systems, but Hitler did not.
Screw Goodwin's Law. The man didn't write it in 2004.
I'll leave you with the following thoughts:
* Bush has many times the campaign money (due to business ties) that Kerry does, and has just finished a round of ads that have pushed him ahead in the polls again. If you thought Bush was bad in his first term, wait until his second, when he has no incentive to act with any kind of restraint, without the possibility of being re-elected.
* (A quote written by a Jew about the Holocaust) I believe it is imperative that they are taught about the tragedy that is the Holocaust. They must be made aware that this should never happen again.
We currently have the luxury of being able to vote against Bush -- as far as we know, voting computers can be trusted and used to put him out of office. Hitler, four years into his rule, had become the Father.
* A sobering quote:
First they came for the Jews
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists
and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left
to speak out for me.
Pastor Martin Niemoller
* What you do and say between now and the November elections and at that time will affect not only you and your countrymen, but the lives and fortunes of many other people in countries around the world. I hope that you will consider your actions carefully, and consider that day four years ago in Florida, where a handful of people convincing their friends to act differently could have made all the difference.
Siddhartha
Lifer
- Oct 17, 1999
- 12,505
- 3
- 81
Democrat, why?
Because of:
JFK
FDR
Truman
Sen Joseph McCarthy
LBJ
Nixon
GWB
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
The Religious Right
NeoConservatives
Rush Limbaugh and all the other conservative talk radio jockeys
Because of:
JFK
FDR
Truman
Sen Joseph McCarthy
LBJ
Nixon
GWB
Ronald Reagan
Bill Clinton
Herbert Hoover
Jimmy Carter
The Religious Right
NeoConservatives
Rush Limbaugh and all the other conservative talk radio jockeys
Democrat because I tend to agree with them a lot more then any other party.
Also there are so many blind Rightwingers that know nothing who listen to Conservative talk radio and it makes me sick. I think I'd call myself Independent if I ever started to agree with Republicans because I would not want to be associated with a group that is made up largely by total dumbasses.
Also there are so many blind Rightwingers that know nothing who listen to Conservative talk radio and it makes me sick. I think I'd call myself Independent if I ever started to agree with Republicans because I would not want to be associated with a group that is made up largely by total dumbasses.
[/quote]They choose not to buy health insurance. 99% of US households have televisions. ~70% of people earning below $30k/yr even have cable or satellite. These people have decided that television is more important than health insurance. Since they are irresponsible I should be forced to buy them health insurance?
[/quote]
This is crazy. Do you have any idea how much private health insurance that is not subsidised by your employer costs? $500 a month, a hellava lot more than cable.
[/quote]
This is crazy. Do you have any idea how much private health insurance that is not subsidised by your employer costs? $500 a month, a hellava lot more than cable.
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: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter