Page 3 of 12 FirstFirst 12345 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 90 of 345

Thread: Today's Republican Party is....

  1. #61
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Time for some humor?



    Probably NOT SUFFICIENT FOR WORK.

  2. #62
    Stingy DM Veldan Rath's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Maine! And yes, we have plumbing!
    Posts
    2,984
    Quote Originally Posted by Ziggy Stardust View Post
    Washington seems to me to be this oiltanker like mammoth with the turning circle of Mars.
    I really like this description.

    The imagery makes me giggle.

    And kinda points outlines the boondoogle that is the massive federal government over here. (yeah, cheap shot, mea culpa)
    Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita

  3. #63
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    You sly dog you, you didn't forget, you just wanted to make fun of me in front of an audience. Fair enough, consider my protests withdrawn.
    I did forget. I added the last line in an edit right after I posted, when I was rereading the quote and my response to make certain everything made sense. Rereading that last line you'd written triggered the recollection that you and I have been down this road of discussion before.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  4. #64
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Eh? There's been a Catholic president. Granted, one who was assassinated before he could secretly transfer control over America to the Pope, but a Catholic nonetheless.
    Yes, one nominated by the Democratic Party. Every Catholic nominee *all three of them* were Democrats.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  5. #65
    Nihilist Nessus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,192
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I did forget. I added the last line in an edit right after I posted, when I was rereading the quote and my response to make certain everything made sense. Rereading that last line you'd written triggered the recollection that you and I have been down this road of discussion before.
    I'm glad you remember, because I have no recollection, and if neither of us remembers it didn't happen and the collective human experience gained nothing...
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  6. #66
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    First of all, I'm comparing today's GOP with its older versions, not necessarily the Democratic Party. The GOP has definitely swung farther to the social conservative side, including a religious criteria.
    I suppose so, comparatively. Reagan and Bush Sr. thought, or at least gave the image that they thought, their "supply-side economics" would end up creating tax revenue which would counter the temporary deficits, but by the Bush administration, the executive and GOP in Congress didn't even adopt that as a pretense. They threw fiscal conservatism out the window and their neglect of that side of the party has naturally strengthened other wings. And even if the co-option of the "Tea Party" ultimately brings back fiscal conservativism, at least for right now it is wedded to the social-conservative wing of the party, because the abandonment/collapse of the old New-England centered fiscal-focused wing leaves them as the only visible focus.

    Secondly, the Democrats have consistently had a socially progressive platform, that's nothing new. That party hasn't changed much, they'd still be the party to stand for what the government should be doing to support minority groups, LGBT, civil rights, labor, middle class, the poor, and elderly.
    "socially progressive" is a relative term, one I did not use. I was talking about the Social Progressive ideology/movement which is the dominant expression of Left-wing politics in Europe. That's not the same thing, but it's what people in the US are referring to when they think/talk about "European socialism." The self-labeled Socialists are not and generally have not been a dominant political power in most major countries in Europe for some time.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  7. #67
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Catholics ARE mainstream Christians, though. Protestant hysteria about secret control from Vatican City aside, of course.
    You're forgetting how long it took for Republicans to embrace Catholics as "true Christians". Of course, decades later the Fundies realized a convenient connection with the Pope declaring Pro-Life/anti-abortion for their constituents. Plus, the appeal to Fundamental WASPs who didn't like sex-ed taught in public schools, or handing out free condoms, preferring Abstinence Only.

    Seems like a really odd complaint coming from you, given that you ARE a Democrat and DO want to turn the US into a much more socialist state, like "Socialist Europe." Mad that the Republicans figured it out, or what?
    Is that like a Lewk tactic, calling me a Democrat as if it's a slur akin to being a lib'rul? tsk tsk

    Most everyone knows the US has hybrid forms of government, between each state and as a Republic. And that Freee Unfettered Capitalism can't work without some oversight, Rules and Regulations, and a social safety net---not in individual states, and not as a nation.

    Republicans are great at sounding the SSSocialism alarm horn, until it comes to Medicare and SS.

  8. #68
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    I suppose so, comparatively. Reagan and Bush Sr. thought, or at least gave the image that they thought, their "supply-side economics" would end up creating tax revenue which would counter the temporary deficits, but by the Bush administration, the executive and GOP in Congress didn't even adopt that as a pretense. They threw fiscal conservatism out the window and their neglect of that side of the party has naturally strengthened other wings. And even if the co-option of the "Tea Party" ultimately brings back fiscal conservativism, at least for right now it is wedded to the social-conservative wing of the party, because the abandonment/collapse of the old New-England centered fiscal-focused wing leaves them as the only visible focus.

    "socially progressive" is a relative term, one I did not use. I was talking about the Social Progressive ideology/movement which is the dominant expression of Left-wing politics in Europe. That's not the same thing, but it's what people in the US are referring to when they think/talk about "European socialism." The self-labeled Socialists are not and generally have not been a dominant political power in most major countries in Europe for some time.
    Thank you! Your post explains why I don't think our two-party-dominant system works well in today's climate. Unfortunately for both parties, fiscal issues tend to draw to the extremes---conservative or liberal---instead of pragmatism and moderation. That's where the idea that "compromise" comes in for Republicans seeing that as a compromise of principles, instead of cooperative governing. And the idea of being "conservative" translates to Democrats as leaning right, instead of being conservative with spending.

  9. #69
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    An FYI regarding Tea Party and....money co-opted by GOP powers:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44877705/ns/politics-more_politics/#.TpX7pc22BUM


    e
    dit:

    For more information and "context":




    Take a gander at the groups listed in the backdrop. Then listen to what he says.





    You can view more Pastor Jeffress clips. ugh

    Now, why isn't the Southern Baptist Church losing it's non-profit status, if they're busy "proselytyizing for Jesus" in politics?
    Last edited by GGT; 10-12-2011 at 10:32 PM.

  10. #70
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    Yes, one nominated by the Democratic Party. Every Catholic nominee *all three of them* were Democrats.
    So?

    That's nice and all (or entirely indifferent, if you're in the "who the fuck cares" camp I'm in), but it doesn't really say anything about Catholicism as a mainstream Christian denomination or not, which was all I was saying.

    Catholics are mainstream Christians.
    GeeGee claims she cares about religious diversity WRT the party she votes for.
    The DNC has only ever nominated or entertained [to my knowledge] candidates that are mainstream Christians.
    The GOP frontrunner this year is a Mormon, not a mainstream Christian.

    Therefore, GeeGee ought to vote Republican this time around, if she actually believes any of the shit she's saying about the j00s G00Ps.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    You're forgetting how long it took for Republicans to embrace Catholics as "true Christians". Of course, decades later the Fundies realized a convenient connection with the Pope declaring Pro-Life/anti-abortion for their constituents. Plus, the appeal to Fundamental WASPs who didn't like sex-ed taught in public schools, or handing out free condoms, preferring Abstinence Only.
    Oh, so we're talking about ancient history too, now?

    In that case, why do you support slavery and hate niggers?

    Anyone who isn't a racist, slave-owning piece of shit should obviously vote for the party that ended slavery, instead of the party that fought so hard to keep slavery. Vote GOP, or be a nigger-hating racist.

    History is fun.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Is that like a Lewk tactic, calling me a Democrat as if it's a slur akin to being a lib'rul? tsk tsk
    Look, if you're ashamed to be called a Democrat (which I called you, on account of you being one), maybe the solution isn't to shoot the messenger who applies a factual accurate label to your political views, maybe the solution is to adopt political views of which you are not ashamed. [This also applies to the "socialist" as well, FWIW... if you don't like being called a socialist, you could always stop being a socialist, see if that works. ]

    For example, in an effort to reduce this shame you seem to feel about your political views, instead of voting for the nigger-hating, slavery-endorsing Democratic party, you could vote for the party that's actually done anything beneficial for the African American community by ending racially-based slavery. And, as a double bonus, if the Republican you vote for is Mitt Romney, you'd be supporting religious diversity (like you say you want from a political party) in addition to opposing racism and slavery. See, now there's some political views you wouldn't have to be ashamed of.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  11. #71
    SEÑOR Member Aimless's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    12,260
    GGT, is support of "religious diversity" the only reason or the most important reason why you dislike the GOP today? Honest answer.

    Btw you know how some men can call a woman something like "sugarlips" and it's sweet while others do it and it's just creepy and disgusting?
    “Humanity's greatest advances are not in its discoveries, but in how those discoveries are applied to reduce inequity.”
    — Bill Gates

  12. #72
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    So?

    That's nice and all (or entirely indifferent, if you're in the "who the fuck cares" camp I'm in), but it doesn't really say anything about Catholicism as a mainstream Christian denomination or not, which was all I was saying.

    Catholics are mainstream Christians.
    GeeGee claims she cares about religious diversity WRT the party she votes for.
    The DNC has only ever nominated or entertained [to my knowledge] candidates that are mainstream Christians.
    The GOP frontrunner this year is a Mormon, not a mainstream Christian.
    Therefore, GeeGee ought to vote Republican this time around, if she actually believes any of the shit she's saying about the j00s G00Ps.
    Oh, so we're talking about ancient history too, now?
    In that case, why do you support slavery and hate niggers?
    Anyone who isn't a racist, slave-owning piece of shit should obviously vote for the party that ended slavery, instead of the party that fought so hard to keep slavery. Vote GOP, or be a nigger-hating racist.
    History is fun.
    Look, if you're ashamed to be called a Democrat (which I called you, on account of you being one), maybe the solution isn't to shoot the messenger who applies a factual accurate label to your political views, maybe the solution is to adopt political views of which you are not ashamed. [This also applies to the "socialist" as well, FWIW... if you don't like being called a socialist, you could always stop being a socialist, see if that works. ]
    I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians (when they show up on the ballot). I'm a registered Independent and never vote straight party ticket. Call me whatever you like.

    For example, in an effort to reduce this shame you seem to feel about your political views, instead of voting for the nigger-hating, slavery-endorsing Democratic party, you could vote for the party that's actually done anything beneficial for the African American community by ending racially-based slavery. And, as a double bonus, if the Republican you vote for is Mitt Romney, you'd be supporting religious diversity (like you say you want from a political party) in addition to opposing racism and slavery. See, now there's some political views you wouldn't have to be ashamed of.
    And Fuzzy claims I'm the one not interested in true discussion? Stop trolling around.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aimless View Post
    GGT, is support of "religious diversity" the only reason or the most important reason why you dislike the GOP today? Honest answer.

    Btw you know how some men can call a woman something like "sugarlips" and it's sweet while others do it and it's just creepy and disgusting?
    Honest answer---I find the GOP's religious strictures confining, hypocritical, and offensive. In fact, voting for a Republican "these days" often means asking which is more important...civil rights and social justice, or taxes and budgets on the tails of religion. Very few politicians do a good job of balancing these principles, if they're more concerned about their party than the people. But I'm also living in a unique PA locality with a Republican congressmen with a trans-gender child, in the rust belt, dairy belt, and Bible belt (just above the Mason-Dixon line). He "gets" the whole thing, and is what I'd call a moderate, but it doesn't necessarily translate to DC on a national level.

  13. #73
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Maybe that wasn't very clear. I don't think religion means a damn thing when electing our government leaders. I like Cameron's reply when asked by US journalists about his religious affiliation..."We don't do that here".

    We (the US) shouldn't do that here, either. It doesn't make sense to me, that our first arrivals were fleeing religious barriers, only to find the 21st century has one main political party creating religious barriers. That's just...well, crazy.

  14. #74
    Senior Member coinich's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    432
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    The GOP has those who introduce legislation like banning Sharia Law
    Forgive me for cherrypicking, but you make this sound like a bad thing.

  15. #75
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by coinich View Post
    Forgive me for cherrypicking, but you make this sound like a bad thing.
    It's a stupid thing. Sharia Law is religious-based Muslim law, so it's automatically unconstitutional.

  16. #76
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I've voted for Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians (when they show up on the ballot). I'm a registered Independent and never vote straight party ticket. Call me whatever you like.
    Don't say things you don't mean. You complain when I call you crazy.

    But an interesting way of avoiding any substantive discussion or any criticisms of your plainly fictitious reasons for voting Democratic, begging to be called crazy instead. Is that the online equivalent of saying "I'd rather eat a bullet than honestly examine my political affiliation?"

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    And Fuzzy claims I'm the one not interested in true discussion?
    Well, you're not... so knowing Fuzzy, he probably said it on account of it being true. He's weird like that.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Stop trolling around.
    Trolling != calling you out on your assorted delusions.

    For future reference, when you start a thread dedicated to a delusion or delusions of your, that delusion or delusions becomes the topic of conversation. For example, the ridiculous list of justifications you have for not supporting a political party that isn't nearly socialist enough for your tastes. Hey! That's the topic of this thread, innit?

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    It's a stupid thing. Sharia Law is religious-based Muslim law, so it's automatically unconstitutional.
    Right, and restrictions on gun ownership are an "infringement" of gun ownership, and explicitly contrary to the 2nd amendment, making them automatically unconstitutional. Good thing too, or you know the dumbass politicians and media would be trying to ban those things all over the place.
    Last edited by CitizenCain; 10-13-2011 at 04:22 AM.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  17. #77
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Don't say things you don't mean. You complain when I call you crazy.
    No, I know I'm a degree of "crazy". I only complain when you call me an ignorant crazy.

    But an interesting way of avoiding any substantive discussion or any criticisms of your plainly fictitious reasons for voting Democratic, begging to be called crazy instead. Is that the online equivalent of saying "I'd rather eat a bullet than honestly examine my political affiliation?"
    What are you going on about? Political "affiliation" doesn't mean a damn thing to me.



    Well, you're not... so knowing Fuzzy, he probably said it on account of it being true. He's weird like that.
    I am, indeed, interested in true discussion. Not being baited or trolled, led into a defensive position, and then being called names.



    Trolling != calling you out on your assorted delusions.

    For future reference, when you start a thread dedicated to a delusion or delusions of your, that delusion or delusions becomes the topic of conversation. For example, the ridiculous list of justifications you have for not supporting a political party that isn't nearly socialist enough for your tastes. Hey! That's the topic of this thread, innit?

    Honest answer---I find the GOP's religious strictures confining, hypocritical, and offensive. In fact, voting for a Republican "these days" often means asking which is more important...civil rights and social justice, or taxes and budgets on the tails of religion. Very few politicians do a good job of balancing these principles, if they're more concerned about their party than the people. But I'm also living in a unique PA locality with a Republican congressmen with a trans-gender child, in the rust belt, dairy belt, and Bible belt (just above the Mason-Dixon line). He "gets" the whole thing, and is what I'd call a moderate, but it doesn't necessarily translate to DC on a national level.
    Uh, fix your tags.



    Right, and restrictions on gun ownership are an "infringement" of gun ownership, and explicitly contrary to the 2nd amendment, making them automatically unconstitutional. Good thing too, or you know the dumbass politicians and media would be trying to ban those things all over the place.
    ALL constitutional rights have limitations. That's basic 101 stuff. Didn't they teach you that in Canada?

  18. #78
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    No, I know I'm a degree of "crazy". I only complain when you call me an ignorant crazy.
    Then don't go crazy on things you're demonstrably ignorant of?

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    What are you going on about? Political "affiliation" doesn't mean a damn thing to me.
    If this is your new way of telling us you're unfamiliar with the term, I approve, and much prefer it to just misusing the term repeatedly. If it's your way of claiming you don't actually have a political affiliation, then I'm a horny 18 year old Russian girl who'll love you long time if you wire me enough money to buy a plane ticket to your place.

    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    I am, indeed, interested in true discussion. Not being baited or trolled, led into a defensive position, and then being called names.
    Even if you do believe that you're interested in an actual discussion, that doesn't necessarily mean that you actually are.

    And regardless of what you think about your intentions, I'm confident in my assessment of the situation, and even more so now, that you seem to consider being labelled with your party of political affiliation to be "name calling." Meh. Good luck with having that "true discussion," though.


    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    ALL constitutional rights have limitations. That's basic 101 stuff. Didn't they teach you that in Canada?
    Whoosh.

    Or maybe I should say "wh00sh?" Anyway, look up real quick, and you might catch a glimpse of the point before it sails over the horizon.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  19. #79
    Local talking head LittleFuzzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    5,457
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Thank you! Your post explains why I don't think our two-party-dominant system works well in today's climate.
    It's got absolutely nothing to do with that. The same thing happens all the time with multi-party systems. It's a lot easier to TRACK with them, because you directly see the factions shifting through the external mechanism of elections, rather than through more opaque internal movements within a party.

    Unfortunately for both parties, fiscal issues tend to draw to the extremes---conservative or liberal---instead of pragmatism and moderation.
    Not particularly, not in my experience. Loki might be familiar with sources doing an actual statistical analysis, breaking down degrees of compromise by legislative area, that could answer it one way or the other.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  20. #80
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    Then don't go crazy on things you're demonstrably ignorant of?

    If this is your new way of telling us you're unfamiliar with the term, I approve, and much prefer it to just misusing the term repeatedly. If it's your way of claiming you don't actually have a political affiliation, then I'm a horny 18 year old Russian girl who'll love you long time if you wire me enough money to buy a plane ticket to your place.

    Even if you do believe that you're interested in an actual discussion, that doesn't necessarily mean that you actually are.

    And regardless of what you think about your intentions, I'm confident in my assessment of the situation, and even more so now, that you seem to consider being labelled with your party of political affiliation to be "name calling." Meh. Good luck with having that "true discussion," though.

    Whoosh.

    Or maybe I should say "wh00sh?" Anyway, look up real quick, and you might catch a glimpse of the point before it sails over the horizon.
    If I'm in need of learning how on-line discussions work (which I most likely am).... I hope to hell you're not trying to present yourself as the best teacher. No offense, because you're funny and clever most times. But you're also like that tv commercial where callers are trying to redeem their credit card points and they reach Peggy, in Siberia, who has no answers. You're not Peggy, but the advertising firm who created Peggy. ha ha?

  21. #81
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    It's got absolutely nothing to do with that. The same thing happens all the time with multi-party systems. It's a lot easier to TRACK with them, because you directly see the factions shifting through the external mechanism of elections, rather than through more opaque internal movements within a party.
    Fine, then we're stuck with the opaque internal movements within our two parties, and not much gets done? What a plan, huh.

    Not particularly, not in my experience. Loki might be familiar with sources doing an actual statistical analysis, breaking down degrees of compromise by legislative area, that could answer it one way or the other.
    Oh yeah, that's just what we need...a statistical analysis. Loki can knock himself out, and come back to explain things, one way or another.

    In the meantime, "most people" know Washington and our politics are broken and dysfunctional. If you don't believe me, look at the Occupy movement.

  22. #82
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    If I'm in need of learning how on-line discussions work (which I most likely am).... I hope to hell you're not trying to present yourself as the best teacher.
    And on a related note, I'm also not presenting myself as the best Latvian Orthodox priest.
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  23. #83
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    That's not a "related note" at all.

  24. #84
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Yes, yes, it is. And that's all the hints you're getting from me. <sigh>
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  25. #85
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    Oh yeah, that's just what we need...a statistical analysis. Loki can knock himself out, and come back to explain things, one way or another.

    In the meantime, "most people" know Washington and our politics are broken and dysfunctional. If you don't believe me, look at the Occupy movement.
    Yeah, who needs facts when we can rely on what "most people know".
    Hope is the denial of reality

  26. #86
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    "99%" is a fact, you out-of-touch, ivory-tower "thinker," you.



    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  27. #87
    Senior Member GGT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    18,082
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Yeah, who needs facts when we can rely on what "most people know".
    Do your statistical analysis, then. Give us the academic results. Tell us what we don't know, and be sure to tell us why we're "wrong". Prove to us that US politics is working well and functioning for The People. That would be some kind of poli-sci paper. It could land you an award or even a job!

  28. #88
    Nihilist Nessus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,192
    Quote Originally Posted by LittleFuzzy View Post
    It's got absolutely nothing to do with that. The same thing happens all the time with multi-party systems. It's a lot easier to TRACK with them, because you directly see the factions shifting through the external mechanism of elections, rather than through more opaque internal movements within a party.
    How does the voter control those opaque internal movements?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  29. #89
    All Worship Ragnarök Loki's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    16,181
    Missed the part where the existence of a movement with perhaps a few thousand ignorant supporters counts as conclusive proof for something. I wouldn't write that if I was trying to mock GGT.
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #90
    Nihilist Nessus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    7,192
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    Missed the part where the existence of a movement with perhaps a few thousand ignorant supporters counts as conclusive proof for something. I wouldn't write that if I was trying to mock GGT.
    But would you do it for a Klondike bar?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •