Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 17, 2014, 04:30:07 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Don't forget to get your 2013 Gubernatorial Endorsements and Predictions in!

  Show Posts
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 510
1  General Politics / U.S. General Discussion / Re: Bloomberg plans a $50 million challenge to the NRA on: April 16, 2014, 10:50:06 pm
No one should have anywhere near $50 million anyway. To Bloomberg's defense, he isn't really doing anything different from the other politically-motivated  economic elites.

Which is trying to convince us that social issues are the only ones that exist, for obvious plutocratic reasons?
2  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: How can I get cash? on: April 16, 2014, 06:38:00 pm
1. Sell some of your worthless sh*t.
2. Stop going to all those worthless shows.
3. Invest in a gun and rob some banks.
4. Use all of your technology skills to learn how to hack into banks and steal massive amounts of money.
5. Wait, don't you have a job?
3  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / U.S. Presidential Election Results / Re: The first election in which the D was left-wing and the R was right-wing on: April 16, 2014, 06:26:56 pm
The Second Great Awakening and the explosion of moralism that followed (something Democrats still mock Republicans for today)

That's kind of generalizing. There's actually a lot of moden democrats who are christian. Even  more liberals than you would think.

Yes, like THE REVEREND Jesse Jackson or THE REVEREND Al Sharpton.
4  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What is your alignment? on: April 15, 2014, 11:39:44 pm
Also, what is it with you guys and being "lawful"?  I mean wow, do some of you actually PAY for music or not smoke pot occasionally?  How lameo.

I don't think that's necessarily what lawful means in this context. It has more to do with a preference for order and routine.

OH well there you go.  An even more stronger lameface.
5  Forum Community / Forum Community Election Match-ups / Re: Snowstalker vs The Tunguska Event of 1908 on: April 15, 2014, 11:20:59 pm
Tunguska Event, hands down.

But, I think it was actually a pretty awesome event (like most big explosions really), so don't take that as a particular sleight against Stalker's sagery.  Though really, he could use some new material.
6  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: What is your alignment? on: April 15, 2014, 11:02:44 pm
Heh,



You are 27.8% Good.
You are 15.4% Chaotic.
 
Alignment: True Neutral

      You do whatever seems like a good idea at the time. You don't feel any strong inclination towards good vs. evil or law vs. chaos. Some may say that you lack conviction, while others might admire you for your capability of remaining unbiased. You likely prefer good versus evil in society, since good people tend to make better neighbors and rulers, but you are not personally committed to upholding good in any abstract or universal way.
      You are the stereotypical “Balancer.” You act in a way that is natural to you without prejudice or compulsion.
      Examples of charactersand people who fit into the same alignment as you include Linus Torvalds, Dr. Strangelove, Scott Evil, Mr. Spock, and the nation of Switzerland.

Good f***in lord, I'm a Moderate Hero?
* Ready For Hoover '28! blows brains out.

Also, what is it with you guys and being "lawful"?  I mean wow, do some of you actually PAY for music or not smoke pot occasionally?  How lameo.
7  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: is there a path to the nomination for martin o'malley? on: April 15, 2014, 03:23:03 pm
Who?
8  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of Jerry Falwell on: April 14, 2014, 09:18:46 pm
Arguably far worse than Fred Phelps was.
9  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: john lindsay vs. obama on: April 14, 2014, 09:14:43 pm
Your mother.
10  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: Opinion of Aggregate Demand on: April 14, 2014, 08:51:42 pm
11  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage on: April 14, 2014, 07:19:44 am
That's a very cute thing for you to say.  And I mean that with all due respect.  Sure, to you it might not be a "real problem", but to people like TDAS I imagine it's a heck of a "problem".  But I guess that's the thing though, and what is wrong with a lot of people in this country really.  As long as it's not affecting you, who gives a sh*t, am I right?

I'm trying to remain calm here, but I really can't believe I just can't believe that last sentence I read.  I mean really, I actually it's more insulting to the millions of gay Americans and their allies who have been fighting this cause for decades to have their movement demoted down to a "silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people" more so than people who claim it's a sin.  In the latter case, at least those opponents recognize it's a legitimate issue that has a profound effect on American society.

If you want to say you are against gay marriage because you don't like it, just come right out and say it.  Don't hide behind this legalistic tax code bullsh*t.  I'm not buying it, TDAS is not buying it, and neither is nobody else in this thread.

From your point of view, the problem is that Romeo and Julian are star-crossed lovers who've been damned and disrespected by a bigoted society that will never accept their forbidden love. Oh, the humanity!! When will society learn that a gay rose by any other name still has constitutional rights?! [drop curtain]

It's adorable.

From my point of view, the government doesn't have any real control over love or monogamous human sexuality between consenting adults. The real issue is that these same-sex couples are being denied socio-economic rights that have been conferred upon married couples. Furthermore, CBO income data (by family demographic) indicates that dual-income married people are the only demographic getting ahead in this country. Everyone else is being hammered down, particularly single-women, which explains Democratic Party initiatives like universal birth control.

From your point of view, America has erratic hairloss and skin irritation caused by harassment from bigots. You want access to Rogaine and anti-histamines. I realize we need to start treating lupus. How dare I deny Rogaine from these unfortunate people? If I don't want to help bald people, I should just admit it!!

How much longer before I get murdered by a revolutionary zealot who doesn't think I'm pure enough for the cause? Can't be far away. That's how all of these movies end.

Nice cop out.

If you notice, I'm not saying this to posters like TJinWisco and DC who are at least honest enough to admit that they have a moral problem with gay marriage.  You, however, seem content and adamant to hide behind the usual tax code bullsh*t card that many conservatives use now days to find a moderate hero way out of a debate that they don't like.  You think you are doing some revolutionary new argument, but really you're not as we've seen this kind of argument more than a few times on here (and the people who use it are promptly laughed out the building).

That you are now devolving into strawman hyperbole is just further proof of the legitimacy of your faux libertarian persona.
12  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage on: April 13, 2014, 10:42:30 pm
There is no rational argument against it.

There is no rational argument for SSM. Marriage is just regulations imposed on people who might seek monogamous sexual reproduction. Couples do not need to be married to express love or to be happy or to be sexually gratified.

Lack of marriage privileges for same-sex couples is a calamity because marriage also grants special socio-economic privileges. If you look at the income data, the only family demographic that earns more than median household income is dual income married couples. The current system screws all unmarried people to protect the sanctity of "traditional" single-income married households.

I'm empathetic to the plight of gay couples, but SSM does not fix the problem nor does it represent civil rights victory. It is a silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people who are eager to avoid dealing with our real problems.

That's a very cute thing for you to say.  And I mean that with all due respect.  Sure, to you it might not be a "real problem", but to people like TDAS I imagine it's a heck of a "problem".  But I guess that's the thing though, and what is wrong with a lot of people in this country really.  As long as it's not affecting you, who gives a sh*t, am I right?

I'm trying to remain calm here, but I really can't believe I just can't believe that last sentence I read.  I mean really, I actually it's more insulting to the millions of gay Americans and their allies who have been fighting this cause for decades to have their movement demoted down to a "silly politically-indulgent skirmish for small-minded people" more so than people who claim it's a sin.  In the latter case, at least those opponents recognize it's a legitimate issue that has a profound effect on American society.

If you want to say you are against gay marriage because you don't like it, just come right out and say it.  Don't hide behind this legalistic tax code bullsh*t.  I'm not buying it, TDAS is not buying it, and neither is nobody else in this thread.
13  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Thoughts on Gay Marriage on: April 13, 2014, 10:26:57 pm
>2014
>pretending there are any real arguments against legal same-sex marriage



hahahaha, great one!
14  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: opinion of martin o'malley on: April 13, 2014, 09:00:48 am
In the words of Tony Blair:

Weak!  Weak!  Weak!
15  General Discussion / History / Re: On the socialist origins of the Republican Party on: April 13, 2014, 08:01:05 am
From what I've found - and again there is practically no literature on the subject outside of the aforementioned neo-Confederate revisionist nonsense that makes hay out of the matter - socialist identification directly correlated with Republicanism anywhere there was a large German immigrant community, and, though I have no hard numbers, the impression I get is that most German-American Republicans in the first generation of immigrants during the Civil War period had socialist leanings.

Now, this holds good for Ohio and the upper Midwest. I've been curious about self-identified socialist immigrants to New York City, many of whom may have been Fenians and as such much more sympathetic to the Democratic Party. But the Fenians were not strict socialists, and what socialists were among them likely would not have been 'scientific'.

First off, welcome!

Second, yeah Fenian revolutionaries, Land Leaguers, and other Irish Nationalists were strongly Democratic.  This had a long political tradition that went to long before the Civil War Era to the First Party System when many Irish immigrants strongly identified with the Democratic Republican cause due to natural opposition to the Federalist cause.  The Alien and Sedition Acts along with the Naturalization Acts passed in the late 1790s contained not only strong restrictions against French aliens, but Irish ones as well.  Harrison Gray Otis, a well known MA Federalist, cited his not wanting "wild Irishmen roaming the country" as a chief reason why the Congress at the time should pass the Acts.  The Irish (both protestant and catholic) responded in kind by strongly backing Jefferson and his ideological successors.  I should also note that many of the survivors of the Irish Rebellion of 1798 were also adamant Jeffersonians once in America, often advancing the case for voter suffrage and other liberal causes of the time.

So yes, even before Andrew Jackson (emphasis) there was a strong Democratic tendency among the Irish in America.  The Alien and Sedition Acts were arguably the "Original Sin", if you will.  Opposing popular suffrage and supporting moral regulation like Temperance also didn't help National Republicans and Whigs with the group.  By the time the GOP came around, it would've been easier to convince many an Irishman that he could walk on water than to disavow his Democratic allegiances.  There was one Irish Republican who had links with Nationalism, John Conness, who started out as a "War Democrat" from California who was later kicked out of his own party due to his extremism on Civil Rights and rights for immigrants, including the Chinese who were very unpopular in California.

By and large though, a vast majority of them were on the opposite fringe of the Democratic Party from white landowners in the South.  For obvious reasons.  The two groups didn't have much in common except a distrust of Republicans and non-whites, for similar yet different reasons.  What a white Democrat from the South saw as a threat to his monopoly an Irish one would see a threat to his survival, if that makes sense.  This explains a lot of the unfortunate racism in the early labor unions, as many of the Irish laborers saw minorities like blacks and the Chinese essentially being "scabs" for the Robber Barons who they and other European ethnic groups involved in labor were at war with.  If you want to go even further, many of the working class Irish (but not the lace curtain classes that were prominent businessmen who controlled machines like Tammany in the late 19th century) viewed themselves in a sort of centuries long cultural war with all things English and were convinced that the economic troubles they faced in the New World was the result of an ingrained Brahmin elite that was deadset to make sure they stayed second class for another hundred years (I can't say I disagree too much with that sentiment).  Though Industrialists were split up between both parties at the time (depending on whether or not they benefitted from tariffs mostly, though there were some Industrialists who voted Democratic out of laissez faire principle), Democrats got large majorities of the Fenian vote by tactics such as "twisting the lion's tail" by occasionally attacking the imperialism of various Republicans and comparing them to Great Britain, a surefire vote winner among the growing immigrant populations in northern cities.  THough, there were candidates like Henry George, who ran for Mayor of New York City in 1886 as an Independent Democrat, who gained large working class support due to a wide alliance with the Land League, several Irish unions, and even some of the Priesthood in the city running off of a land tax platform.

Irish American leftism was a lot more based out of an attack on the idea of "landed" interests than off of the specific philosophy of Karl Marx and others that the German American left subscribed to.  The history of the landed largely Anglican elites in Ireland is fundamental to understanding the leftism of the the poor in the late 19th century.  Many of the elites charged confiscatory rates for many of the tenant farmers and the like who worked and lived on the land.  It was therefore easier for many Irish in America to make a direct link between land ownership and capitalist abuse than to the detailed critique of capital found in the works of Marx that goes further in analysis on the entirety of the social hegemony in place.  A lot of left wing sympathy among the group was rooted mostly in a long history of being second class and impoverished and subjected to foreign rule.  Naturally, they and other ethnic groups (especially the Polish) felt targeted by the "Americanism" of the Republican Party, which is how you get such a division among certain groups that leaned left.  Meanwhile, many German Americans had settled further inland and were suspect to a great deal of "Plains Republicanism" that also had a deal of populist intrigue and was more removed from the class divisions that existed further east.  Though, as issues like Prohibition popped up as a Republican issue from the 1870's-1890's, German Catholics had a brief period of flirtation with the Democratic Party.  And then Bryan and other Dry Democrats became more prominent which allowed the GOP to get back a window of opportunity among the group.  German Catholics briefly (again) returned to the Democratic fold off of the anti-imperialism of Bryan and the supposed "neutrality" promised by Wilson only to become strongly anti-Democratic after the Wilson campaign used the opportunity of World War I to begin an anti-German campaign throughout the nation that helped nativist and Prohibitionist forces lead a crusade against all things German American.

In 1920 the Democratic Party managed to piss off both the German and Irish votes in the North, leading to a certifiable landslide by any definition of the term.  With the Irish Free State being established and the immediate Civil War that followed many Americans who had a strong investment in the movement felt a measure of disillusionment.  This, along with the rapid economic ladder climbing of the 1940's and 1950's and feelings of Americanism instilled in the community from the experience of World War II, would weaken what was once a solid Irish labor wing that aligned strongly with the Democratic Party.  Further developments, like the Red Scare, integration, busing, and abortion, would only further divide a demographic that were once considered unparalleled in their devotion to the Democratic cause.

The tl;dr version of this: They were Democrats.
16  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Red New England? on: April 13, 2014, 06:15:10 am
As some above statements say, idealizing New England as some haven of the fiscally conservative that will vote GOP once we dump social conservatives is foolish indeed. I'm sure there's some myth purported and kept living by neo-secularist fiscal conservatives in the region that "once we drop those damned proles in the South, we'll win every election!" Yeah, that's a load of bees' wax as far as I'm concerned. Sure, you can count on most of them for votes, probably, in an election season where a socially "reasonable" candidate is nominated, but don't delude yourselves into believing that there's some grand coalition of people that only vote on fiscal issues (and as well only vote for the right on fiscal issues) out there that would side with you and only you. You're pumping yourselves full of happy-good-time myths to help reinforce your worldview. For God's sake, just, Jesus Christ people. I mean, just for one f#cking second consider that you sort of need a coalition of people to win an election, not just some sort of dumb "dump X group for Y group and everything will turn out hunky-dory" strategy. I mean, seriously, f#ck that.

Cathcon!  You are just mad and angry that social conservatism and evangelical far right racist southern biblethumpers aren't popular with the vote getting public like socially liberal Civil Rights Hero moderate Republicanism!  If the GOP comes out tomorrow supporting universal gay rights and abortion freedom for everyone, and maybe even throw in a nice side dish of banning handguns, they will surely be an invincible unstoppable political force that will usher in a return to proper Rooseveltarian principles!  After all, once the GOP officially adopts social liberalism and kicks the far reichers to the curb, nobody and I mean nobody would ever consider voting Democratic in Massachusetts again!  DOn't you know boyo?  The Bay State was formed by god fearing liberal Episcopalians and Congregationalist Republicans a long ass f***in' time ago on a platform to support equality between heterosexuals and homosexuals, legalizing all soft drugs, fair treatment of all races and cultures, equal rights for transgendered women, support of organic vegan diets, fighting manmade climate change, and closing the gun show loophole!  Democrats, who were virtually non-existent pre-Civil Rights era in the region, suddenly exploded in popularity when Richard Nixon decided to GO RACIST and open the floodgates for the masses of disillusioned racist dixiecrats, who were the voting base of the Democratic Party from time immemorial until they decided to become open minded and accept race equality.  Because as we all know, it's only because of the tolerance vs. intolerance debate that the naturally Republican masses of Massachusetts have thrown in their lot with Democrats.  The bleedingheart historical social liberalism is just natural, as the liberal Anglo-Protestant WASPs of New England never experienced mass immigration from cultures and ethnic groups they considered fundamentally inferior on nearly every level whose strong belief in social justice and labor union activism was seen as a grave threat to the economic security and privilege of the openminded elites.

The GOP is clearly lost without their socially liberal saviors.
17  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Simple Truths Silver Mine on: April 13, 2014, 05:40:02 am
A little big for a simple truth, but I think it's more fitting in this category than simply being "a good post":

As some above statements say, idealizing New England as some haven of the fiscally conservative that will vote GOP once we dump social conservatives is foolish indeed. I'm sure there's some myth purported and kept living by neo-secularist fiscal conservatives in the region that "once we drop those damned proles in the South, we'll win every election!" Yeah, that's a load of bees' wax as far as I'm concerned. Sure, you can count on most of them for votes, probably, in an election season where a socially "reasonable" candidate is nominated, but don't delude yourselves into believing that there's some grand coalition of people that only vote on fiscal issues (and as well only vote for the right on fiscal issues) out there that would side with you and only you. You're pumping yourselves full of happy-good-time myths to help reinforce your worldview. For God's sake, just, Jesus Christ people. I mean, just for one f#cking second consider that you sort of need a coalition of people to win an election, not just some sort of dumb "dump X group for Y group and everything will turn out hunky-dory" strategy. I mean, seriously, f#ck that.
18  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / The 8th Oklahoma State Legislature on: April 12, 2014, 10:22:04 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8th_Oklahoma_Legislature

Most conflicted state legislature ever?
19  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: George Washington vs. Franklin D. Roosevelt on: April 12, 2014, 08:20:06 pm
The one who didn't threaten to put down with military force an anti-tax protest.



Internment is kind of a bad thing too, guys.  But yeah, at least on the surface FDR didn't act as an instrument of the entitled elites to the extent that Washington did, who considered Alex Hamilton "like a son" to him.
20  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: Opinion of this Quote on: April 12, 2014, 08:17:20 pm
FQ is obvious FQ.
21  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Presidential Election Trends / Re: Could the GOP's general problem be that the ave. American is getting poorer? on: April 12, 2014, 12:29:21 pm
Nope. The areas of these states that are moving left are actually the richer areas. NoVA, suburban Denver, suburban Charlotte, South Florida, Cincinnati, etc. These voters are being turned off by the Tea Party and Republican populism.

For the last time, richer areas =/= richer voters.  And liberal =/= left, especially when talking about elite liberals.

Yes, and a lot of the areas that have seen pretty solid trends towards Democrats are also those areas with high immigrant populations, who in general are poorer than the average white middle class American.
22  General Politics / Individual Politics / Re: How would you have voted on the preceding legislation? on: April 12, 2014, 10:10:08 am
Aye

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Service_Act
23  General Politics / Political Debate / Re: Should SCOTUS justices be elected? on: April 12, 2014, 10:03:01 am
Option 2.

I'm all for democracy rights but let's not get too excessive here.  Judges should rule based on constitutionality of law and due process or whatever, not populist sentiments.  Say what you want about the society of the Founders, but they clearly had the right idea with checks and balances.  There is indeed concern about Justices overstaying their tenure or becoming all too powerful, but I think what is recommended in Option 2 is the most appropriate.  If forced to choose, I would probably say a 20 year limit assuming said Justice doesn't retire sooner.

Absolutely not.  The court is politicized enough.  Fixed terms, however, yes.

Would've saved me a few lines, hahaha.
24  Forum Community / Forum Community / Re: The Good Post Gallery II on: April 12, 2014, 09:44:29 am
A large part of Sharia law is fine and good.  It has to do with being an observant Muslim, being a good neighbor, conducting business and contracts, etc etc.  There are some awful aspects of the Sharia law but then the same could be said of the laws of Moses or Justinian.  The violent and truly oppressive aspects have to give way to basic human rights, but if people want to organize themselves according to their religion and cultural traditions in a peaceable way, they should be able to.   

During medieval times Muslims, even while considering themselves to be following Sharia, allowed Christians and Jews - although second class citizens - to practice their faith and customs.  Many Christians and Jews in the middle east today can only wish that interpretation of Sharia had been followed in the past few decades. So a great deal of what Sharia involves depends on interpretation.
25  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Congressional Elections / Re: Mississippi 2014 discussion thread on: April 12, 2014, 09:43:16 am
Childers is really not much better than Taylor is. He ran on a record in 2010 as a pro-NRA, pro-life independent who boasted that he voted against Pelosi 267 times. We don't need moderate hero "Democrats" like him in Washington giving the national party a bad name when instead, we can aim to get more progressive candidates (Nunn and Grimes) in the Senate who will be willing to vote with the party. We can't get liberal Democrats elected statewide in Mississippi of course, but I see no problem at all with Thad Cochran and it would do both parties a benefit keeping him in the Senate. The Republican Party wouldn't be stuck with a Neo-Confederate, Tea Party Senator who thinks Abe's a Marxist and Democrats can put more focus into other races this way.

McDaniel would win this Senate seat if he beats Cochran in the primary, so it's a matter of whether or not we want a Senator who's not all that bad (for MS's sake), has a mixed abortion record and provides federal funds to the state or an absolute lunatic who with his gaffes would cause a ton of unneeded Democratic optimism here. I know who I'm supporting.
Stop

I usually have a good laugh at what FitzGerald as to say, but this post is actually pretty spot on.  Chris McDaniel is the most insane candidate I've heard of running for a major party's Senate seat.  Thad Cochran is not my usual cup of tea, but compared to McDaniel he might as well be the Cure for Cancer.  And really, what kind of progressive hero are we going to get out of the state Democratic Party anyway?  I mean, if we could get an outright black liberal like Bennie Thompson to run that would be amazing, but I don't think the MS state party has the balls to do that anytime soon.  IMO, the possible Democratic candidate will probably be about a babystep to Cochran's left, so what's the big complaint here?

And yes I know, I'm supposed to be some labor stalwart who opposes the art of moderate heroism, but that was before Chris McDaniel.  At this rate I would support Jim Bridenstine or even James Inhofe over this psychopath in the GOP Primary.  This man needs to be stopped. . . . . damn it!

Well, seriously, MS isn't extremely fiscally conservative. Childers, despite siding with the republicans on guns, abortion, etc,  has mostly sided with the Democrats on economic issues. He wouldn't vote to repeal Healthcare for example. He would vote against cuts in education, in medicaid, in medicare or in foodstamp.

http://primarycolors.net/senate/ Look at this. I expect him to have a 80 score from primarycolors if he's elected. Cochran has only a 12.5 score. It will be of course a MASSIVE improvement. Cochran is, of course, decent for Mississippi and he represents his state well (all the money he has got for his state). But seriously, he's not "moderate" at all. He voted for health care repeal, he voted against the unemplyment benefits. He's a decent republican, but he's still a republican.

And for democrats who strongly care about abortion, gun, environmental issues, who probably can"t support Childers, don't forget he will always be less terrible than the republican nominee. And if elected, he would vote for Harry Reid for Senate Majority Leader, and that is important because he controls the legislation, and can avoid votes on some measures (I think).
No seriously, compared with Mcdaniel, Cruz looks like a socialist. If he's nominated, I'm sure this seat would be at worst lean rep.

Well, now that I'm aware of Childers economic chops I'm more enthusiastic about supporting him (not at all a social issues purist here), but I'm still concerned about a candidate McDaniel's chances here.  I mean, since I was too lazy to do the research I feel much better about pulling for the gun totting prolife pro-labor pro-healthcare Democrat and would definitely support Childers over Cochran.  I guess when the video of McDaniel coming out saying that Hitler was right will prove my cynicism wrong.
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 510


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines