This forum is in permanent archive mode. Our new active community can be found here.

Horrible Tragedy of Your Day

1356789

Comments

  • It has to be a put-on. Clint Eastwood is too intelligent for this.
    Cling tenaciously to those naieve hopes!
    He's a liberal! He wants everyone to marry! He's okay with abortion!

    Clint, noooooo~
  • Wasn't Clint in a "America, we're doing awesome!" commercial during the last Superbowl? I thought the republicans absolutely hated that.
  • Clint is... complicated. Really, that's all that can be said. He seems to smack a bit of a traditional New England Republican (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), but he still seems to feel some sort of team loyalty to the GOP for whatever reason.

    Actually, that's part of the problem with politics in this country these days. People vote for their "team" (Republican or Democrat) as if it's a sporting competition instead of actually looking at the platforms and the issues. It's getting somewhat better, though, with the increasing number of independents in this country -- but that's only if those independents are actually politically active and aren't just people who don't care.
  • It'd be fantastic if Eastwood did a similar speech at the DNC.
  • Clint is... complicated. Really, that's all that can be said. He seems to smack a bit of a traditional New England Republican (socially liberal, fiscally conservative), but he still seems to feel some sort of team loyalty to the GOP for whatever reason.

    Actually, that's part of the problem with politics in this country these days. People vote for their "team" (Republican or Democrat) as if it's a sporting competition instead of actually looking at the platforms and the issues. It's getting somewhat better, though, with the increasing number of independents in this country -- but that's only if those independents are actually politically active and aren't just people who don't care.
    There's some tribalism going on I think, but there's also just the fact that our first past the post, two party system is outdated as shit and the country is becoming extremely polarized as a result. They are organizing on "team" lines because on the level of the issues, the other party REALLY IS reprehensible to them.

    I mean if I'm being perfectly honest and shedding all pretense at diplomacy, you have to be intensely ignorant or terminally insane to support the modern Republican party. There's nothing good there. They're so deluded and indoctrinated that their platform is ACTUALLY evil.
  • edited August 2012
    I think the problem is that money = speciation nowadays. If you gross more than $50mil/yr, you're not human anymore. Not like the rest of us, anyway, given how radically different and isolated the lives of the ultrarich are.

    If you have that kind of money, you'll be able to theoretically Ship-of-Theseus your way to a couple centuries of life within the next few decades. At least, until your senility or hedonism annihilates your brain.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • Well, yes that's part of the issue but the wealthy wouldn't have so much control if ~50% of the population weren't so fucking *biddable*.

    It's probably more like 75-80% with 25-30% happening to have been influenced to the left rather than the right.

    Any Republican would call that last sentence elitist, pretending that the two sides are equal and equally logical and any thinking person could choose either. Ha.
  • The two party system was always considered bad. George Washington himself warned against "factions" and that's pretty much what we got. Of course, by the time of the first real Presidential election, the one that chose Washington's successor, we already had a 2 party system between the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. So much for heeding the words of a Founding Father, although those parties themselves were lead by Founding Fathers. *shrugs*

    Unfortunately, the way politics is now, one needs the organizational and financial prowess of a party machine in order to stand a chance at anything other than the most local of levels.
  • edited August 2012
    We fucked up when we decided not to redraft the Constitution every 25 years like Jefferson wanted. We could have been the City on the Hill.

    Shit, that's the Horrible Tragedy of My 236 Years.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • edited August 2012
    We fucked up when we decided not to redraft the Constitution every 25 years like Jefferson wanted. We could have been the City on the Hill.

    Shit, that's the Horrible Tragedy of My 236 Years.
    Noooo it's AN HOLY DOCUMENT! the judeo-christian god-loving/fearing founding patriarchy maded it perfectitiously!
    Post edited by no fun girl on
  • It's arguably at least as good, if not better, than many other documents that came before or since. Is it perfect? No, but it wouldn't have had the staying power it did if it wasn't at least pretty good.

    Oddly enough, a Google search for "Thomas Jefferson redraft Constitution" turns up a lot of links to the white supremacist Stormfront site.
  • Obama is down by 15 points with Independent voters.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/29/democracy-corps-poll-shows-romney-up-15-among-independents/
    Obama has a lot to answer for, but if your better alternative is Romney then I honestly think you're mentally ill, or indoctrinated by dishonest media. There's no rational argument for Romney whatsoever.
  • Most Independents vote down party lines pretty consistently. I expect the jump in "independent" support for Romney is a result of disillusioned Republicans trying to distance themselves from the GOP. Shame it didn't take.
  • edited August 2012
    Polls only matter about 2 weeks after the conventions, after the debates and the week before elections, otherwise I wouldn't worry too much that same poll had Obama up by 2 on Mittens.

    Then again the only real poll is the one on election day.
    Post edited by Cremlian on
  • edited August 2012
    Obama is down by 15 points with Independent voters.

    http://hotair.com/archives/2012/08/29/democracy-corps-poll-shows-romney-up-15-among-independents/
    Obama has a lot to answer for, but if your better alternative is Romney then I honestly think you're mentally ill, or indoctrinated by dishonest media. There's no rational argument for Romney whatsoever.
    I'm not ruling out mental illness, because I don't consume news media.

    edit: I have my reasons for voting for Romney but I can't articulate an argument.
    Post edited by Jack Draigo on
  • Polls only matter about 2 weeks after the conventions, after the debates and the week before elections, otherwise I wouldn't worry to much that same poll had Obama up by 2 on Mittens.
    This poll came out before the convention.
  • edit: I have my reasons for voting for Romney but I can't articulate an argument.
    Why don't you try to at least enumerate your reasons then?

  • edit: I have my reasons for voting for Romney but I can't articulate an argument.
    Why don't you try to at least enumerate your reasons then?

    I shall think it over and tell you after work okay?
  • Polls only matter about 2 weeks after the conventions, after the debates and the week before elections, otherwise I wouldn't worry to much that same poll had Obama up by 2 on Mittens.
    This poll came out before the convention.
    Note, that wasn't a period I included in polls that matter :-p

  • edited August 2012
    I think my opposition to Obama in specific and the liberal Democrats in general stems from my belief in personal responsibility and that government should help, but not be the sole provider.

    Looking at it in the prism of my own life, I've been scared to death that I'd lose my job, not because I'm afraid I won't survive, but that I'll fall into pattern of belief that someone else will provide for me. That's just here I'm coming from.

    And that's not to say I'm totally okay with the republicans, because right now everyone in DC is playing chicken with MY taxes. I started paying taxes when the Bush cuts were in effect, so them expiring is a HIKE for myself and others in my generation. So yeah, for me it is about who has the best chance to beat Obama.

    And that's not all but I'm still at work and on my phone.
    Post edited by Jack Draigo on
  • edited August 2012
    Sole provider of what, exactly? Obama hasn't proposed unlimited welfare, or unemployment, or Social Security, or anything else save healthcare.
    Post edited by WindUpBird on
  • Sole provider of what, exactly? Obama hasn't proposed unlimited welfare, or unemployment, or Social Security, or anything else save healthcare.
    May be the slippery slope in effect here.

    (I may have been disingenuous when I said I don't consume any news media but it'd still be a better statistical probability that I'd just as vehemently support Obama)

    I also don't buy the class warfare idea that the Democrats seem to be doubling down on, and that one can only be successful if others fail. America is a land of equal opportunity, not equal outcome. We don't lower a kid's grade in school from an A to a B and raise another kid's grade from a D to a C just so the second kid can feel better about themselves (at least I hope to The Force that isn't the case anywhere). And yes, there are a lot of factors that go into making a business successful, but at the end of the day, it wouldn't have happened at all if someone didn't put in the hard work and intelligence to make it.
  • A kid who gets a good grade (to try to pick apart your analogy) was able to do so because of his parents, his teacher, and his own hard work. In the same way, a successful business was successful because it had access to an educated workforce, an efficient transportation system, and the owner's own hard work.

    In the case of the kid with the good grade, everyone who helped should share in the pride the kid feels, because they assisted it. In the same way, the successful business should share some of it's success (money) with those who helped it (society). Nobody's successful in a vacuum; everyone had at least some help.
  • A kid who gets a good grade (to try to pick apart your analogy) was able to do so because of his parents, his teacher, and his own hard work. In the same way, a successful business was successful because it had access to an educated workforce, an efficient transportation system, and the owner's own hard work.

    In the case of the kid with the good grade, everyone who helped should share in the pride the kid feels, because they assisted it. In the same way, the successful business should share some of it's success (money) with those who helped it (society). Nobody's successful in a vacuum; everyone had at least some help.
    I'm not arguing that point, and you can see all the contributions corporations make to good causes (and some not so good) and help the country. I take umbrage at the insinuation that because they were successful (on the backs of their workers is often implied) that they somehow have to give more than what might be considered the fair share for other people. As an aspirant to being a small-business owner, I don't like the implication that I can only be successful by stealing from others, or taking their credit.
  • Except, as a small business owner, what you're effectively calling "success taxes" won't effect you. That's a smoke screen by people with an agenda. The vast majority of those effect companies at the multimillion and multibillion dollar levels. It's the same bullshit they pulled with the estate tax; they were talking like it effected all of us, when it didn't even kick in until a few million dollars were being passed down.

    You're also attacking a straw man; nobody said that you can only be successful by stealing from or taking credit from others. What I, personally, am saying is that there are many fundamental services provided by the government that unarguably affect your success. You buy in to the social contract by using those services. They contribute to your ability to run a business.
  • edited September 2012
    America is a land of equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
    You may claim that everyone has "equal opportunity" in America, but that's simply and emphatically not true. Some people get to grow up with good school districts, in nice neighborhoods, and have parents who can afford to send them to great private colleges and then support them through unemployment and unpaid internships until they get good jobs. Some people are also white, male, straight, and they never have to deal with sexism, racism, or homophobia.

    So, yeah.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • America is a land of equal opportunity, not equal outcome.
    You may claim that everyone has "equal opportunity" in America, but that's simply and emphatically not true. Some people get to grow up with good school districts, in nice neighborhoods, and have parents who can afford to send them to great private colleges and then support them through unemployment and unpaid internships until they get good jobs. Some people are also white, male, straight, and they never have to deal with sexism, racism, or homophobia.

    So, yeah.
    So only white males have any opportunity in America? What about Condoleeza Rice, who grew up in the heart of segregation and became the Secretary of State? What about our own president, Barack Obama? What about Tony Hisieh, CEO of Zappos? (probably not as powerful an example as he was middle class, but he is a minority!) It is disingenuous to say everyone in a bad situation can't pull themselves out of it. The problem is THAT exact attitude right there prevailing in those sections of society! America has amazing social mobility, and anyone who becomes rich can easily fall back down to the bottom rung of the tax bracket.
  • edited September 2012
    White men may not have all the opportunity, but they have more than anybody else. Why the hell do you think most of America's top executives are rich white men? It may be possible for underprivileged people to be successful, but it's a lot harder if you have to contend with racism, or sexism, or especially if you're poor and can't afford to go to a good college and definitely can't afford an unpaid internship to pad your resume. See, for a decent example, this piece from Random House Canada's blog on how it's simply impossible to land a journalism job unless you already have money.

    Basically, you're so fucking wrong (and you sound so privileged) right now it hurts.
    Post edited by Linkigi(Link-ee-jee) on
  • I'm sorry if I come off as that, considering I myself am in the lowest tax bracket and have had financial troubles in the near past so bad I almost declared bankruptcy, still living in my parent's home because I can't go to college and have to work a job I hate, so excuse me, princess if I sounded like I was born with a silver spoon in my mouth for sticking to my principles!
Sign In or Register to comment.