-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
November 30, 2022, 01:53:10 AM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Bellagio 10452
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 434399 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #75 on: June 24, 2015, 10:02:51 AM »

You're going to find racists in both major parties. That's just the way it is.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #76 on: June 24, 2015, 10:19:49 AM »

... as opposed to ... Ronald Reagan.

Good thing you're clearly not a card-carrying Republican type, because they'd kick you out for such heresy. At least since the campaign before the '08 nomination, Reagan has been identified as being, more or less, Jesus.

This is the wishful misconception perpetrated by the agenda driven class -- that the Republican Party is all about Reagan.  Sigh.  I don't know how many times I've had to correct this... but no, Reagan was not and is not loved by the Republican Party.  Candidates (on both the right and left) constantly evoke his name because he was the best damn President we've had in modern times and people loved him -- (and yes, that too drives the power-hungry politicans crazy).  Al Gore famously came out for one of the debates with his hair combed and wearing make-up (rosy cheeks) to look just like Reagan.  It was creepy.  But then again, Al Gore is creepy.  Republicans constantly bring his name up in front of voters -- because he was popular.

But don't be fooled.  The fact is, Reagan (and all unafraid, unapologetic principled conservatives) are NOT supported by Republicans or ANY Party.  The parties are about power and money.  On bother sides.  Reagan was about the people -- and constantly spoke of how government IS the eternal problem, not the answer.  That's not what the parties are about.  And while they're fine to trade on his name and stock -- they sh-t on his supporters, stab'em in the back and grow government from their comfy committee seats.



While I don't share your enthusiasm for Reagan (not do I hate or demonize him, but rather see him as a typically mixed bag), I also don't think you really "corrected" me. Or even contradicted me, other than expand the scope of the deification back in time and across party lines. I agree that members of both parties drop the sacred name in hopes of getting some benefits rubbing off. But surely you don't disagree that the GOP candidates the past two presidential cycled have invoked him at a hilariously increased rate.

At the end of the Reagan years I remember him as being seen more as a mentally failing, but beloved, grandfather than as a god. Iran-Contra didn't help. But that said, GHW Bush won, which speaks to public opinion, too. But in the next decade or so I barely recall anyone mentioning, much less praising, Reagan. As time goes, it's easier to promote the idol, as the human aspects fade from memory. Everyone becomes all good or all bad, a cartoon.

Anyway, that was my only point: regardless of the man himself, he has increasingly been invoked, especially republicans, and sometimes by people who don't even seem to know what they're talking about.

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #77 on: June 24, 2015, 10:20:16 AM »

You're going to find racists in both major parties. That's just the way it is.

That's true.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #78 on: June 24, 2015, 12:52:43 PM »

At the end of the Reagan years I remember him as being seen more as a mentally failing, but beloved, grandfather than as a god. Iran-Contra didn't help. But that said, GHW Bush won, which speaks to public opinion, too. But in the next decade or so I barely recall anyone mentioning, much less praising, Reagan. As time goes, it's easier to promote the idol, as the human aspects fade from memory. Everyone becomes all good or all bad, a cartoon.

Anyway, that was my only point: regardless of the man himself, he has increasingly been invoked, especially republicans, and sometimes by people who don't even seem to know what they're talking about.

Yes, some of the human aspects fade away -- but what's left is just the facts.  Or the deep desire to know what the facts are.

This is the HUGE problem for the radicals -- throughout history.  They have to constantly rewrite history in an attempt to paint themselves in a better light.  And they're good at it -- don't get me wrong.  The Demorat Party is the party of slavery, Jim Crow and the "Confederate Flag" flying today -- yet, how have they rewritten the dialogue?  Amazing isn't it?

Anyway... Reagan addressed this as the rabid media and leftist trolls tore at his Presidency (paraphrasing) "history will judge me."  The bilge, the hatred -- it takes awhile -- but it begins to fade and it's seen for what it is.  Take Lincoln... he surely wasn't loved, by any means, in his time like George Washington was in his time.  But that's not how we remember Lincoln.  Reagan's failing health only adds to the human side of his legacy.  No one judges Lincoln for the bullet that took him down.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 12:53:42 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #79 on: June 24, 2015, 01:19:29 PM »

You're going to find racists in both major parties. That's just the way it is.

But, throughout history (and to this very day) racism has been institutionalized in one party.  Institutionalized.  A means by which they operate, wield and achieve power and wealth.  The Demorat Party is the party and home of America's racism -- then and today.

Obama just said the other day "it's in our DNA."  Clinton said the same thing more or less.  I know they think they meant something else, but seriously -- who says racism is in our DNA?  Honestly, who thinks like that -- and then articulates it?  I'll tell you why they do it... to make YOU feel like YOU'RE a racist.  You can't help it.  You're a racist -- just 'cuz.  And there's nothing you can do about it.  Ya'understand me boy?

F that.

They speak for themselves.  Not me.  The Demorat Party is the Grand Ol' Party Of Race.  From slavery to Jim Crow. From segregation to standing against Civil Rights.  All the way up to Ferguson, Baltimore and Al Sharpton.  And they're not changing.
Logged

409.
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #80 on: June 24, 2015, 01:24:14 PM »

Hence why I have zero love for both major parties.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #81 on: June 24, 2015, 03:14:03 PM »

Yes, some of the human aspects fade away -- but what's left is just the facts. 

I'd say what's left is the propaganda--and I don't mean that just in respect to Reagan, but to every public figure. Everyone becomes one-dimensional to the general public (if the general public remembers anything). Those who study in more depth can find more nuance, but nobody wants to hear it. It's all about heroes and villains.

As for the whole Democrats-are-evil thing, here's yet another time you just lose my attention because I think you're really being simplistic or maybe just intentionally inflammatory. I enjoy trading posts with you often, but then there's those sorts of posts where one gets the impression you believe that all Democrats--and certainly all liberals--are either malicious or stupid. You can't honestly believe that, can you? That alternative political ideas--which, let's be honest, aren't even especially easy to test, considering all the factors that go into every government (and especially every modern one)--are evil? Even though probably 40% of the American population considers itself to be Democrat, liberal, or both? They're all evil and/or stupid?

With respect to the racism thing, yes, no doubt, Democrats were the party of slavery. And as civil rights legislation began to be passed, the "Dixiecrats" increasingly turned Republican, as that party (Nixon, to start) used the "Southern Strategy" to court those racist Dixiecrats. I'm not saying racism was once Democrat and became Republican, I'm saying both sides undoubtedly have real racists, both sides undoubtedly have opportunists ready to try to exploit any advantage (including racist fears or feelings), and both sides undoubtedly have good people.

You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

Maybe my perspective is skewed about these things. My family is generally conservative, including a very conservative brother to whom I'm closer than I am to anyone else in my family. (We're talking really conservative, and what you'd have to call a fundamentalist in terms of religion, as well: a conservative Lutheran minister. We're talking 6-day creation, no evolution, literal interpretation of the Bible, etc. The whole deal.) Yet one of my best friends is a liberal activist who makes the Democrats look like Tea Partiers. I've got other friends who see all conservatives in exactly the way I just framed the way some of your posts hint you see liberals.

And me, I don't buy it. I don't like the institutions of the parties, but neither do I bow to a political ideology. And I certainly don't think it's worthwhile making demons or idiots out of regular people. Or even the elected officials who seem intent on proving they're one or the other (or both), for that matter.

In closing and on an altogether different note, your mention of Lincoln now means you name-dropped both Republican presidents The Real Beach Boy noted the party should have gone away from (toward Coolidge and Goldwater).
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #82 on: June 24, 2015, 04:28:26 PM »

 Hold the phone, Bobby Jindal is in. Game changer.  Wink
Logged
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #83 on: June 24, 2015, 09:08:53 PM »


You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

I know.  I know.  But here's the thing -- I'm not convinced people can be reached all that easily.  Not easily.  Yet most of the politicians purportedly on my "side" (that's debatable) have been duped into pansy talk -- thinking that that's how we're reached.   Roll Eyes  In short -- they're shooting blanks.  The other side (the ones that want gun 'trol) -- are firing live ammo.

We're kind of a Grand Theft Auto society.  Yet people are numbed.  So I toss out some of the stronger opinions I've got.  Why not.  They're not "obscene" -- they're just firm.  Impenetrable.  Undoubted.  There's nothing truly offensive or dangerous or threatening - just words and opinions that can be walked away from.

I'm not trying to get people to part with their money or give up their rights or their property.  I'm not promising to "run Healthcare" better than the people who do Healthcare, nor take 70% of your salary.  I'm not driving businesses away to other nations with taxes -- thus killing small towns -- for some supposed "good."

That's pretty evil stuff.  And I don't want that.

People need to have the switch turned on.  I think it's doable.  But like any other habit to be kicked, it's needs to happen through a form of personal disgust.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2015, 09:12:10 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #84 on: June 24, 2015, 09:41:33 PM »

Ok, let's get back to work here... candidate number 1

Jeb Bush



Like him or not, he's a Bush.  He knows that.  He doesn't have "the base" but he's got the upper crust of the Republican Party.  What I like is he's got a lot of good values -- and he won't let the country go to hell like Obama.  What I don't like is he's not a firm conservative.  He's well bred -- which like the Kennedy's is fancy tuna -- but not something I put much stock in.  But as The Captain rightly reminded me of -- Jessie Ventura sucked.  Sucked waaaay more.  Well bred tuna ain't a bad thing.

« Last Edit: July 22, 2015, 09:08:42 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #85 on: June 25, 2015, 04:39:06 AM »


You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

I know.  I know.  But here's the thing -- I'm not convinced people can be reached all that easily.  Not easily.  Yet most of the politicians purportedly on my "side" (that's debatable) have been duped into pansy talk -- thinking that that's how we're reached.   Roll Eyes  In short -- they're shooting blanks.  The other side (the ones that want gun 'trol) -- are firing live ammo.

We're kind of a Grand Theft Auto society.  Yet people are numbed.  So I toss out some of the stronger opinions I've got.  Why not.  They're not "obscene" -- they're just firm.  Impenetrable.  Undoubted.  There's nothing truly offensive or dangerous or threatening - just words and opinions that can be walked away from.

I'm not trying to get people to part with their money or give up their rights or their property.  I'm not promising to "run Healthcare" better than the people who do Healthcare, nor take 70% of your salary.  I'm not driving businesses away to other nations with taxes -- thus killing small towns -- for some supposed "good."

That's pretty evil stuff.  And I don't want that.

People need to have the switch turned on.  I think it's doable.  But like any other habit to be kicked, it's needs to happen through a form of personal disgust.

I disagree almost entirely. Maybe it's just personality types, but I look at your style as the least likely approach to "have the switch turned on." Anyone who already agrees with you will yell "yeah!" the base is fired up, torches are lit, pansy liberals are smoked from their holes. Or some such fiction. But anyone who doesn't already agree with you just thinks either "he's evil, he's the devil, we need to turn on our side to fight these bastards," or--the result that occurs with me--"ugh, a simplistic loudmouth. You can't argue with stupid..." and moves along having not heard what was said.

You're not stupid, which is probably why I've reengaged in these sorts of threads with you. But that's my first assumption with everyone who tries to fire anyone up. Anyone who tries to talk tough. That kind of heat almost always lacks light.

You said a few days or weeks ago that most people agree on a lot of things. I believe that to be true. But the tough talk, the mean talk, it seems you're doing your best to make sure those people don't recognize their vast agreements, and instead stick to their disagreements more firmly than ever. 

Cool head, warm heart. Speak softly, carry a big stick. Whatever. I'm a fan of calm reason, and averse to machismo, gang fights, and heroes and villains mythology.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Awesoman
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1744


Disagreements? Work 'em out.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #86 on: June 25, 2015, 04:44:18 AM »

Yes, some of the human aspects fade away -- but what's left is just the facts. 

I'd say what's left is the propaganda--and I don't mean that just in respect to Reagan, but to every public figure. Everyone becomes one-dimensional to the general public (if the general public remembers anything). Those who study in more depth can find more nuance, but nobody wants to hear it. It's all about heroes and villains.

As for the whole Democrats-are-evil thing, here's yet another time you just lose my attention because I think you're really being simplistic or maybe just intentionally inflammatory. I enjoy trading posts with you often, but then there's those sorts of posts where one gets the impression you believe that all Democrats--and certainly all liberals--are either malicious or stupid. You can't honestly believe that, can you? That alternative political ideas--which, let's be honest, aren't even especially easy to test, considering all the factors that go into every government (and especially every modern one)--are evil? Even though probably 40% of the American population considers itself to be Democrat, liberal, or both? They're all evil and/or stupid?

With respect to the racism thing, yes, no doubt, Democrats were the party of slavery. And as civil rights legislation began to be passed, the "Dixiecrats" increasingly turned Republican, as that party (Nixon, to start) used the "Southern Strategy" to court those racist Dixiecrats. I'm not saying racism was once Democrat and became Republican, I'm saying both sides undoubtedly have real racists, both sides undoubtedly have opportunists ready to try to exploit any advantage (including racist fears or feelings), and both sides undoubtedly have good people.

You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

Maybe my perspective is skewed about these things. My family is generally conservative, including a very conservative brother to whom I'm closer than I am to anyone else in my family. (We're talking really conservative, and what you'd have to call a fundamentalist in terms of religion, as well: a conservative Lutheran minister. We're talking 6-day creation, no evolution, literal interpretation of the Bible, etc. The whole deal.) Yet one of my best friends is a liberal activist who makes the Democrats look like Tea Partiers. I've got other friends who see all conservatives in exactly the way I just framed the way some of your posts hint you see liberals.

And me, I don't buy it. I don't like the institutions of the parties, but neither do I bow to a political ideology. And I certainly don't think it's worthwhile making demons or idiots out of regular people. Or even the elected officials who seem intent on proving they're one or the other (or both), for that matter.

In closing and on an altogether different note, your mention of Lincoln now means you name-dropped both Republican presidents The Real Beach Boy noted the party should have gone away from (toward Coolidge and Goldwater).

Just thought I'd share the following:
https://youtu.be/9kry_VfFSh4

This guy gets it.
Logged

And if you don't know where you're going
Any road will take you there
Moon Dawg
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1036



View Profile
« Reply #87 on: June 25, 2015, 04:44:57 AM »

  Jeb is the best of the Republican candidates. The fact that he isn't a "firm conservative" shows he is flexible and not a prisoner to dogmatic ideology.

  I dislike Jeb when, in my view, he panders. His recent comments on the Pope for example.

  Jeb is the only GOP candidate fit to be president. But God help you when your big brother screwed up as badly as George W.
« Last Edit: June 28, 2015, 08:58:23 AM by Moon Dawg » Logged
Douchepool
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 883


Time to make the chimifuckingchangas.


View Profile
« Reply #88 on: June 25, 2015, 06:13:13 AM »

Jeb is a joke. Sadly, it probably will come down to Clinton vs. Bush yet again. Rand Paul's the only one who makes even a smidge of sense. Sucks that more people aren't speaking out against the communist in the Vatican, but I guess this is no surprise.
Logged

The Artist Formerly Known as Deadpool. You may refer to me as such, or as Mr. Pool.

This is also Mr. Pool's Naughty List. Don't end up on here. It will be updated.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #89 on: June 25, 2015, 07:26:48 PM »


You can believe Democrat or liberal policies are wrong, that they hurt more than they help. But you really believe there's a racist conspiracy in the Democratic party (that conservatives somehow through virtue avoid)?

You didn't say those things. I should be careful in how I position the impressions I get from some of your posts. But I'm just making clear that's how you come across sometimes, at least to me.

I know.  I know.  But here's the thing -- I'm not convinced people can be reached all that easily.  Not easily.  Yet most of the politicians purportedly on my "side" (that's debatable) have been duped into pansy talk -- thinking that that's how we're reached.   Roll Eyes  In short -- they're shooting blanks.  The other side (the ones that want gun 'trol) -- are firing live ammo.

We're kind of a Grand Theft Auto society.  Yet people are numbed.  So I toss out some of the stronger opinions I've got.  Why not.  They're not "obscene" -- they're just firm.  Impenetrable.  Undoubted.  There's nothing truly offensive or dangerous or threatening - just words and opinions that can be walked away from.

I'm not trying to get people to part with their money or give up their rights or their property.  I'm not promising to "run Healthcare" better than the people who do Healthcare, nor take 70% of your salary.  I'm not driving businesses away to other nations with taxes -- thus killing small towns -- for some supposed "good."

That's pretty evil stuff.  And I don't want that.

People need to have the switch turned on.  I think it's doable.  But like any other habit to be kicked, it's needs to happen through a form of personal disgust.

I disagree almost entirely. Maybe it's just personality types, but I look at your style as the least likely approach to "have the switch turned on." Anyone who already agrees with you will yell "yeah!" the base is fired up, torches are lit, pansy liberals are smoked from their holes. Or some such fiction. But anyone who doesn't already agree with you just thinks either "he's evil, he's the devil, we need to turn on our side to fight these bastards," or--the result that occurs with me--"ugh, a simplistic loudmouth. You can't argue with stupid..." and moves along having not heard what was said.

You're not stupid, which is probably why I've reengaged in these sorts of threads with you. But that's my first assumption with everyone who tries to fire anyone up. Anyone who tries to talk tough. That kind of heat almost always lacks light.

You said a few days or weeks ago that most people agree on a lot of things. I believe that to be true. But the tough talk, the mean talk, it seems you're doing your best to make sure those people don't recognize their vast agreements, and instead stick to their disagreements more firmly than ever.  

Cool head, warm heart. Speak softly, carry a big stick. Whatever. I'm a fan of calm reason, and averse to machismo, gang fights, and heroes and villains mythology.
Yes, absolutely.  What you describe is more like how I operate in my daily life and much more my personality, too. Machismo and ego I saw as a requiring fuel I didn't have and so I traded them long ago for the pursuits of patience, forgiveness, art, music, introspection and insightfulness.  That's what energizes me.

But I don't believe they work in all battle conditions. Politics is an unfortunate reality, where people (whatever their motives) are actually causing a lot of harm. We've seen a lot of failed European Socialist ideas forced on free people. And the ones that are accepting it with open arms are being lied to -- and lying to others -- about its success. And many Republicans don't want to rock the boat -- or simply get in the boat, thinking they'll be liked for doing so.  That's a trick.  And that's what I mean by pansy talk. Milquetoast Republicans. Democrat Lite.

But I'm not opposed to the cool head, warm heart approach in politics. It's how I've always lived my life and managed my affairs. We'll see how it works on the political stage -- Ben Carson is good at that. It's who he is. I like him a lot.
« Last Edit: June 25, 2015, 07:28:55 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #90 on: June 26, 2015, 04:08:44 AM »

Jeb is a joke. Sadly, it probably will come down to Clinton vs. Bush yet again. Rand Paul's the only one who makes even a smidge of sense. Sucks that more people aren't speaking out against the communist in the Vatican, but I guess this is no surprise.

Job was never "my guy."  But when he said (heavily paraphrasing) that he knew how to tell the base what they wanted to hear -- wish I had the exact quote -- it was very condescending towards conservatives, etc. I really have to question his abilities, motives and intelligence.

It's fine if the kooky fringe on the Left and their media thinks that the conservative base is fringe and needs to be handled this way -- that's a good sign that we're being heard and that they're rightly afraid of us -- but a bad sign if one of our candidates thinks this way. Wolf in the hen house. I'm done with these types of candidates.
Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #91 on: June 26, 2015, 04:31:40 AM »

Just thought I'd share the following:
https://youtu.be/9kry_VfFSh4

This guy gets it.

Yes. He explains it all.
Logged

409.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #92 on: June 26, 2015, 06:44:18 AM »

Just thought I'd share the following:
https://youtu.be/9kry_VfFSh4

This guy gets it.

Yes. He explains it all.

Sorry, but this isn't very convincing. The guy is welcome to hold his opinions, but that's all they are. There's nothing remotely approaching the all-encompassing claim of the title. There are some valid points throughout, but also plenty of notable omissions of fact, opinions tossed in among "facts," and lots of straw men then easily torn down--a classic debate trick.

Acting as if there were no changes in the parties since the time of the Civil War and reconstruction is just not true. Further, he's talking as if racial oppression were just partisan, as opposed to regional. Both Democrats and Republicans in the north supported desegregation and civil rights. Both Democrats and Republicans in the south supported segregation and opposed civil rights. He ignores the Dixiecrat reality. He ignores that some Democrats left the party because of the civil rights issues. Some of those became Republicans.

This guy seems to mix his political philosophy--one to which he's entitled--with some obvious moral reality, the rejection of which (i.e. an opposing political philosophy) leaves that "opponent" stupid or evil: fooled by the white Democrat, or the evil white Democrat himself. It's just not real. I stand behind my earlier statement: there is racism in both parties, there is always a seemingly inevitable attempt to exploit anyone for purposes of power in both parties (and any other institution of power) ... and there are good, honest people in both parties. Grand conspiracy theories seem to me pretty often absurd. Neither party is currently a party of slavery or inherent racism (any more than society at large is).

What is perfectly legitimate is to argue that social welfare programs promote dependency and contradict their intentions. Whether it's true or not can and should be debated. But the way to debate it isn't to pretend that the people behind those programs are malicious, any more than it is to say those people trying to reform or end those programs are malicious.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #93 on: June 26, 2015, 09:16:53 AM »

Look at the results though. Where Leftists run the show unchecked, it's misery -- blamed on "other people" that need to be gotten even with. That's the oversimplified BS that doesn't hold up.  Plus it's negative and unproductive.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 09:19:08 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #94 on: June 26, 2015, 09:17:16 AM »

.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2015, 09:18:22 AM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #95 on: June 26, 2015, 10:14:05 AM »

Look at the results though. Where Leftists run the show unchecked, it's misery -- blamed on "other people" that need to be gotten even with. That's the oversimplified BS that doesn't hold up.  Plus it's negative and unproductive.

Where anyone runs any show unchecked, it's misery. Communist experiments have been nearly fatal to societies. So have fascist experiments. Far left, far right. Any single ideology with unchecked power will inevitably result in corruption and crushing of contradictory viewpoints, even if their stated creeds profess otherwise.

In terms of results, I agree: we should look at results. In the U.S., there are plenty of GOP-run (theoretically conservative, though I'll grant up front the obvious, that the two are not synonymous) states whose results are consistently terrible in terms of results: bad economies, bad education outcomes, bad health outcomes, and so on. The converse is also true. The reality is that the world is complicated, people have strongly and honestly held widely varying views on the best ways to solve problems, and it's entirely possible that they're both right and both wrong (in different situations, circumstances, etc.).

One example, economically speaking (which contrary to some people's perception, is not the only thing we should pay attention to, politically), is the percent of change in GDP in 2014, by state. Disclaimer: this is just one economic measure. There are many, many others. I am not an economist and don't profess to know everything about such matters. But this is just one measure of a commonly used aspect of economic success. This information comes from the Dept of Commerce. Check out the highest and lowest performers.

Highest performers.
1. North Dakota, 6.3. Solidly conservative. (Likely to fall as natural gas is becoming cheaper to obtain than the oil in ND.)
2. Texas, 5.2. Solidly conservative.
3. Wyoming, 5.1. Solidly conservative.
    West Virginia, 5.1. Solidly conservative.
5. Colorado, 4.7. Mixed conservative and liberal.
6. Oregon, 3.6. Solidly liberal.
7.  Utah, 3.1. Solidly conservative.
8. Washington, 3.0. Solidly liberal.
9. California, 2.8. Mixed conservative and liberal (but liberal leaning).
    Oklahoma, 2.8. Solidly conservative.

Lowest performers.
1. Massachusetts, -2.3. Solidly liberal.
2. Alaska, -1.3. Pretty solidly conservative.
3. Mississippi, -1.2. Solidly conservative.
4. S. Dakota, -.6. Solidly conservative.
5. Iowa, -.4. Pretty solidly conservative
   Indiana, -.4. Pretty solidly conservative.
Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #96 on: June 26, 2015, 11:05:21 AM »

Where anyone runs any show unchecked, it's misery. Communist experiments have been nearly fatal to societies. So have fascist experiments. Far left, far right. Any single ideology with unchecked power will inevitably result in corruption and crushing of contradictory viewpoints, even if their stated creeds profess otherwise.

There's something fundamental here that needs to be defined. Far Left does often equate to Communism, or some variance of increasing government control. But far right doesn't equate to fascism. In fact maybe this is where the left/right paradigm breaks down -- and could be the source of a lot of misunderstanding.

Liberalism, for example, is fascism -- perhaps just as much or more than it is Socialism. Progressives are classic fascists.  Hitler was a fascist of course, but in terms of government was classic socialism. He wasn't about small government, liberty, inidivual rights. Not at all.

As I see it, if you're far right, you can only go so far as "no government."  There's nothing fascist about that.  It doesn't work, and was sort of tried here initially, until we came up with the right balance in the U.S. Constitution.

What made America the greatest nation to ever exist is the perfect realization that we need just a bit of government so no one can rule YOU.

0= no government
10= total government

The right answer is something like 1.5. But ever since the Progressive movement in the early 20th century we've been drunk on government. Usually in the form of a grab bag of thieved goods used to buy votes. The country is going to hell, and that's not a stodgy opinion, just a concerned observation of what happens when both parties fight over the size of the cinder block they've rested on the government gas pedal.
Logged

409.
the captain
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 7255


View Profile
« Reply #97 on: June 26, 2015, 11:54:48 AM »

Where anyone runs any show unchecked, it's misery. Communist experiments have been nearly fatal to societies. So have fascist experiments. Far left, far right. Any single ideology with unchecked power will inevitably result in corruption and crushing of contradictory viewpoints, even if their stated creeds profess otherwise.

There's something fundamental here that needs to be defined. Far Left does often equate to Communism, or some variance of increasing government control. But far right doesn't equate to fascism. In fact maybe this is where the left/right paradigm breaks down -- and could be the source of a lot of misunderstanding.

Liberalism, for example, is fascism -- perhaps just as much or more than it is Socialism. Progressives are classic fascists.  Hitler was a fascist of course, but in terms of government was classic socialism. He wasn't about small government, liberty, inidivual rights. Not at all.

As I see it, if you're far right, you can only go so far as "no government."  There's nothing fascist about that.  It doesn't work, and was sort of tried here initially, until we came up with the right balance in the U.S. Constitution.

What made America the greatest nation to ever exist is the perfect realization that we need just a bit of government so no one can rule YOU.

0= no government
10= total government

The right answer is something like 1.5. But ever since the Progressive movement in the early 20th century we've been drunk on government. Usually in the form of a grab bag of thieved goods used to buy votes. The country is going to hell, and that's not a stodgy opinion, just a concerned observation of what happens when both parties fight over the size of the cinder block they've rested on the government gas pedal.

That was lazy of me to use fascism so broadly. Here are a few points about fascism from Andrew Heywood's textbook "Political Ideologies: An Introduction." The defining theme of fascism is the idea of an organically unified national community, embodied in a belief in 'strength through unity.' The individual, in a literal sense, is nothing; individual identity must be entirely absorbed into the community or social group. The fascist ideal is that of the "new man," a hero, motivated by duty, honour, and self-sacrificed, prepared to dedicate his life to the glory of his nation or race, and to give unquestioning obedience to a supreme leader."

That idea is contrary to both modern liberalism and modern conservatism ... but with aspects that can be twisted to seem like both. A modern conservative might say that modern liberals believe individuals must be absorbed into the community or group. The incorrect but oft-mocked reading of "you didn't build that," for example. Actual meaning: no man is an island, cooperation is beneficial to us all. Perceived meaning: you can do nothing without the all-powerful state. The modern liberal will say that modern conservatives believe in American exceptionalism as some magical power that makes white American privileged men better than everyone else and gives us the right to bomb poor Muslim countries in the hopes of exploiting their oil resources. The conservative might say American exceptionalism is simply reminding ourselves of the value of a revolutionary (in both senses) government that led to unprecedented success of our nation. Conservatives are fascists! Liberals are fascists!

Heywood later says fascism "constitutes a revolt against ... rationalism, progress, freedom and equality"--values both liberals and conservatives presumably champion--"in the name of struggle, leadership, power, heroism, and war. Fascism thus has a strong 'anti-character': it is anti-rational, anti-liberal, anti-conservative, anti-capitalist, anti-bourgeois, anti-communist and so on." Again, I dispute that fascism is inherently more progressive / modern liberal than it is inherently conservative. It's actually more pseudo-religious.

But anyway, this is a long way of apologizing for lazy speech.

That said, I think left/right fails anyway. The original concept of left/right split as I understand it comes from post-French Revolution seating arrangements, with champions of equality and common ownership on the left and champions of meritocracy and private ownership on the right. But I don't think "no government" is then equivalent to "far right," at least as initially conceived. Nobody then was championing anarchy, neither left nor right. That said, I also understand the extension, as meritocracy and private ownership lend themselves to less government in theory. (In practice, more toward exploiting government to profit private business, often through growing government. But I recognize you aren't calling that actual right wing.)

Logged

Demon-Fighting Genius; Patronizing Twaddler; Argumentative, Sanctimonious Prick; Sensationalist Dullard; and Douche who (occasionally to rarely) puts songs here.

No interest in your assorted grudges and nonsense.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #98 on: June 26, 2015, 01:05:29 PM »

I've always seen fascism as a grotesque form of idol or ideal worship.  One of the more telltale signs of fascism is the fashion that follows it. You have posture yourself in it to win favor.  Sport the regalia.  But it's completely intolerant. That's the key. The people can never truly be allowed in. There's always an inner circle.  Quite often a single individual.

It usually metastasizes into a form of extreme purification.  Political "correctness."  Prohibition in the '20s.  Abortion as pushed by the government. The Nazi super-race crap.

The ideology behind a fascist is, in a way, almost irrelevant. If too many follow it, they'll just add more to it or shift to keep it exclusive. It often tends to revolve around a cult of personality -- and the political ideology is merely a device of control, and it's tenements largely irrelevant to intellectual study.
Logged

409.
Bean Bag
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1177


Right?


View Profile
« Reply #99 on: June 30, 2015, 01:57:05 PM »

Hillary Clinton



As of today, she's pretty much the only flavor available on the Democrat side of the aisle.  She brings with her a ballyhoo of glossy Vanity Fare magazine covers puff pieces, wall-to-wall free advertising (courtesy of the media), and an air of pre-ordained and historical fanfare -- beyond category or equal.  As it currently sits, she literally needs to do nothing, except not commit murder and she's got the nomination.  Or so we're led to believe, anyway.

She's been plastered everywhere, and reinvented more than any other public criminal/or personality that I can think of.  She announced and then re-announced her campaign cuz the first announcement didn't give her enough buzz or something.  No matter the case -- the reality is, she's just not likable.  She's not Bill.  She's not smooth.  She's not good at lying.  Even though the media wants you to believe she's the bee's knees -- I think, they're not all that happy with her.

So, I think she's as beatable as they come.  Of course, if she gets the nomination, she will be carried by the media (almost like how they carried Obama).  They will do their best to brand her as the woman-you've-been-waiting-for.  But I don't think most Americans will buy that bumper sticker junk.  Most men (most men) already married the woman they love.  And most women hate other women.   LOL  LOL  LOL

But, I think America has had enough of the Democrat Party, personally -- and they've had their fill of unqualified, fluff celebrities.  The mess Obama left will leave most Americans craving a strong Adult person who wants to lead -- not a slimly, meaningless, wimpy politician who says what's "cool."  Benghazi or not -- she's a hack if you look at her record -- and you don't even need me to tell you that, I greatly suspect.
« Last Edit: June 30, 2015, 01:58:41 PM by Bean Bag » Logged

409.
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 2.23 seconds with 21 queries.