Democrats Suck

Originally Posted by Duo Maxwell

We often find that the ideals we worship in the caricature of the "Great American" turn out to be nothing more than a facade, anyway.

True. Our values are no greater than anyone else's and equally meaningful/meaningless in value...

AMERICA:but hey, we have *money and nice cars and beautiful trophy wives! Aren't we fantastic?

EVERYONE ELSE: Who gives a shit? Douchebag.

I find my sentiments following the latter in most regards.

So you have mastered the stock market, have a wife with bigger tits than Elvira and drive an 2007 escalade to work every day.How utterly impressive. (Except for the tits part, I wish I had Elvira's tits.)

At any rate, self indulgent self importance is quite a sickening aptitude for any culture and America has mastered this rather unsensibly. While millions of people are starving the world over, and can't get a clean supply of water to survive, here we are in America, considering a boycott when a Starbucks just might happen to go out of business. (though we all know that will never happen.)

AMERICA: I need my latte frappucino! I can't survive without it! The very prospect of thinking about it is causing me to break out in hives!

EVERYONE ELSE: Good. Douchebag. Speaking of hives, why don't you go ahead and replace that silver spoon with a beehive?

I can understand why much of the world resents America. We have the money and influence to do good in the world, but choose not to.

As for the whole liberal vs. conservative thing...every party has its share of radicals and disgustingly putrid iealogical sensibilities along with it. Each/every side has its own hidden agenda and wishes to impose that upon the average indigineous person, sometimes in a forcible offhand way.

At the center of it, when the potential to do good is possible, it is often revealed that politicians expect the masses to participate in a certain standard of conduct while exempting themselves from the same general practice. Take energy conservation for instance. Its a great idea and can help save the environment but only if EVERYONE follows it. Setting an example by making a great movie and not holding oneself to the same standard, is a "convenient truth" here in America.

For instance: Al Gore contributed in the making of the film 'Inconvenient Truth' and brought to many people's attention the horrible dangers of global warming. While I agree with the message and the dangers present, I find it highly absurd that Gore would be so adamant in projecting these messages while not following them himself.

Quote:

Public records reveal that as Gore lectures Americans on excessive consumption, he and his wife Tipper live in two properties: a 10,000-square-foot, 20-room, eight-bathroom home in Nashville, and a 4,000-square-foot home in Arlington, Va. (He also has a third home in Carthage, Tenn.) For someone rallying the planet to pursue a path of extreme personal sacrifice, Gore requires little from himself.

Practice like you preach, my good man.

And to make matters worse, Bush has hired one of his oil buddies as the head of the EPA. Whats that? Raise minimum Carbon Dioxide levels to help the oil industry to help produce a larger output and more revenue? What the hell! A few more billion plumes of toxic waste entering the atmosphere everyday is nothing to worry about, right? No one will notice.

Wrong.

Bush, Gore...they both suck balls. I prefer Gore because at least he is willing to make an effort to warn people of the dangers of the precarious environmental situation, while Bush just sits on his arse and rakes in the dough while half of the atmosphere goes up in flames.

Frankly, while all this talk of the environment is good and fine, I am much more worried about the people, who have proven that it is far more profitable to turn a deaf on the horrors of the real world that exists beyond white picket fence avenue. We are humans, are we not? Shouldn't we be taking care of each other before we go on trying to save the environment? I think we need to get our priorities straight here fellas.

My main scuple with politics and politicians in America, are the way they are causing problems by being continually divided for its own sake.

Lets get one thing straight: all politicians are full of shit. They are all vying for the minds/votes of the masses and they all resort to using lowdown contemptible tactics in order do so. Thats how politics survives and "prospers". Control. Everyone "benefits" from this process, right? In a perfect world, sure...but a perfect world is nowhere in sight. Its all going to hell, likely. Something isn't working. I am not sure whether this is a role of the political system or the people who believe in it...It is never been clearer than this age at how divided the United States is becoming. The main groups, Republicans and Democrats can't get anything done amidst the bickering that inflates sense of purpose and priority agendas. Republicans and Democrats...Pretty black and white. Green party? Yea, right. Any other alternatives? Maybe there are far more than 2 sides to every coin? I think the only way America can progress as a nation and provide help where it is needed is if an additional group comes along to stir things up. The lack of contention in the party formation basically means that the Republicans and Democrats hold the keys to all doors and choose not to open them if it doesn't fancy them...then again, adding an additional and equally capable party to the political scheme might make the process of political consensus far too complicated to comprehend...

Perhaps George Carlin was right when he said that the political system is always in a state of breaking down. Lefts vs. Rights, Democrats vs. Republicans...Perhaps our system is in a state of expectorant evaporation with doubt and the unknowing serving as the catalyst. It is unfortunate that
our society is so greatly reduced to a series of bobbing and weaving parties who aren't working towards the same goals, though that goes without saying.

However, I have never felt more unsettled because of it.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Night Phoenix

Stop the motherfuckin' presses - bullshit detected.

So you tell me that America does absolutely no good in the world whatsoever? That we give absolutely no kind of foreign aid to third world countries and at our own detriment...

It isn't a question of bullshit, but misreading my statement. I wasn't being literal. Besides, we can do much more and have a responsibility to do far more than we have been. That doesn't necessarily mean giving American jobs to people overseas, in developed nations, as that affects very little of the world population. Given the circumstances of America's rather large unemployment, perhaps this wasn't the best way to "help" anybody.

Besides mentioning anything of an economic perspective in already established nations, how would you say we ARE helping the world?

This is the other problem. Clearly people have very strange views on how America is to hand out "aid". If it doesn't help America economically, then it isn't bothered with on a political level. There have been many instances where America was given a chance to do something good in the world (diplomatically, providing safety and sanctuary to entire scores of races being hunted down and destroyed because of hatred and other such things) and failed miserably. Have you seen Hotel Rwanda? I would advise you to check it out. Things like this happen all over the world, every day. That is what I mean.

Originally Posted by Arainach

RainMan - Gore invests heavily in ecological rebuilding and alternative energy and in fact his entire family is carbon-neutral. His message is not one of personal sacrifice - Global Warming cannot be solved on an individual level - it's that we need massive policy shifts. He DOES practice what he preaches.

So you are excusing him? As I said before, I like Gore helluva lot more than I like Bush for already stated reasons, but he isn't living in a way that he suggests that others adapt to. As a politican, this sets a horrific example for others to follow. You are right...something HUGE like global warming isn't going to be solved on an individual basis, but that still doesn't mean that anyone is exempt from scorn here.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by xen0phobia

LOL? Which large unemployment are you talking about? You mean the ones thats at basically full? It's historically low now... How can i take any of your argument seriously when you don't know something as obvious as that?

I'm highly suspect you haven't taken any economics courses.

I failed to mention a time frame, though I do feel sheepish for contributing to such a poorly worded observation. I have not been following the economical status up to date, but I realize that 2006 and 2007 have been rather large years for growth, so it was a rather unwieldy statement, within that context. As for what I was loosely referring to, I think I am stuck back in 04-05 and was loosely speaking rather loosely (and possibly through my hat since NO, I have not taken a class in Economy) based upon such years in which employment rates were not very high.

Besides this, and again, I don't think its too much to ask to consider alternatives for providing worldly assistance than offering up only economical support. As I've mentioned that doesn't do a thing for undeveloped countries, where financial support is oftentimes most needed. Only helping those who are already economically "worthy" to begin with seems rather vile. Therein, lies a rather fundamental problem of the definition of "aid" based upon bias of wealth and therefore, entitlement. It probably doesn't take the casual observer of economics weekly magazine, to realize that there is a very serious problem at hand.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Quote:

Perhaps if you say what you mean, it would save you all the delicate backpeddling.

Thanks for the advice.

Quote:

So what in your view exactly qualifies as aid since economic support doesn't count?

Considering alternatives to economic assistance doesn't necessarily require exclusion.
Don't get me wrong, I believe that economy is a valuable source for increasing wellbeing, it just doesn't serve everyone equally.

Quote:

Are you talking specifically with regards to medical assistance? The sharing and donation of technology?

Well, yes. I suppose that is what I am saying.

Quote:

I think it's a difficult task to render true aid to any underdeveloped country. What we determine to be valuable in terms of rendering aid may be devastatingly destructive to a culture that we may not have taken the time to fully understand.

Providing doctors and proper equipment
to properly diagnose and treat illness doesn't sound too complicated. In this case, why would a knowledge of culture be prudent or even necessary? We all are humans, we all have bodies and we all have illness. Science and technology have allowed more developed countries to fully realize this. It is therefore their unassumed duty to make good on that understanding for the betterment of all, not only the financially viable.

Quote:

For powerful states -who tend to be heavy handed- to bestow "aid" unavoidably results in an imposition of foreign unwanted values upon the undeveloped state. Even if they mean well, the difference in values is in contrast enough to create discord on some level.

What kind of "unwanted values" are you referring to. At any rate, that isn't a good excuse for being hands off on the matter. A doctor is not going to apply treatment to the needy under the condition that the specific culture in question adapts to his cultural perspectives. This isn't Christianity we are talking about. Doctors and aid workers are healers and helpers, not politicians.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?