|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
Democrats Suck
Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Nor does it seem to take into account that a socialist view under the banner of the democrats would say the family is more sacred than the government itself. In that sense, it's no more exploitative than church or school. Of course, that brings us back to using the Marxist base. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Which considers the family an artificial construct. There's a lot of thought floating around that socialist policies are actually the primary cause for the destruction of families, because they create an artificial case of economic rationale, where one doesn't need children to support oneself in old age, and that one shouldn't take care of one's own parents in old age. Society and the government does that for you. It's thought that this the primary cause in the severe drop of birth rates in America and especially Europe.
It seems that diplomatic efforts at solving conflicts are only undertaken when politicians think that they can't win. The political fiasco that Somalia created certainly wasn't foreseen beforehand. If anything, the only reason we haven't intervened in the Middle East in regards to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is out of fear of not only Israel's military but the fear of activating a nuclear tripwire. LBJ is still held up as a hero for "evening the odds" in race conflict but used a fabricated incident to engage us in a real bullets conflict. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
You know, I'm not sure what I was thinking saying that family was valued more than government under Marxism. But I think the tendency these days is for people to want to be self-sufficient rather than to rely on the government. It's a question of whether people actually realize that Social Security is going to be drained dry. Most people know it, in a peripheral sense, but to what extent they know it is up for debate. And I would say that being self-sufficient doesn't have to indicate a destruction of the family so much as a change in what is considered "natural." I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
Actually I think I'm kinda confused by what you mean when you say "self-sufficient." Most amazing jew boots |
But, since things aren't looking up for Joe in that case (back to social security), he's gonna want to make sure as much of his money as possible gets into a 401K, and he's not going to want to have kids (or at least, not many) because he doesn't meet the requirements for welfare. In other words, self-sufficient means his labor equates to his dollar, as much as possible. What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
FELIPE NO |
Also I guess everyone's in agreement that Republicans suck or what? Most amazing jew boots |
Thanks for the link. Jam it back in, in the dark. |
Also? "Detract" != "Distract" I will leave your actual arguments alone because they are SADFACE. There's nowhere I can't reach. |
I seem to recall the national debt actually stabilizing under the Clinton administration. Not to mention his foreign policy was kick ass compared to Bush, both Jr. and Sr. We had actually met with Kim Jong Il, got him to sign Agreed Framework and, oh wait, he wasn't starting wars to fill corporate coffers. I'm not a republican or a democrat, but it's fairly obvious that outside of an extra-marital affair (which I could really give two-shits) and a real-estate scandal, Clinton was much better than anything the republicans have had to offer since Reagan, possibly Ford. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. Posting without content since 2002. |
And no he didn't fill corporate coffers, but he did get involved in Bosnia in order to take attention off the Lewinsky scandal. I also don't credit Clinton with the economic success of the nation as many do. If anything, he probably stifled some of the economic growth that took place during the 90s with his tax hikes. The roles of chief of state and chief executive are seperate in other world gov'ts. Like in the UK, the Queen embodies all that is noble and prim and proper, yet she has virtually no real authority. The chief executive then, is the Prime Minister, as he's the guy who's actually responsible for getting the job done. And Pang, modern republicanism has undergone such change, that it's difficult to even label it as republicanism anymore. To make a blanket statement like "Republicans suck" is far to overreaching. To say that would imply that Abe Lincoln sucks cause he was a republican. Modern republicans are such in name only. Their ideology has changed to the point, where they should be labeled as something else entirely. Really, the same goes for the Dems as the views of Hillary Clinton and say Harry Truman (both Dems) are drastically different. I remember reading a Regan speech or interview once where he talked about his early involvement in the Democratic party. He said that he didn't leave the party, but that the party left him. To answer the question more clearly though, yes, the current republican party sucks. I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
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.
I'm not going to pass moral judgment on Clinton. Yeah, he lied, he lied underoath and to his people, not something I admire. The affair itself I could care less about. Although, I will admit that he did pick someone rather unfitting of the most powerful man in the free world to have an affair with, though. FELIPE NO Posting without content since 2002. |
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.
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
...
|
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, outsource industry and other things to other countries so people there can have jobs and a higher standard of living (albeit in exchange for cheaper goods)? Jam it back in, in the dark. |
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.
There's nowhere I can't reach. |
Of course it can't be solved on an individual level... but Christ, the guy can at least limit his energy expenditure. I mean, get solar plates or something. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
He DOES. The stats on that article were collected before Gore started dramatic remodeling designed to cut energy usage.
Most amazing jew boots |
Another problem you must consider, especially when talking about major shifts in energy infrastructure, is how many people have the money to invest in it.
I sure as hell don't, as much as I'd like to. Hybrid vehicles are still very expensive. I could get a Nissan 350Z (which is a sexy beast machine), for what I'd pay for a compact hybrid sedan. Not to mention, you completely ignore an entire market when you talk about hyrbid vehicles: the DIY people, myself included. I've never taken my car to a mechanic, unless I've convinced myself it's cheaper to do so than spend the time doing it myself. You can't really work on a hybrid vehicle yourself. They're all factory supported and service is expensive as hell. I was speaking idiomatically. Posting without content since 2002. |
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.
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?
...
|
Apparently you also don't understand the concept of outsourcing either. A job outsourced != job lost. It means an inefficient job is being replaced because it can be done more efficiently elsewhere. That leads us to focus on other things that we do best and transfer the unemployed to new efficient positions. Of course sometimes that might require a little education, but thats the cost you have to pay to stay ahead in a market economy. I'm highly suspect you haven't taken any economics courses. FELIPE NO |
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. What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?
...
|
stoned
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. When a state achieves the economic power, military force, and global influence on a level of the US, China, and the former Soviet Union, ethnocentrism is basically assumed. Countries like these look at undeveloped states as primitive in comparison crippled by a technological and industrial gap. 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. Jam it back in, in the dark.
Last edited by Meth; Mar 2, 2007 at 03:13 PM.
|