 
Support Wrong Planet Awareness!
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| do u like G.Bush? |
| hell yeah |
|
6% |
[ 9 ] |
| hell yeah |
|
6% |
[ 9 ] |
| hell no |
|
26% |
[ 37 ] |
| hell no |
|
26% |
[ 37 ] |
| i can not awnser this question honestally |
|
2% |
[ 3 ] |
| i can not awnser this question honestally |
|
2% |
[ 3 ] |
| well he dose his job |
|
4% |
[ 6 ] |
| well he dose his job |
|
4% |
[ 6 ] |
| im a red neck and all i want is a gun |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| im a red neck and all i want is a gun |
|
0% |
[ 1 ] |
| i dont care about this |
|
2% |
[ 4 ] |
| i dont care about this |
|
2% |
[ 4 ] |
| i cant trust him with my life |
|
6% |
[ 9 ] |
| i cant trust him with my life |
|
6% |
[ 9 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 138 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Sophist
Professor of Pedantry
Joined: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 6170
Location: St. Louie
|
 Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:24 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| PlatypusMan wrote: | | ...and now he calls for Americans to rely less on foreign oil and accuses us of being addicted to oil. So says the man who has family ties to an oil company and a vice president who has ties to an oil company. His SotU (State of the Union) Address is going to be another BS-ridden grammatical catastrophe as was his other ones. Fire up the TiVo kiddes. |
He's such a frigging hypocrite. But at least this means that oil in politics is potentially on its way out. In maybe 20 years or so, they'll no longer be the big political backers.
But of course everyone hates him again 'cause oil prices shot up the next morning... Whoever his advisers are, he really needs to fire 'em.
_________________
Autism Speaks: The Walmart of the 501c's.
GESTALT: An Autism and Psychology Discussion Forum
http://asdgestalt.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
SB2
The Tufted Titmouse that could
Joined: Nov 23, 2005
Posts: 1573
Location: Southern California
|
|
| Back to top |
|
PlatypusMan
Snowy Owl
![]()
Joined: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 167
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | So I'm not so much a Republican as I am an anti-Democrat. And all people should be anti-Democrat. |
Yah. Be against the politcal party that has brough us most, if not ALL, of the social welfare programs we know and love (you know, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Head Start (for poor kids), and many others). IMO, the Democratic party put these programs in place to help the people who were screwed by the Republicans. |
|
| Back to top |
|
AbominableSnoCone
Cybernetic Vampiric Werewolf Ninja
Joined: Jun 16, 2005
Age: 24
Posts: 1670
Location: Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 12:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| McJeff wrote: | | Wake up, people... THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS RIGHT. The "religious right" consists of a few mouthpieces like Falwell and Robertson that no one respects or listens to, and a handful of fundamentalists given a disproportionate amount of press time because the liberal media loves to demonize the conservative elements in the US, and painting them all as fanatics is an effective way to do so. |
Well I used to think that too, but the election in 2004 really proved that wrong didn't it?
| Quote: | | Democrats are the ones that equate morality with Christianity, and then stereotype it as the "Religious Right" to turn average people against it. They're the ones that cast the hip hop lifestyle of flunkies, bling and drugs as an ideal to live up to. They're the ones that say that gayness should be celebrated. They're the ones that push the "physical attractiveness = personal worth" image in Hollywood, and the ones that push the "sexual promiscuity = cool" agenda on television. |
And all this stuff about the democrats being the ones promoting reverse-racism/reverse-sexism, promiscuous sexuality and unrealistic beauty standards is very silly stereotyping on your part... I vote democrat and I am against overly promiscuous sexuality... but I am much more shocked by the republican agenda which includes making it illegal for a man to get oral sex from his wife in certain states (among other things). And can you say that the democrats are responsible for the unrealistic beauty expectations when they put Kerry up against Bush? 
I agree though that there is such a thing as being "too f***ing liberal" which is why I tend to identify myself as a moderate
_________________
Join the ASAN social groups in NYC & NJ!
http://aspergers.meetup.com/309/
http://aspergers.meetup.com/318/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
McJeff
Banned
Joined: Nov 05, 2005
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PlatypusMan wrote: | | Quote: | | So I'm not so much a Republican as I am an anti-Democrat. And all people should be anti-Democrat. |
Yah. Be against the politcal party that has brough us most, if not ALL, of the social welfare programs we know and love (you know, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Head Start (for poor kids), and many others). IMO, the Democratic party put these programs in place to help the people who were screwed by the Republicans. |
Yeah. Because people who choose to sit in their apartments and refuse to work are really being "screwed" by the Republicans.
Social Security is designed to keep poor people stupid, ignorant and voting Democrat. It punishes them for trying to get jobs and rewards them for having extra kids - who barring some miracle will grow up to be poor, Democrat-voting leeches on the system.
Republicans have made it so these people can work. Most of them just choose not to, and the media isn't talking about the ones it does because the media is liberal. |
|
| Back to top |
|
McJeff
Banned
Joined: Nov 05, 2005
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 6:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AbominableSnoCone wrote: | | Well I used to think that too, but the election in 2004 really proved that wrong didn't it? |
No. No, it did not. Do we really have to go through why the Democrats basically committed campaign suicide? Because it's been done dozens of times.
The Democrats ran a campaign based on voting against Bush, rather than voting for Kerry, and consequently the swing voters knew what Bush was all about, but didn't know what Kerry was going to do, aside from saying whatever he thought would make his supporters happiest.
For example, the war. He refused to say outright that he was going to withdraw from Iraq, because he didn't want to offend the more conservative swing voters... but he sure wasn't supportive of it and was intentionally vague about his plans on dealing with what was left because he didn't want to upset the anti-war portions of his voter base.
| AbominableSnoCone wrote: | | And all this stuff about the democrats being the ones promoting reverse-racism/reverse-sexism, promiscuous sexuality and unrealistic beauty standards is very silly stereotyping on your part... I vote democrat and I am against overly promiscuous sexuality... but I am much more shocked by the republican agenda which includes making it illegal for a man to get oral sex from his wife in certain states (among other things). And can you say that the democrats are responsible for the unrealistic beauty expectations when they put Kerry up against Bush? |
OK, I'll agree to the fact that I was being pretty heavy-handed with the stereotypes. What I will say is, there are a significant amount of people like that - and the Democratic party caters to them. Stupidly, IMO, because the Democrats are going to get votes from anyone left of center anyway. They need to be preaching to the centrists and center-rights about why they're a better solution to the far right's imperialsm and big-business catering. But instead, they're doing more to alienate these people, by telling them how only stupid inbred hicks and fundamentalist nutballs (who are hicks by definition) vote Republican, and all smart people move to the city and vote Democrat.
Also, Republicans aren't trying to ban oral sex and never have. Those laws are mostly holdouts from the puritanical days of the 18th century. No one enforces them, and almost no one cares about them, exceptions being fundamentalists lunatics like Robertson and Ashcroft. It's just leftist pundits bringing that stuff up to demonize them.
tangent - http://www.dumblaws.com (It's got the oral sex stuff, also some other old ones. For example, in Baltimore, it is illegal to allow maneur to pile more than 6 feet high on a street corner... so I suppose I'm legally allowed to make a 5 foot tall crapheap on the corner of Pratt and Lexington.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
Serissa
Ex-Moderator
![]()
Joined: Jul 11, 2005
Posts: 4570
Location: A DEN OF INIQUITY!!!
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 03, 2006 9:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I don't have stong opinions aside from general dislike; however I might say he provides a great amount of comedic material. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Mithrandir
Phoenix
Joined: Oct 19, 2004
Age: 22
Posts: 608
Location: Victoria, BC Canada
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 1:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| AbominableSnoCone wrote: |
I agree though that there is such a thing as being "too f*** liberal" which is why I tend to identify myself as a moderate |
do you mean too far left?
| Quote: | How do you tell a communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
Ronald Reagan |
_________________
Music is the language of the world.
Math is the language of the universe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Comkeen
Sea Gull
Joined: Sep 16, 2005
Age: 24
Posts: 226
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
| Posted: Sat Feb 04, 2006 9:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Bush is voted to office from a group of people that wont elect an atheist or agnostic - no matter how principled they are.
Bush is the culmination of a corrupt 1 and 1/2 party system who's interests lie not in keeping this nation and its people healthy, but only to themselves and their close friends.
Bush makes broad plans for this country but fails to make himself accountable for them. He doesnt justify his actions, but instead slanders the other side for not falling in line.
Bush prefers a dictatorship, as long as he's the dictator. 
I was suckered into believeing that the Iraq war was the correct thing to do. Like everyone else, I bought the ploy that Iraq was an imminent threat, and Saddam must be removed to stabilize the region. I also wanted to believe that giving Iraqis freedom would be something honourable. Now I realized it was just my gullibility and hubris speaking. I was a fool to believe the WMD lies, and too ignorant in believing that removing a dictator will automatically make a group of people like you.
With all said and done, I think you know where I stand. |
|
| Back to top |
|
PlatypusMan
Snowy Owl
![]()
Joined: Jan 17, 2006
Posts: 167
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:20 am Post subject: |
|
|
| McJeff wrote: | | PlatypusMan wrote: | | Quote: | | So I'm not so much a Republican as I am an anti-Democrat. And all people should be anti-Democrat. |
Yah. Be against the politcal party that has brough us most, if not ALL, of the social welfare programs we know and love (you know, Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid, Head Start (for poor kids), and many others). IMO, the Democratic party put these programs in place to help the people who were screwed by the Republicans. |
Yeah. Because people who choose to sit in their apartments and refuse to work are really being "screwed" by the Republicans.
Social Security is designed to keep poor people stupid, ignorant and voting Democrat. It punishes them for trying to get jobs and rewards them for having extra kids - who barring some miracle will grow up to be poor, Democrat-voting leeches on the system.
Republicans have made it so these people can work. Most of them just choose not to, and the media isn't talking about the ones it does because the media is liberal. |
Oh yeah, the many people I know who are on welfare sit at home all day and don't work, makes me wonder why I seen them doing things at Mc.Donald's. NOT EVERYONE ONE WELFARE IS LAZY. A lot of people are on welfare for the following reasons:
1. Their employer went under.
2. Subsidiary to number one- their employer was either bought out by a big corporation or a big corporation moved in an drove the place out of business (Case in point- Wal-Mart)
3. Laid-off due to a labor cutback (Hence: Screwed by Republicans, since most, if not ALL of te major business leaders contribute greatly to the Republican party) in order to save profits (woe is the day a CEO can't afford another 5 cars)
4. Laid-off because the company went to China/Mexico/Canada/etc.
5. Unable to make enough money to live on because:
A. The cost of living just went up again.
B. The price of gas itself went up, effectively screwing many people'a already tight budgets over.
C. The company has lost money somehow (Profit loss, lawsuit, etc.). Now how will a company protect it's profit without raising the price of whatever it provides? ...give up? Cut wages!
6. Single parent. One income, two children.
I'd list more, but you'd probably just ignore them anyway.
And as for Social Security, as you say "is designed to keep poor people stupid, ignorant and voting Democrat. It punishes them for trying to get jobs and rewards them for having extra kids - who barring some miracle will grow up to be poor, Democrat-voting leeches on the system.", makes no sense at all. Social Security (I also include Food Stamps/Wic/TANF/SSI in with it for simplicity's sake) is what has kept many families from being pushed into poverty, and living on the streets. My own family has had to utilize SS programs, and my step-father works a full time job as a welder, where he is in constant danger and is exposed to some pretty bad carcinogeons, and makes barely enough to cover all of our expsenses). In fact, SS has helped the Republicn Party you seen to love so much (it's very apparent). Wonder how? As I've said, most of our goods and service providers are Republican corporations. Think of all of the old people drawing Social Security. Many of the old peopel who enjoy life that draw from SS have to use some of these goods and services sometimes, right?
"Republicans have made it so these people can work. Most of them just choose not to, and the media isn't talking about the ones it does because the media is liberal."
Cutting wages, laying off workers, closing plants (effectively destroying many cities), buying a plant for a tax-ride off and then closing it (yes, this is done, and it is a tax loophole), moving to another country, embezzling millions, sometimes even BILLIONS...yeah. The Republicans have done much in help people work. As for most people choosing not to work; sadly for your argument, there are safeguards put in place in the SS programs that prevent leeching (you know, like requiring people to get jobs and such).
And as for liberal media. Well, I could simply crush this with FOX News. But, I'd like to entertain the thought for a minute. The main reason, IMO, that the media shows so much "leftist" material is that the corporations that own most of the broadcast companies and channels are, GASP, pro-Republican; and, as far as I've seen, there hasn't been too much steller news coming from the Republican camp these days; and I don't think pro-Repub corporations would like too much anti-Republican news being shown.
Your ball McJeff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
McJeff
Banned
Joined: Nov 05, 2005
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 1:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Fox News isn't news, it's pundits putting a hard-right spin on the same things everyone else put a hard-left spin on. For it to count as news, there has to be at least a veneer of impartiality, and Fox doesn't even attempt that.
Now other than that, you managed to jump from welfare, which does keep people ignorant, to social security, which is completely different. So while I agree with the portion of your post in regards to social security, I don't believe it attempted to refute what I said.
Sadly, the rest of your post is mainly correct - just incorrectly applied to Republicans instead of both parties. Developers, such as the parent company that owns WalMart, are the biggest contributors to campaign finances, and so ALL politicians will bend over backwards and grovel to make the companies happy. And what makes them happy is shipping their labor overseas where there is no minimum wage and they can hire work for 2 cents an hour.
And if you think the Democrats are going to try and change that, you're a lunatic. They want that campaign money too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Sophist
Professor of Pedantry
Joined: Apr 24, 2005
Posts: 6170
Location: St. Louie
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 3:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| McJeff wrote: | | Republicans have made it so these people can work. Most of them just choose not to, and the media isn't talking about the ones it does because the media is liberal. |
Bullcrap. Most people stay on disability because the jobs they could get, they would be making less than they would on Welfare or Disability and also having to pay for childcare if they had kids. Many people cannot afford to get off Disability and work.
Though I do agree that the Republicans screw the poor over. Vote in Democrats and get some money into those social programs and then MAYBE people won't be so poor anymore. MAYBE people on disability could also get jobs and not be dependent on the disability.
As for the poor (aside from the disabled poor), Democrats would hopefully start putting money into school systems-- and I'm not talking about the ones in middle and upper class neighborhoods. I'm talking about deep inner city and in other poorer areas. That way kids can learn enough that they don't have to stay in poverty. Education is a huge key to all this.
Republicans promise no new taxes as well as tax cuts to the people up top who don't even frigging need it. While they slash every social program they can get their hands on. Example: Here in the Missouri House this last August, Republicans voted to decrease benefits. Some of these included cuts on wheelchair batteries, Diabetes education, and other physical therapy equipment which were deemed "unnecessary". Not to mention this last August, Missouri threw over 108,000 people off state insurance and this does not include their dependents which would make that number even higher-- nor does it also include what Missouri calls "Spenddown" which is essentially throwing people off Medicaid by requiring them to accumulate ridiculously high medical bills each month in order for Medicaid to kick in. For myself, this amount was $802 per month. Now, unless I were getting chemotherapy, there is no way in hell I could accrue that much in medical bills per month. Which means... NO INSURANCE.
Now, after taking away insurance from all these people, the ironic thing is that very same week the Republican majority in the Missouir House pushed through a raise in their OWN insurance. Like they need it! 
BTW, has anyone happened to see what the "government" considers the poverty level? It's ridiculous. Nobody can live on that amount unless they're living with someone else who is sharing the load. Poverty level my ass.
_________________
Autism Speaks: The Walmart of the 501c's.
GESTALT: An Autism and Psychology Discussion Forum
http://asdgestalt.com
|
|
| Back to top |
|
McJeff
Banned
Joined: Nov 05, 2005
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Sophist wrote: | | Bullcrap. Most people stay on disability because the jobs they could get, they would be making less than they would on Welfare or Disability |
Thank you for making my point for me.
If the people make more than the minimum wage on welfare, plus extra for each kid they have, they're never going to get a job because it's more work for less money. So you see, the welfare system does prevent people from climbing up the social chain.
A better system would be to augment their paycheck until such a time as they'd be making more money from their current job, than they would have been from minimum wage + welfare benefits.
Of course, then they'd be middle class, and both democrats and republicans hate middle class because middle class people tend to be un-corrupt, free-thinking voters who remain principled enough to object to the war in Iraq and the lack of seperation between church and state, while questioining why they should have their money stolen by the government and spent on socialist programs. After being humiliated by Perot in '92, both parties are united in keeping everyone else out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
McJeff
Banned
Joined: Nov 05, 2005
Posts: 361
Location: The greatest country in the world: The USA
|
| Posted: Sun Feb 05, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Comkeen wrote: | | Bush prefers a dictatorship, as long as he's the dictator. |
Don't say stupid things. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word dictator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
Comkeen
Sea Gull
Joined: Sep 16, 2005
Age: 24
Posts: 226
Location: San Francisco, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Feb 06, 2006 12:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
Of course it was taken out of context, but it was still funny as hell:
http://fpiarticle.blogspot.com/2004/11/bush-just-as-long-as-im-dictator.html
| McJeff wrote: | | Comkeen wrote: | | Bush prefers a dictatorship, as long as he's the dictator. |
Don't say stupid things. You obviously don't know the meaning of the word dictator. |
I was born in Romania, which at the time was run by a dictator. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
