Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

They've been represented by Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Michelle Bachman. They've embraced Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. They regularly draw parallels between fascism and national health care. They regularly attribute all the nation's economic success to the upper class. For three years after Barack Obama was elected, they maintained that he forged his birth certificate. What makes them a relevant political force? Why are they still one of the two largest parties in the United States?

Their policy since Obama's election has been to oppose him in every single manner, paint him as a foreign born, and support every policy that they know he would have to reject. They just want him to be a one-term President because they probably fear he'll become another Clinton.

They haven't done anything productive; but then again, it seems both parties are guilty of that.

Originally posted by Quark_666
What makes them a relevant political force? Why are they still one of the two largest parties in the United States?

financial infrastructure and a party position that panders entirely to the most salient base urges of most people.

fox news, churches, wallstreat, racism, poverty, the american edjucation system.

in other words, propaganda, relegion, money, racism, depseration due to poverty, and general ignorance of the populace.

Not to mention, they come in swarms in the Yahoo! comments section on every article.

Why to be fair can't there ever be one thread that does not put down Christians or Repubican? I mean how is this fair?

Hold on lady, I was RAISED a republican and I tried my honest-to-god best to justify everything they did until they made it impossible. So that's why.

EDIT: actually, that's the story with Christianity too lol

I am not trying to start a fight here and this is not about you it is about other ppl who puts down everything and after awhile it does get very annoying.

And you're right, the rhetoric gets pretty condescending and judgmental, I know.

The Democratic Party isn't much better, either.

It's just funny watching Fox News and then switching over to MSNBC.

I think the real reasons you don't see splinter conservative parties is that the financial infrastructure to run candidates isn't there

tbh, as much as I disagree with them, the tea party seems to legitimately hold to their guns, and if they didn't need a major party fund raising establishment, I'm sure they would go in alone, Ron Paul (as much as he isn't a teabagger) would be another example.

I tend to think most conservatives follow the GOP for lack of any real alternative. I tend to think both established parties in America (at least right now) would do very poorly if other parties had the ability to run on equal footing.

Originally posted by inimalist
I think the real reasons you don't see splinter conservative parties is that the financial infrastructure to run candidates isn't there

tbh, as much as I disagree with them, the tea party seems to legitimately hold to their guns, and if they didn't need a major party fund raising establishment, I'm sure they would go in alone, Ron Paul (as much as he isn't a teabagger) would be another example.

I tend to think most conservatives follow the GOP for lack of any real alternative. I tend to think both established parties in America (at least right now) would do very poorly if other parties had the ability to run on equal footing. Those all sound like pretty good possibilities. I was wondering if maybe the Republican Party is full of intelligent thoughts and creative solutions that are being outshouted by the anti-liberal rhetoric - which seems to be an appendage of your point about the financial infrastructure. I've heard multiple economists say that they've heard conservative economic perspectives that make sense - most notably from the Chicago School of Economics, but none of them ever seem to make it into politics. And I think you're right about their chances in a 2< party system - my registration with the democratic party has a lot to do with republicans. Originally posted by Korto Vos
The Democratic Party isn't much better, either.

It's just funny watching Fox News and then switching over to MSNBC.

Originally posted by Quark_666
They've been represented by Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Michelle Bachman. They've embraced Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. They regularly draw parallels between fascism and national health care. They regularly attribute all the nation's economic success to the upper class. For three years after Barack Obama was elected, they maintained that he forged his birth certificate. What makes them a relevant political force? Why are they still one of the two largest parties in the United States?

Because it works.

Originally posted by Quark_666
Those all sound like pretty good possibilities. I was wondering if maybe the Republican Party is full of intelligent thoughts and creative solutions that are being outshouted by the anti-liberal rhetoric - which seems to be an appendage of your point about the financial infrastructure. I've heard multiple economists say that they've heard conservative economic perspectives that make sense - most notably from the Chicago School of Economics, but none of them ever seem to make it into politics. And I think you're right about their chances in a 2< party system - my registration with the democratic party has a lot to do with republicans.

I think you have two ideas in here that are only sort of related. The first is about why the republican party is popular in the first place, and the second is about the quality of their ideas.

To the former, I don't think it really has anything to do with their policies or whatever, but rather with the way they market themselves. Psychology shows very clear things that endear us to politicians, and in almost no circumstances are they "this person is the smartest and best qualified". The republicans seem to just play this game better, and therefore tend to have less nuanced or academic policies, but are able to appeal to people because of simple psychology. W.Bush is the best example of this, as on paper, both of the people he beat (Gore, Kerry) are not only more qualified, they are academics who have studied issues and been politically and socially involved their whole lives. Obama, however, who on paper had no political history whatsoever, was able to topple heavy favorites in the democratic party, because of reasons entirely detached from his policies (he did lie a lot though).

To the other issue, I've even seen GOP representatives on the daily show or other similar programs talking about how radical the republican party has become. Salon had a good series of articles debating a similar issue, but essentially, the idea of a "moderate conservative" or, heaven forbid, a "progressive conservative", has been killed in the political establishment to the point where it is impossible to float any ideas without splitting the GOP. Because of their intransigence, the tea party prevents what would be otherwise normal negotiations. And even though I don't agree with them (for instance, their economics are childish at best), it is a bit refreshing to see people who don't shrug away from their positions.

So like, to rant at you a bit more, the republicans are able to stay in power while offering no real beneficial politics through manipulating of the democratic and electoral system. They game democracy the same way one harvests gold in an MMO, you find the most lucrative mechanism and you exploit it. This sort of allowed an extreme fringe group to now hold the party hostage, killing any chance that effective conservative policies might actually be adopted.

The Republican Party outlived it's usefulness in 1909. It's proven itself to be less a political party and more of a Feudal/Fascist cult bent on the implementation of institutional poverty, classism, and autogenocide of elements it doesn't approve of at the expense of national and global stability. In their absence, the current democratic party could easily assume the mantle of a conservative party against any more liberal or social democratic party. They should be crushed and marginalized into a minor party and those members associated with the Tea Party and the Corporate elites should be punished severely.

rarely do DJ and myself see so eye to eye

I lament the death of the "progressive conservatives" more than anyone save Edmund Burke

Originally posted by inimalist
rarely do DJ and myself see so eye to eye

I lament the death of the "progressive conservatives" more than anyone save Edmund Burke
Really? I thought we agreed on more stuff. Then again, my posting over the last two years has been sporadic. Even more so what with more of a social life and all.

Regardless, I sincerely hope the end of far right ideologies isn't something we have to solve through another World War.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Really? I thought we agreed on more stuff. Then again, my posting over the last two years has been sporadic. Even more so what with more of a social life and all.

maybe I'm exaggerating... we probably agree more than not, just with an emphasis on the role of the state

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Regardless, I sincerely hope the end of far right ideologies isn't something we have to solve through another World War.

the problem I see is that your right wing sort of sets what becomes "right wing" around the world.

For the most part, more extreme right wing ideals haven't found root in Canada, but the more your political spectrum shifts right, the more everyone else's does. Our conservative party has become much more Republican than it was is the "Progressive Conservative" days... which is like one of those "I'm nostalgic for a time I wasn't even alive in" situations

I honestly take heart that every time I visit KMC, often months apart, I still find inimalist and Symmetric Chaos acting as lone bastions of sense.

Originally posted by inimalist
maybe I'm exaggerating... we probably agree more than not, just with an emphasis on the role of the state



the problem I see is that your right wing sort of sets what becomes "right wing" around the world.

For the most part, more extreme right wing ideals haven't found root in Canada, but the more your political spectrum shifts right, the more everyone else's does. Our conservative party has become much more Republican than it was is the "Progressive Conservative" days... which is like one of those "I'm nostalgic for a time I wasn't even alive in" situations

Right but you guys have more sense and seem less bogged down. Hence why Canada seems a lot more active, the UK is burning, and Israel is pretty close to rioting as well.

What I don't want to see is a situation where the cultists in power decide to default on the debt causing a global economic collapse. Like I honestly thought that by the way the world was reacting that we could have been at war with the rest of the planet right now.

http://s3.credoaction.com.s3.amazonaws.com/comics/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/TMW2010-02-03colorlowres.jpg

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Right but you guys have more sense and seem less bogged down. Hence why Canada seems a lot more active, the UK is burning, and Israel is pretty close to rioting as well.

What I don't want to see is a situation where the cultists in power decide to default on the debt causing a global economic collapse. Like I honestly thought that by the way the world was reacting that we could have been at war with the rest of the planet right now.

oh, totally, not to sound elitist, but compared to your recent debt and banking issues, Canada looks like a very solid investment, in fact, bank deregulation would be political suicide in Canada

however, you guys do set the world stage. Corporations don't sing a different tune here than they do in America, our system is just less subservient to money interests (though, not immune).

Honestly, I think a lot of issues here are ignored because there aren't as blatant issues as there are in America. Our police and elected officials get away with a lot because it doesn't cross "that line" which your police and officials cross too regularly... it just gets not press because we would rather hear about how we are better than Americans than where we need work.

there is less corruption in our politics... I don't actually know how to explain it...

Originally posted by inimalist
oh, totally, not to sound elitist, but compared to your recent debt and banking issues, Canada looks like a very solid investment, in fact, bank deregulation would be political suicide in Canada

however, you guys do set the world stage. Corporations don't sing a different tune here than they do in America, our system is just less subservient to money interests (though, not immune).

Honestly, I think a lot of issues here are ignored because there aren't as blatant issues as there are in America. Our police and elected officials get away with a lot because it doesn't cross "that line" which your police and officials cross too regularly... it just gets not press because we would rather hear about how we are better than Americans than where we need work.

there is less corruption in our politics... I don't actually know how to explain it...

It doesn't get hot enough for you guys to develop that unique mixture of religious indignation, greed, and mental retardation necessary to become as stupid as us. Plus you don't exactly have a history of lazy dependence on slave labor and inbreeding. I also appreciate how you dump all the crap you create like Justin Beiber, Bryan Adams, and Celine Dion over here while still laying claim to Malcolm Ingram, Wayne Gretzky, D.O.A., adn Tim Hortons. Can we trade?

I would gladly trade the Republican party for your one glaring national defect (poutine) any day.

Originally posted by inimalist
it just gets not press because we would rather hear about how we are better than Americans than where we need work.

there is less corruption in our politics... I don't actually know how to explain it...
I mean, taking your word for it, but lol!

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
I honestly take heart that every time I visit KMC, often months apart, I still find inimalist and Symmetric Chaos acting as lone bastions of sense. QTF

Originally posted by inimalist
Canada... better than America This is all I took away from your post because I am an elitist.

Canada's single-payer health care policy is better than that of the United States.

Canada's got a weak ass military though.

And that's all that matters.

More like bestest professional small army in teh world! We don't need numbers or B-2's, just the best sniping record and the worst helicopters to kick ass!

I heard from a U.S. sniper that Canadian snipers are pretty badass.

Originally posted by Quark_666
I heard from a U.S. sniper that Canadian snipers are pretty badass. We previously had the first and second longest kills recorded by a sniper, but a U.K. guy beat us a few years back.

Originally posted by Quark_666
And you're right, the rhetoric gets pretty condescending and judgmental, I know.

Well I am glad that we argee on something.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
It doesn't get hot enough for you guys to develop that unique mixture of religious indignation, greed, and mental retardation necessary to become as stupid as us. Plus you don't exactly have a history of lazy dependence on slave labor and inbreeding. I also appreciate how you dump all the crap you create like Justin Beiber, Bryan Adams, and Celine Dion over here while still laying claim to Malcolm Ingram, Wayne Gretzky, D.O.A., adn Tim Hortons. Can we trade?

I would gladly trade the Republican party for your one glaring national defect (poutine) any day.

hell, I'd make the trade

the republican party would have no base up here, and we aren't taking the Tea Partiers

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
More like bestest professional small army in teh world! We don't need numbers or B-2's, just the best sniping record and the worst helicopters to kick ass!

don't forget defective submarines

You don't have room for the Tea Party in Port Radium?

we could do better than port radium

maybe north of Baffin Island... I'm not sure if there are any permanent settlements though

EDIT: ha, send em to the military base at Alert. They can be the vigilant guard against the Soviets

So the Straw Poll results are in.

Bachman in first (god forbid)

Ron Paul in second

Tim Pawlenty in third

Originally posted by ares834
So the Straw Poll results are in.

Bachman in first (god forbid)

Ron Paul in second

Tim Pawlenty in third

Not that this means much. Ron Paul is first or second every year but never gets very far.

Canada? Better than America? Canada has hate speech laws. Your country is a piece of shit. No matter America's flaws, the fact that you can be fined for making fun of gays indicates what a shitty, HIV+ nation you have.

lol, oooh, that stings so much

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Not that this means much. Ron Paul is first or second every year but never gets very far.
From what I understand it was an incredibly close second place. Bachman won by something like 100 votes.

And she's a native of Iowa.

That being said, I don't see Ron Paul ever being a serious contender for Presidency, but I can see him being a spoiler for one of the candidates and stealing just enough votes from one platform to change the outcome of the nomination.

Originally posted by inimalist
For the most part, more extreme right wing ideals haven't found root in Canada, but the more your political spectrum shifts right, the more everyone else's does. Our conservative party has become much more Republican than it was is the "Progressive Conservative" days... which is like one of those "I'm nostalgic for a time I wasn't even alive in" situations

To be fair it was easy to stand on principle and lofty ideals when the conservative vote was split between the PC and the Reform Party, and there was no chance of them winning an election. Just ask the the NDP.

Ron Paul will be 76.5 years old if he won the presidency. Way too old.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Ron Paul will be 76.5 years old if he won the presidency. Way too old.
Yeah, man, we need someone young and, like, fresh, with new ideas. Not some old fuddy-duddy who has lived through the decline of America, who has witnessed firsthand the disastrous results of the welfare-warfare state. We need someone who will parrot the party line and tell us what we want to hear.

I'm talking about a health perspective. Reagan left presidency when he was 77.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Canada? Better than America? Canada has hate speech laws. Your country is a piece of shit. No matter America's flaws, the fact that you can be fined for making fun of gays indicates what a shitty, HIV+ nation you have. laughcry

It's going to be a sad day when the Mods eventually permaban you. I love your posts so god damn much.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
I'm talking about a health perspective. Reagan left presidency when he was 77. And he died when he was 93.

He prolly woulda died a lot earlier if he'd been president longer though, I imagine.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Canada? Better than America? Canada has hate speech laws. Your country is a piece of shit. No matter America's flaws, the fact that you can be fined for making fun of gays indicates what a shitty, HIV+ nation you have. F*ckin' burn, eh? I'd better head over to the burn ward and not pay anything to get it treated.

Originally posted by Bardock42
And he died when he was 93.

And had been showing signs of serious alzheimers for like 15 years.

http://www.oneyearnovel.com/images/LaughingGirls_laptop.jpg
He thinks his health care is free!

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Yeah, man, we need someone young and, like, fresh, with new ideas. Not some old fuddy-duddy who has lived through the decline of America, who has witnessed firsthand the disastrous results of the welfare-warfare state. We need someone who will parrot the party line and tell us what we want to hear.

A younger, fresh president was necessary for 2008. And maintaining that (now experienced) president for a second term to fully implement and see through the new ideas and policies is what is needed for 2012.

Of course, nothing turns out the way it should. Our politics are partisan off the charts. If Obama wins 2012, I fear for more compromises. If a Republican wins 2012, I worry about leadership (none of the candidates strike me as someone I want representing and running America...especially Bachman).

Originally posted by Korto Vos
A younger, fresh president was necessary for 2008. And maintaining that (now experienced) president for a second term to fully implement and see through the new ideas and policies is what is needed for 2012.
Everything you just said is wrong and sounds like the kind of drivel I'd expect from an Obama supporter desperately trying to justify his voting record.

See, the politics aren't really that partisan. In fact, the majority of Americans are pretty centrist. They generally support higher taxes on the wealthy and things like a public option when they are presented in a neutral light. The hardcore Republican Baby Boomer turds are the ones with the most political influence right now, however, and they get all up in arms at the thought of "socialism" and "raising my taxes" and "not outsourcing jobs while paying Americans a living wage" because the Boomers are the worst generation in recent history. They are selfish and moronic in the extreme, and their policies reflect this. Cut taxes! Expand Medicare! Start wars!

**** 'em all.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Everything you just said is wrong and sounds like the kind of drivel I'd expect from an Obama supporter desperately trying to justify his voting record.

Everything that you just said above is wrong and sounds like the kind of drivel of someone I'd expect who has absolutely no clue of my political affiliation and is desperately trying to justify his previous response with a backhanded remark.

It's useless to debate him. He put "zeal" in his name for a reason.

Originally posted by ares834
So the Straw Poll results are in.

Bachman in first (god forbid)

Ron Paul in second

Tim Pawlenty in third Bachmann Gingrich 2012

You heard it here first.

Translation: McCain was an old dude; we needed someone youthful in office. We needed someone who wasn't an "old hat" to the political ring, someone who was capable of thinking outside the mold. Obama has learned a lot from his four years as president and he's just struggling to implement them. Once he's re-elected, he'll have a foolproof strategy for getting the GOP on his side and then he'll pass all of his progressive legislation. We're one term away from a total turnaround of America!

Zeal Ex Nihilo. How I've missed you.

Perhaps they'll say that at my funeral.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Bachmann Gingrich 2012

You heard it here first.

Bachmann isn't making it to the end. Unless you mean Gingrich with Bachmann as VP.

But the GOP learned what a bad idea it is to have a strong Presidential runner and have a retarded woman tagging along last election, so that's most likely a no too.

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Perhaps they'll say that at my funeral.

"No. I won't miss you again."
*loads sniper rifle*

Originally posted by lord xyz
Bachmann Gingrich 2012

You heard it here first.

god forbid

Originally posted by Robtard
Bachmann isn't making it to the end. Unless you mean Gingrich with Bachmann as VP.

But the GOP learned what a bad idea it is to have a strong Presidential runner and have a retarded woman tagging along last election, so that's most likely a no too. Weird assumption since McCain never exceeded in opinion polls until selecting her as VP, and only slipped until the final debate was over. (After the VP debate, but didn't slip until after his final debate)

It could be 4chan spaz instead of spaz 4chan, like you said, but yeah. I'm pretty sure it'll be those two.

Yeah, but that was before she sacrificed logic and reason upon the altar of nationalism....

Gotta stop with the "Bachmann/Newt" talk. Seriously. It isn't happening. Newt--if we were to assume that he's a viable option for any hypothetical Republican political position--pretty much torpedoed himself when he went after Ryan's healthcare plan. Plus, it's not like he's anymore visible now than any of the other times he "ran for President." I didn't see any Reps tripping over themselves to make him Veep then. Bachmann's just straight up unelectable; there isn't anything that she brings to the table that Romney/Perry don't save maybe the fact that she's the most dedicated to the Tea Party cause. That's nice right now, but unless you think their voters are stupid, chances are they're going to realize that she isn't going to beat Obama one on one. They'll take Romney's issues ("Obamneycare" being one) over Bachmann. They'll damn sure take Perry over her.

Originally posted by Harbinger
...but unless you think their voters are stupid... I do.

They aren't stupid enough to throw away the general election. It's almost like people who said Hilary's supporters wouldn't come out to vote for Obama back in 2008.

I was never a fan of the Republicans tbh. Valorum and Palpatine ****ed the union beyond repair. I've never seen a great Republican leader as they always depend on the Jedi to fix their shit. Wait, what?

I'm not old enough to like politics but since my family is Republican and watches Fox News everyday I'm a democrat just because. To answer the OP's question I have no fvcking idea how they're a formidable power when a lot of prominent party members are fvcking idiots. Yeah I'm using a fallacy here but I can't back anything that Fox does.

Gingrich won't win. We're looking at a Romney or Perry candidate. Republicans won't pick Bachmann as the forerunner because she is too socially conservative and her husband's reparative therapy business will severely hurt them among mainstream voters. Romney's going to have his balls busted for the "corporations are people, too" line--something that should rightfully haunt him for the remainder of this election cycle--and the mainstream media seem to be taking to Perry even though he wasn't present at the Iowa straw poll. (This should tell you something about whenever the media supports a candidate.)

Perry, who has been described as "George Bush on steroids," is going to be exactly that: a corporatist who plays up his "cowboy" image and evangelical heritage to draw voters in. The fact that Americans are going to fall for this shit again is infuriating. Between doubleplus-Dubya and the N*gger-in-Chief, I'd rather have 'Bammy with another four years of shit so America remembers why left-wing college students' political opinions are laughed at rather than taken as policy.

Of course, this opens up the doors for another Ronald Reagan to take the reins from black Jimmy Carter, so we're f*cked six ways to the weekened anyway.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The Republican Party outlived it's usefulness in 1909. It's proven itself to be less a political party and more of a Feudal/Fascist cult bent on the implementation of institutional poverty, classism, and autogenocide of elements it doesn't approve of at the expense of national and global stability. In their absence, the current democratic party could easily assume the mantle of a conservative party against any more liberal or social democratic party. They should be crushed and marginalized into a minor party and those members associated with the Tea Party and the Corporate elites should be punished severely. up:
the democratic party would be considered a pro-corporate (at best, center)right wing group just about anywhere else in the world. still clearly more reasonable and rational than the gop.

I just watched a documentary that was heavily right and republican. It made it clear that Obama was given lots of privilege with the press and McCain and Palin were not.

The documentary was partially correct despite it's glaringly obvious bias. It makes me hate the media player in elections.

lol, if you look at the world press it is much worse even. not only did Obama get more stories, they were almost always favorable, and the few you did see about palin/McCain were focused on how terrible palin would be for the job. at least that was the impression I got

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, if you look at the world press it is much worse even. not only did Obama get more stories, they were almost always favorable, and the few you did see about palin/McCain were focused on how terrible palin would be for the job. at least that was the impression I got


Sarah Palin, in that documentary, got to explain her answers to some of the questions.


Her answers weren't as stupid as the media made it out to be. For instance, in the media, they made fun of her for saying she could see Russia from her house.

That's not what she said: she said you could see Russia from Alaska: which is true.



Another instance was her getting mouthy with Katy Kuric and reading magazines. She said Katy was trying to trap her into admitting she read Liberal magazines like "Time" because they were arguing about abortion. Palin refused to play the game and just kept it at "I read a lot of them" instead of naming the magazines she read. The media flew off the handle at that and implied that she was an illiterate idiot.



It was nice to see the other side, for once, when it came to Palin. I still would not vote for her and I think she's an airhead...but she's not nearly as bad as the media made her out to be.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Her answers weren't as stupid as the media made it out to be. For instance, in the media, they made fun of her for saying she could see Russia from her house.

It was Tina Fey who said that. They happen to look at lot alike and plenty of people wanted to think the worst of Palin.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Another instance was her getting mouthy with Katy Kuric and reading magazines. She said Katy was trying to trap her into admitting she read Liberal magazines like "Time" because they were arguing about abortion. Palin refused to play the game and just kept it at "I read a lot of them" instead of naming the magazines she read. The media flew off the handle at that and implied that she was an illiterate idiot.

Seems like a terrible excuse. She thinks her base is so fanatical they won't vote for a person who reads Time?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Another instance was her getting mouthy with Katy Kuric and reading magazines. She said Katy was trying to trap her into admitting she read Liberal magazines like "Time" because they were arguing about abortion. Palin refused to play the game and just kept it at "I read a lot of them" instead of naming the magazines she read. The media flew off the handle at that and implied that she was an illiterate idiot.

the position that she is beligerant with people who might want to question her is better, in your mind, than she is just dumb?

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
It was Tina Fey who said that. They happen to look at lot alike and plenty of people wanted to think the worst of Palin.

You say it was Tina Fey who said that...but that didn't stop news outlets (CNN, MSNBC) from passing it off as fact and making fun of her for it.







Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Seems like a terrible excuse. She thinks her base is so fanatical they won't vote for a person who reads Time?

No, you missed the point of that convo: it was a chess match she was playing with Kouric that she lost horribly. That's not an excuse at all: it's why she failed to win that verbal chess match. She made the wrong moves out of frustration.


Originally posted by inimalist
the position that she is beligerant with people who might want to question her is better, in your mind, than she is just dumb?

Wrong: the position that she was irritated with an obviously agenda'ed reporter looking to play "gotcha games" with her versus her just being dumb is the dichotomy you're supposed to take away from that. Obama did not get the same treatment as Palin.

ok, word it how you want, it was a glaringly poor answer to an easy question.

are you suggesting reporters don't ask Obama gotcha questions?

Originally posted by dadudemon
You say it was Tina Fey who said that...but that didn't stop news outlets (CNN, MSNBC) from passing it off as fact and making fun of her for it.

I know "because people wanted to think the worst of her". I very much doubt that a lot of it was deliberate deception. People really believed she said it, the media is made of people and is subject to similar faults. And then there's the level to which people will fight themselves to maintain such a belief, I found that during the campaign if you explained to (liberal) people that it was Fey who said it the response was mainly along the lines that Palin was dumb enough to believe it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
No, you missed the point of that convo: it was a chess match she was playing with Kouric that she lost horribly. That's not an excuse at all: it's why she failed to win that verbal chess match. She made the wrong moves out of frustration.

She lost the chess match because she played stupidly.

Originally posted by inimalist
ok, word it how you want, it was a glaringly poor answer to an easy question.

You don't know the conversation. It wasn't a brief 1 minute interview.


I looked and could not find the entire interview but if you could view the entire conversation, you could see the Kuric was being a total b*tch and Palin was getting pissed.



The best answer would have been listing several magazines that filled the political spectrum. Palin is just not smart enough to have given that answer to avoid the trap.

Originally posted by inimalist
are you suggesting reporters don't ask Obama gotcha questions?

Are you suggesting that Obama got asked "Gotcha" questions just as often as Palin?


Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
She lost the chess match because she played stupidly.

But not in the way the media portrayed it...which was my point.

The Media's version: Palin is an idiot that can't name one single magazine. AKA, she's borderline illiterate.

The Truth: Palin was getting pissed and wanted to shut that portion of the conversation down.







Found the whole interview:

YxAO7cH-xrE

Found the clip that was abused like crazy:

xRkWebP2Q0Y



Double edit- Nope, that's not it. I still can't find the full interview with the "gotcha" from Kouric (sp?)

Originally posted by dadudemon
The best answer would have been listing several magazines that filled the political spectrum. Palin is just not smart enough to have given that answer to avoid the trap.

in what way is this different from what I have said?

either she gets too pissed at tough/unfair questioning or she is dumb, both are terrible qualities in an elected leader, and both are worthy of criticism, though possibly not the specific criticism "Palin can't read", which afaik, even most comedians didn't go to.

not being able to come with an answer to an easy question, for whatever reason, is negative. Journalists are allowed to ask questions that deliberately try to make the politician look bad, a good measure of how a candidate will react under fire is how they can deal with such situations. I would say the "sound bite" media landscape makes it harder, and explains why so many politicians just fall back on phrases and memes when they get in trouble, but Palin's inability to do anything other than look like a yammering fool, imho, really takes some historical revisionism to look anything but unbecoming of a politician.

EDIT: I also hardly believe her justification, but that is irrelevant

Originally posted by inimalist
in what way is this different from what I have said?

Did I misinterpret what you said?


Sure, her response was not the best, but the reasons the media gave and the reasons she gave paints quite a different picture. That was the point: the media was unfair to Palin...and a bit mean spirited.




Originally posted by inimalist
either she gets too pissed at tough/unfair questioning or she is dumb, both are terrible qualities in an elected leader, and both are worthy of criticism, though possibly not the specific criticism "Palin can't read", which afaik, even most comedians didn't go to.

No, that was what was done to her. "Can't read" or "refused to read" were commonly insinuated or even directly stated in the media and by comedy shows.

Kouric even commented on it when she was interviewed on Letterman.


This does not mean I disagree that Palin is a good leader. Not at all. I think she's one of the shittiest politicians to have come along in a while. I just didn't like how crappy the media was. I want fair and balanced coverage especially with politics.

Originally posted by inimalist
not being able to come with an answer to an easy question, for whatever reason, is negative.

The question wasn't easy. No matter how she answered, it was a trap UNLESS she answered the way I suggested.


If she named mostly liberal publications (which is what she was directly afraid of doing), they would have run with it and called her a hypocrite (Sarah Palin's answers to this were much more articulate and made sense. I'm not doing her justification even remotely good justice). If she named too many conservative publications, she would have been painted closed minded. Palin talked about this in the interview in the documentary I am referring to.




Regardless, is my answer really that good of an answer?


Can you name 3 American magazines/papers that liberal and then name 3 American magazines/papers that are oppositely conservative?


I can't. I would not have been able to in a situation where someone was being irritating. I would have been much more direct and said, "Could you come off it, please? Surely there's a trillion other questions you could ask other than trying to bring it back to the abortion topic?"

Originally posted by inimalist
Journalists are allowed to ask questions that deliberately try to make the politician look bad, a good measure of how a candidate will react under fire is how they can deal with such situations. I would say the "sound bite" media landscape makes it harder, and explains why so many politicians just fall back on phrases and memes when they get in trouble, but Palin's inability to do anything other than look like a yammering fool, imho, really takes some historical revisionism to look anything but unbecoming of a politician.

Palin is an idiot, plain and simple.


However, she's not the idiot the media tried to portray and they were not fair with her.

Originally posted by inimalist
EDIT: I also hardly believe her justification, but that is irrelevant

Her justification makes sense and with her perspective, you can see exactly what Kouric was doing.




I still would take Kouric over Palin any day. flirt

please, the woman is a moron. how did she explain these?

txfqWzGMgmY

nokTjEdaUGg

0rXmuhWrlj4&feature=relmfu


she's tripped over her own tongue again and again because she doesn't know a ****ing thing and it's obvious that she is just stalling without actually saying anything. and how does russia being visible from alaska compliment her foreign relations background exactly? it's every bit as dumb as the tina fey skit that mocked her and worse, she was serious. the main **** ups over which she got mauled by the media are inexcusable. she has no business being in politics.

regardless of the intent, "what magazines do you read?" is not a hard question

an honest answer that fell into the trap would have looked better

Originally posted by inimalist
an honest answer that fell into the trap would have looked better

I somewhat agree, but I can't fully agree.


We don't know how the media would have treated the hypocrite answer or the close-minded answer. Palin feared both those sides. She tried to play it cool by using the "less is more" mentality but she SUCKS so bad that it back fired.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I somewhat agree, but I can't fully agree.


We don't know how the media would have treated the hypocrite answer or the close-minded answer. Palin feared both those sides. She tried to play it cool by using the "less is more" mentality but she SUCKS so bad that it back fired.

well, first, I would take issue with the idea that this is an unfair question at all. The way the term "gotcha question" is used, it could also be described as "a question to which the true answer makes the person look bad". It is not unfair to ask Palin what magazines she reads, even if there is a gotcha afterward. Palin being put in a position where she wants to lie more than she wants to tell the truth is not a bad thing. If the true answer to the question makes Palin look hypocritical, the problem isn't with the question, dig? That isn't a gotcha, that isn't unfair, it is checking if what a politician expresses at time A is the same as what they express at time B. If Palin had said she didn't read liberal news, and actually reads liberal news, the point might be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (in fact, I would argue it is positive for people to read their opponents take on events), but it isn't unfair. Maybe if Kouric was misrepresenting something Palin had said in the past?

but no, I don't see what political damage would have been done had Palin said she read extreme leftist magazines. If she can't spin "I read a wide base of sources" into something positive, then her entire political team is full of ****ing idiots. What is Kouric going to say? "oh look, you read liberal media, you *****! how stupid are you?". Like, is stuff so bad in America that even simply knowing what your opponents are saying is negative politically?

Originally posted by inimalist
well, first, I would take issue with the idea that this is an unfair question at all. The way the term "gotcha question" is used, it could also be described as "a question to which the true answer makes the person look bad". It is not unfair to ask Palin what magazines she reads, even if there is a gotcha afterward. Palin being put in a position where she wants to lie more than she wants to tell the truth is not a bad thing. If the true answer to the question makes Palin look hypocritical, the problem isn't with the question, dig? That isn't a gotcha, that isn't unfair, it is checking if what a politician expresses at time A is the same as what they express at time B. If Palin had said she didn't read liberal news, and actually reads liberal news, the point might be irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (in fact, I would argue it is positive for people to read their opponents take on events), but it isn't unfair. Maybe if Kouric was misrepresenting something Palin had said in the past?

but no, I don't see what political damage would have been done had Palin said she read extreme leftist magazines. If she can't spin "I read a wide base of sources" into something positive, then her entire political team is full of ****ing idiots. What is Kouric going to say? "oh look, you read liberal media, you *****! how stupid are you?". Like, is stuff so bad in America that even simply knowing what your opponents are saying is negative politically?

I don't: Kouric was assigned a job and that job was to try and trap Palin with "gotcha" questions. Success. However, that success was easier with Palin than other politicians.

And, yes, the question steamed from their virtually arguing over the abortion topic which Palin had already expressed a disinterest in discussion because that was also a "gotcha" topic. Palin was coached NOT to fall into the abortion trap and she saw where Kouric was going with her "publications" questioning.

What does that mean? She had the foresight to see how her answer on the magazines could get her in trouble...she just royally ****ed up her chance to deal with it properly. As I pointed out, we wouldn't have done any better in an already heated interview ESPECIALLY if you were at the center of media attention.


And, if she read liberal media, then they could have gotten her on the previous statements of pushing "positive" conservative media consumption. It would have illustrated a very big state of hypocrisy on Palin's part if she pushed "read wholesome shit, dudes!" versus, "I read liberal media on a regular basis to educate myself on current events, dude!"


Surely you see why that makes her a hypocrite.


The other side, which Palin also feared, is the close-minded fool. Obviously, if she only read conservative publications, she's definitely a bit one sided. Granted, it would not have been as bad of a gotcha moment as the hypocrite one.

Here were her options:

1. Hypocrite.
2. I don't want to give an answer.
3. Close-minded.
...

...


..
4. Know a bunch of publications that balance out on the right and left.



She went with option 2 which was probably the worst case scenario for her. 4 wasn't an option as she probably didn't know enough to actually give a very crafty answer. And like I said, neither one of us could have done so under pressure like that. 3 would have been the best case option for her because 4 wasn't something she could have pulled off. 2 was the worst case scenario followed closely by 1.




Another side point: do you know why 1 would make her a hypocrite? Remember that library gaffe? Yeah, this is why Sarah is such an idiot.




edit - You know, her real problem is how inarticulate she is. She could have pulled off the 2 response much more smoothly. She just lacks political speaking prowess...and brains.

it seems like you are saying "Because Palin is a bold face liar, and because she says things that actually don't reflect the reality of her life, it is unfair to ask about those things"... I can't imagine that is how you feel, but if you are blaming Kouric because Palin's answer would have been hypocritical, I can't really see any other conclusion.

To be frank, I would have answered the question much better. I would have said, "I don't get my news from magazines" and would proceed to list where I do get my news from. Because I have faith in my sources of news, I also have faith that I can defend them as sources of news, and no, I don't buy the crap that she should have listed an equal number of conservative and liberal magazines, because that is equally disingenuous, and really, the question is of so little value in the first place. I don't see why it would be important if Palin read exclusively conservative or a mix. It is important that she can answer questions in a reasonable way, even if the person asking the questions is "hostile" .

and no, I don't actually know why it would have made her a hypocrite. If anything, that would probably be what her mistake was. If she said something about not reading liberal media, when she actually reads liberal media, that is the problem, not Kouric.

Originally posted by dadudemon
edit - You know, her real problem is how inarticulate she is. She could have pulled off the 2 response much more smoothly. She just lacks political speaking prowess...and brains.

idk, did you see the recent interview with chrissy o'donnel and piers morgan? she walked out of it because she said it wasn't fair (piers had the audacity to ask her about her book) and looked like a total spoiled idiot. I really think the solution is, you know, not being a liar in the first place, not condemning reporters who have the ability to expose those lies.

Originally posted by inimalist
it seems like you are saying "Because Palin is a bold face liar, and because she says things that actually don't reflect the reality of her life, it is unfair to ask about those things"...

Odd. I don't even remotely understand how you could possibly come to that conclusion when I've explicitly stated what I thought her problem was.

Originally posted by inimalist
I can't imagine that is how you feel, but if you are blaming Kouric because Palin's answer would have been hypocritical, I can't really see any other conclusion.

Kouric is an example, only. Kouric and Gibson are just two large examples for the agenda the media clearly had against Palin.

Originally posted by inimalist
To be frank, I would have answered the question much better. I would have said, "I don't get my news from magazines" and would proceed to list where I do get my news from. Because I have faith in my sources of news, I also have faith that I can defend them as sources of news, and no, I don't buy the crap that she should have listed an equal number of conservative and liberal magazines, because that is equally disingenuous, and really, the question is of so little value in the first place. I don't see why it would be important if Palin read exclusively conservative or a mix. It is important that she can answer questions in a reasonable way, even if the person asking the questions is "hostile" .

Sure, a cool calm collected answer is what you would like to give. I don't think that either of us would be able to give the optimal answers.

Additionally, you don't have the virtual "Nazi book burning" story to worry about, as well with your answer.

If I'm honest, I can B.S. with the best of them. I knock interviews out of the park almost 100% of the time. However, I don't think would have been able to give the optimal answer in that same interview with Kouric. Sure, I would have named 2 from each side (for a total of 4), but not 3 or 4. I think 3 or 4 would have been optimal and 3 is bare minimum. Arbitrary, know. But you're supposed to be going for a "wow" factor to really knock the question of the park. Remember the wit and intellectualism factors I talked about?

Originally posted by inimalist
and no, I don't actually know why it would have made her a hypocrite. If anything, that would probably be what her mistake was. If she said something about not reading liberal media, when she actually reads liberal media, that is the problem, not Kouric.

I explained why, though.





One answer I got for why the media was so biased against Palin: she would have been the first female vice president (and possibly president because of how old and decrepit McCain was) and since she was such a strong right-wing politician, this would have been an a sacrilege against an optimal situation of a female in the white house. The first female in the white house (VP or P) would need to be a democrat or other left-wing politician. They didn't want her to be a role-model for feminism because she would really be the last person you would want to represent something like feminism.



Here's a nice article on Palin and the bias against her:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/11/30/does-media-love-pick-palin/


The North Korea comment, alone, is ridiculous.

For instance, during the '08 election, Joe Biden said in an interview that FDR's policies during the stock market crash helped bring us back from disaster. There's so much stupidly WRONG with that statement that it makes my brain hurt. Had Palin said something like that, the Media would have shit themselves over it.

With her North Korea comment? She corrected herself the very next sentence, yet the media still went ape shit over it.Where were the 800+ stories about Biden's painfully stupid comment about FDR and the stock market crash of 1929?



Do you see what I mean now?

I'm actually not arguing against you with the media bias against Palin.

I think the Kouric interview, however, is an example of people fairly criticizing Palin for poor performance, rather than some exaggeration, like the "Palin pretended to have her daughter's baby" or some of the things said about her stance on the mentally handicapped early in the election.

I already agreed that not only did Obama receive more and more positive attention, world news was chomping at the bit to make Palin look bad.

However, I think accusing them of starting this, or of just being inherently anti-palin, puts the cart before the horse. She was selected as an entirely unqualified VP candidate, had a dubious record in her home state, and was elevated above a list of people who were much less contentious than she would have been. Her performance in her opening address at the RNC was dismal. her media performances were dismal. Sure, I'll agree that the public's love of "watching car-crashes" added to the medias desire to "stoke the flames", but to a large extent, most media coverage of Palin was fair in saying she was not a very good selection for VP. Was there disproportionately more emphasis on this, than say, Biden's disastrous stance on Israel? yes. Is Palin actually the idiot people think she is? yes.

as to the feminist issue, sure, there might be some truth to the fact that ultra-feminists/ultra-leftists would have felt "their turf" threatened, but there is another side to that argument entirely. Palin represents everything that is wrong with gender discrimination. I wont even go so far as to suggest she was picked because she was a woman , and just put it like this: Palin was not qualified for the job. There are more appropriate women in the Republican party itself, who would have been far better. Palin was a cynical choice that attempted to say, "look, we don't hate minorities", or "look, we can have a history defining presidential ticket too". She wasn't picked because she deserved the position.

I'd say nearly identical things about the Hilary/Obama primary as well, as much more qualified and less minority status politicians were swept up in an election that literally became "vagina" versus "african"

Originally posted by inimalist
I'm actually not arguing against you with the media bias against Palin.

I think the Kouric interview, however, is an example of people fairly criticizing Palin for poor performance, rather than some exaggeration, like the "Palin pretended to have her daughter's baby" or some of the things said about her stance on the mentally handicapped early in the election.

I already agreed that not only did Obama receive more and more positive attention, world news was chomping at the bit to make Palin look bad.

However, I think accusing them of starting this, or of just being inherently anti-palin, puts the cart before the horse. She was selected as an entirely unqualified VP candidate, had a dubious record in her home state, and was elevated above a list of people who were much less contentious than she would have been. Her performance in her opening address at the RNC was dismal. her media performances were dismal. Sure, I'll agree that the public's love of "watching car-crashes" added to the medias desire to "stoke the flames", but to a large extent, most media coverage of Palin was fair in saying she was not a very good selection for VP. Was there disproportionately more emphasis on this, than say, Biden's disastrous stance on Israel? yes. Is Palin actually the idiot people think she is? yes.

as to the feminist issue, sure, there might be some truth to the fact that ultra-feminists/ultra-leftists would have felt "their turf" threatened, but there is another side to that argument entirely. Palin represents everything that is wrong with gender discrimination. I wont even go so far as to suggest she was picked because she was a woman , and just put it like this: Palin was not qualified for the job. There are more appropriate women in the Republican party itself, who would have been far better. Palin was a cynical choice that attempted to say, "look, we don't hate minorities", or "look, we can have a history defining presidential ticket too". She wasn't picked because she deserved the position.

I'd say nearly identical things about the Hilary/Obama primary as well, as much more qualified and less minority status politicians were swept up in an election that literally became "vagina" versus "african"

I think the GOP selected Palin because she was seen as the "answer" to the Obama-Hilary ticket.

Palin IS well-spoken to a crowd. The GOP saw that. They just didin't count on her idiocy affecting the outcome so much.



Also, we could make a better case for Biden being an idiot than Palin, imo. He's just much more articulate and well-spoken in one-on-one interviews. I kind of hit on this point, earlier.

Biden was a terrible selection, but balanced out against the impression that Obama didn't have enough of a military background

he is an idiot

Palin slaughtered the Couric interview - abused by the media or not - on a far deeper and more disturbing level than failing to name her news sources or claiming to see Russia from her backyard.

Originally posted by Quark_666
They've been represented by Sarah Palin, Donald Trump and Michelle Bachman. They've embraced Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck. They regularly draw parallels between fascism and national health care. They regularly attribute all the nation's economic success to the upper class. For three years after Barack Obama was elected, they maintained that he forged his birth certificate. What makes them a relevant political force? Why are they still one of the two largest parties in the United States?

well he has.He cant produce a valid one according to forgery experts.and yes,all those candidates you have mentioned are all corrupt.they have embraced those facists O'Reily,Hannity,and Beck.The only republican candidate that is not in league with them is Ron Paul.

Originally posted by leonheartmm
fox news, churches, wallstreat, racism, poverty, the american edjucation system.

in other words, propaganda, relegion, money, racism, depseration due to poverty, and general ignorance of the populace.

exactly.well said.

Hey, the Republicans may strike a blow for freedom and liberty after all. Isn't the tea party/libertarian plan for healthcare and job creation to decriminalize suicide?

Originally posted by Mr Parker
well he has.He cant produce a valid one according to forgery experts. Who?

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey, the Republicans may strike a blow for freedom and liberty after all. Isn't the tea party/libertarian plan for healthcare and job creation to decriminalize suicide?

suicide is illegal where you live?

Originally posted by inimalist
suicide is illegal where you live?

A capital crime.

Ok, I just read the first like 5 or 6 posts here. And I cannot believe that people blindly believe that republicans are just idiots, or racists, or whatever.

The reason republicans, (and remember, not all republicans are the same, just as not every democrat, or person in general is the same) is that they actually provide plans, they don't always work, but they are at least thinking, rather than just taxing everyone, and throwing money at the problem until something happens.

Now the reason the Democratic party is still around is they are more sly about things, rather than actually trying to fix the problem, they try and make themselves sound like saints, and their opponents like the devil.

You pay attention, listen to a republican's plan, they tell you where they need to cut back, or whatever so it will work. And you listen to a democrats respons, it is almost always "What he wants is to kill elderly, sick, and homeless people" instead of actually pointing out what they don't like about their plan, because they know that they don't have a better plan, so the only thing they can do is demonize whoever they are arguing against.

Saying this, I should let you know, I don't believe that most "republicans" are actually republican, they are just "conservative democrats". Also, it is unfair to lump everyone into one category just because they claim the name Republican, or Democrat, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone who doesn't look at things the way I just said, I know it doesn't apply to everyone.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Hey, the Republicans may strike a blow for freedom and liberty after all. Isn't the tea party/libertarian plan for healthcare and job creation to decriminalize suicide?

You have a problem with decriminalizing suicide and assisted suicide?

Originally posted by menokokoro
Ok, I just read the first like 5 or 6 posts here. And I cannot believe that people blindly believe that republicans are just idiots, or racists, or whatever.

The reason republicans, (and remember, not all republicans are the same, just as not every democrat, or person in general is the same) is that they actually provide plans, they don't always work, but they are at least thinking, rather than just taxing everyone, and throwing money at the problem until something happens.

Now the reason the Democratic party is still around is they are more sly about things, rather than actually trying to fix the problem, they try and make themselves sound like saints, and their opponents like the devil.

You pay attention, listen to a republican's plan, they tell you where they need to cut back, or whatever so it will work. And you listen to a democrats respons, it is almost always "What he wants is to kill elderly, sick, and homeless people" instead of actually pointing out what they don't like about their plan, because they know that they don't have a better plan, so the only thing they can do is demonize whoever they are arguing against.

Saying this, I should let you know, I don't believe that most "republicans" are actually republican, they are just "conservative democrats". Also, it is unfair to lump everyone into one category just because they claim the name Republican, or Democrat, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone who doesn't look at things the way I just said, I know it doesn't apply to everyone. The hypocrisy between your initial point and the rest of your post is astounding.

edit- Worded that wrong. Meant to say the hypocrisy between your ending point and the rest of your post is astounding.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The hypocrisy between your initial point and the rest of your post is astounding.

edit- Worded that wrong. Meant to say the hypocrisy between your ending point and the rest of your post is astounding. How so? My close was just saying that not everyone is the same as each other....I don't see the problem here.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
The hypocrisy between your initial point and the rest of your post is astounding.

edit- Worded that wrong. Meant to say the hypocrisy between your ending point and the rest of your post is astounding. I just realized, you proved my point by posting this. Rather than arguing against my points, you try and make me sound like an idiot.

Thank you, really!

I wasn't aware there was a rule in the GDF that says that I can't comment on people's posts unless I intend to debate with them. haermm

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I wasn't aware there was a rule in the GDF that says that I can't comment on people's posts unless I intend to debate with them. haermm HAHA, there you go again! I love it. I never said that you can't post, you are just reinforcing my point by trying to make me look stupid rather than actually arguing with me.

Originally posted by menokokoro
The reason republicans, (and remember, not all republicans are the same, just as not every democrat, or person in general is the same) is that they actually provide plans, they don't always work, but they are at least thinking, rather than just taxing everyone, and throwing money at the problem until something happens.

So you say "they just want to throw money at everything" instead of actually pointing out what you don't like about their plan, because you know that you don't have a better plan, so the only thing you can do is demonize whoever you are arguing against.

This is too easy.

Originally posted by menokokoro
Now the reason the Democratic party is still around is they are more sly about things, rather than actually trying to fix the problem, they try and make themselves sound like saints, and their opponents like the devil.

Oh that's hilarious. You should do stand up.

Originally posted by menokokoro
You pay attention, listen to a republican's plan, they tell you where they need to cut back, or whatever so it will work. And you listen to a democrats respons, it is almost always "What he wants is to kill elderly, sick, and homeless people" instead of actually pointing out what they don't like about their plan, because they know that they don't have a better plan, so the only thing they can do is demonize whoever they are arguing against.

Actually the democratic argument are that you can't possibly cut enough stuff to make the republican plans work without having the government completely ignore those groups. Which is true. Their plans involve zero increases in revenue. Over the years Republicans become progressively more dogmatic. In fact many of the tea party candidates signed oaths not to compromise.

Originally posted by menokokoro
HAHA, there you go again! I love it. I never said that you can't post, you are just reinforcing my point by trying to make me look stupid rather than actually arguing with me. Trust me, you don't need the help. haermm Your victim complex is making you look quite silly.

Many conservatives and Republicans, especially the ones running for the office of president, have been outspoken about how they are not at all opposed to raising taxes. Raising taxes on the lowest 50%, that is, which I find tremendously hypocritical.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
So you say "they just want to throw money at everything" instead of actually pointing out what you don't like about their plan, because you know that you don't have a better plan, so the only thing you can do is demonize whoever you are arguing against.

This is too easy. ...that was kinda my point. There aren't really plans...they just throw...I feel I've said this already.



Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Actually the democratic argument are that you can't possibly cut enough stuff to make the republican plans work without having the government completely ignore those groups. Which is true. Their plans involve zero increases in revenue. Over the years Republicans become progressively more dogmatic. In fact many of the tea party candidates signed oaths not to compromise. Oh really? wow, MANY, not all, and everyone in the democratic party compromises like mad eh? As for the plan, I understand that, but how is more debt, causing everyone else to eventually not do business with us, so we wont be able to do anything...at all, that includes taking care of "those groups", than cutting back on taking care of "those groups" (most of which don't need what they are getting from the government) starting to drill for oil, building nuclear power plants, etc so that we can be self sustaining, and getting rid of out debt, so that we, both as a country, and individuals can have room to prosper.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Many conservatives and Republicans, especially the ones running for the office of president, have been outspoken about how they are not at all opposed to raising taxes. Raising taxes on the lowest 50%, that is, which I find tremendously hypocritical. How so? How is it fair to charge the rich more (proportionately) by massive amounts, than the poor? Don't the rich earn their money, just like the poor do? Don't the rich hire the poor? What are taxes charging you for, living in the USA?

What it should be is a flat percentile tax on your income. That would make the "rich" have more money, letting them hire more people, and pay those people more money, and so they will be able to buy more products, and cause corporations to..again, make more money, so they can continue to pay their employees...etc, etc...

Or, we can just have another stimulus package (throwing money at it).

Originally posted by menokokoro
How so? How is it fair to charge the rich more (proportionately) by massive amounts, than the poor? Don't the rich earn their money, just like the poor do? Don't the rich hire the poor? What are taxes charging you for, living in the USA?

What it should be is a flat percentile tax on your income. That would make the "rich" have more money, letting them hire more people, and pay those people more money, and so they will be able to buy more products, and cause corporations to..again, make more money, so they can continue to pay their employees...etc, etc...

Or, we can just have another stimulus package (throwing money at it).

Sure a flat tax without loopholes and payable on all money a person makes, regardless of the source, with at least some sort of minimum, could be perfectly fine. The problem is that many rich people in the US, pay much, much less than their middle class counterparts (percentage wise), which is obviously something that should be fixed, and is what Warren Buffet has been referring to.

The minimum I think is necessary for actually poor people with almost no income, that can hardly make ends meet, I don't think it is the governments job to make the lifes of people who already have it the hardest even worse. But besides that, a flat tax could be alright.

Though the logic of your second paragraph doesn't seem to be in line with reality at all, as tax cuts hardly lead to new job creation (similarly to repatriation of money), but there's other arguments to be made for a flat tax so I guess it doesn't matter how we arrive at an agreement.

Originally posted by menokokoro
...that was kinda my point. There aren't really plans...they just throw...I feel I've said this already.

See now I was pointing out actual hypocrisy.

You complain that Democrats deliberately distort Republican positions and your basis for this is a deliberate distortion of a Democratic position (or maybe you're just incredibly ignorant).

Say one thing, do the other. Textbook hypocrisy. Learn it, love it, live it (maybe not those last two).

Originally posted by menokokoro
Oh really? wow, MANY, not all, and everyone in the democratic party compromises like mad eh?

Were you around for the debt ceiling thing? The final democratic plans were as far right as the early republican ones. The republican still didn't accept them. This isn't a thing you can call into question, the thing that's been killing democrats for years is that they constant give in to the republicans whenever a major issue is pressed. The republican response is to move further and further to the extreme so they can keep characterizing democrats as socialists.

Originally posted by menokokoro
As for the plan, I understand that, but how is more debt, causing everyone else to eventually not do business with us, so we wont be able to do anything...at all

Because that's not the plan. That's the Republican demonization of it.

Kenyesian economics is fairly straightforward on this subject. When the economy is doing badly the government spends money to build consumer confidence sustain the people who get hurt until it pick back up again. Once that happens you cut back spending on the programs and use the income produced to pay off debts.

But if you want to play the demonization game: How is the Republican plan of letting the country go crashing into the ground going to save the country? Also I'm sure that killing our public school system will do wonders to produce those intelligent new generations we need.

Originally posted by menokokoro
so that we can be self sustaining, and getting rid of out debt, so that we, both as a country, and individuals can have room to prosper.

If you really believe the country can get out of debt in the next hundred years without increasing its revenue at all I really just don't know what to tell you. We're incredibly deep in debt. Debt is paid off with money. Governments get money from taxes.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
See now I was pointing out actual hypocrisy.

You complain that Democrats deliberately distort Republican positions and your basis for this is a deliberate distortion of a Democratic position (or maybe you're just incredibly ignorant).

Say one thing, do the other. Textbook hypocrisy. Learn it, love it, live it (maybe not those last two).



Hey man, keep your ad hominem to yourself, and address his actual arguments like a real man.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure a flat tax without loopholes and payable on all money a person makes, regardless of the source, with at least some sort of minimum, could be perfectly fine. The problem is that many rich people in the US, pay much, much less than their middle class counterparts (percentage wise), which is obviously something that should be fixed, and is what Warren Buffet has been referring to.I'm glad we agree on this. I don't think that anyone should be paying more proportionately than anyone else.

Originally posted by Bardock42
The minimum I think is necessary for actually poor people with almost no income, that can hardly make ends meet, I don't think it is the governments job to make the lifes of people who already have it the hardest even worse. But besides that, a flat tax could be alright.Hmm, yeah, I see your point, I disagree a TINY bit, just in the case that if someone has something to pay, even if it is just a small amount, they tend to be smarter with their money.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Though the logic of your second paragraph doesn't seem to be in line with reality at all, as tax cuts hardly lead to new job creation (similarly to repatriation of money), but there's other arguments to be made for a flat tax so I guess it doesn't matter how we arrive at an agreement. haha, HOORAY FOR COMPROMISE!

Originally posted by Bardock42
The minimum I think is necessary for actually poor people with almost no income, that can hardly make ends meet, I don't think it is the governments job to make the lifes of people who already have it the hardest even worse. But besides that, a flat tax could be alright

And in practical terms raising income taxes on those people is pointless. Yeah, it's half the country but it's less than 3% of its wealth. You make a limited amount of progress while causing very clear damage in the process.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
If you really believe the country can get out of debt in the next hundred years without increasing its revenue at all I really just don't know what to tell you. We're incredibly deep in debt. Debt is paid off with money. Governments get money from taxes. I never said that we shouldn't increase revenue, I'm just saying that lowering costs is much more important. If you were making 50k a year, but you were spending 70k a year, and you are in debt 50k, what would be the first thing you would do? I would get rid of what ever is causing me to spend 20k more per year than I am making.

Originally posted by menokokoro
I never said that we shouldn't increase revenue, I'm just saying that lowering costs is much more important. If you were making 50k a year, but you were spending 70k a year, and you are in debt 50k, what would be the first thing you would do? I would get rid of what ever is causing me to spend 20k more per year than I am making. Well, I think cutting costs is a big thing. And the most obvious and needless cost is the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan. Would you agree with that, or do you think that should not be cut?

Originally posted by inimalist
suicide is illegal where you live? The States used to have laws against it but those were revoked and there is a sparsely enforced federal law. Regardless, they often find other things to charge an attempted suicide with in order to compel mental health services and occasionally fines and jail time.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
The States used to have laws against it but those were revoked and there is a sparsely enforced federal law. Regardless, they often find other things to charge an attempted suicide with in order to compel mental health services and occasionally fines and jail time.

weird

health facilities can hold people for a night or two here, but it never really becomes a legal thing. not that we have awesome mental health institutions or anything, I'm just surprised to see it treated in a criminal way

Originally posted by menokokoro
How is it fair to charge the rich more (proportionately) by massive amounts, than the poor?

people need $15 a day to live

a poor person makes $20, and a rich person, $25000.

if we tax 25% of the poor person, we only net $5, but their ability to live has been impacted to a major degree. In fact, their tax burden nearly takes away all the money they have to live, prevents them from saving, prevents them from investing, and in general, prevents them from any long term financial planning.

if you tax the rich at 99%, you net $24750, and the rich person still has $250, over 16 times the cost of living.

I'm not advocating we use 5% and 99% as tax rates, but it is unfair, because each dollar you take from a poor person is incredibly more damaging to their personal economic survival than it is for a rich person.

Aside from the sheer pragmatic aspect (the poor don't control enough of the wealth, etc), the idea that fairness is measured in the percentage paid, rather than the real economic impact on people is absurd. like, laughably absurd. Like, I'm going to pay ~2000 in tax this year, making around $17000. 2 grand in my pocket would make a huge difference in my life. You can multiply that rate several times for someone making over $100000, and it wouldn't have even a fraction of an impact on their budget. I can't fathom what kind of calculus you would be doing to say it is more fair to have a flat tax, unless your definition of fair is naively superficial.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Well, I think cutting costs is a big thing. And the most obvious and needless cost is the wars in Iraq an Afghanistan. Would you agree with that, or do you think that should not be cut? Well, to be honest, I don't know a whole lot about what we are trying to accomplish over there. But from what I understand of the cost, yes, I would agree, it is crazy expensive, and unless we are doing something worth while, it should be stopped.

I agree the negativity in politics is awful. But the Dems used against Bush in 06. Was at a Congressman's office and that year it was not about pro our party, it was about we hate Bush and Cheney and we aer going to knock on doors and spread the hate.

Am disappointed though by GOP being the party of no for Obama. Have to say its racist more than anything else. This don't ever raise taxes is just bizarre. I guess the value of money will have to be close to zero before folks wake up and see borrow and spend is just freakish to the wallets of the working class.

Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
Have to say its racist more than anything else.

were they also racist against clinton then?

Clinton was the first black president.

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/billclinton.jpg

I would follow any man on the sax blindly into battle

Originally posted by inimalist
people need $15 a day to live

a poor person makes $20, and a rich person, $25000.

if we tax 25% of the poor person, we only net $5, but their ability to live has been impacted to a major degree. In fact, their tax burden nearly takes away all the money they have to live, prevents them from saving, prevents them from investing, and in general, prevents them from any long term financial planning.

if you tax the rich at 99%, you net $24750, and the rich person still has $250, over 16 times the cost of living.

I'm not advocating we use 5% and 99% as tax rates, but it is unfair, because each dollar you take from a poor person is incredibly more damaging to their personal economic survival than it is for a rich person.

Aside from the sheer pragmatic aspect (the poor don't control enough of the wealth, etc), the idea that fairness is measured in the percentage paid, rather than the real economic impact on people is absurd. like, laughably absurd. Like, I'm going to pay ~2000 in tax this year, making around $17000. 2 grand in my pocket would make a huge difference in my life. You can multiply that rate several times for someone making over $100000, and it wouldn't have even a fraction of an impact on their budget. I can't fathom what kind of calculus you would be doing to say it is more fair to have a flat tax, unless your definition of fair is naively superficial.

lol, ya, I'm going to quote myself, because I have a great story that I think cements my point here...

I took a gender relations course, dealing with Islam and women, where I gave a presentation about some of the issues with Western feminism and why it isn't applicable to the Muslim world.

After the presentation, I got into a fairly heated debate with one of the female students in the class, who was very much what I would call an "extreme" or "dumb" feminist.

The debate wasn't about Islam at all, but more about some of the limitations with feminism in the West itself. Trying to make my point, I gave this example:

Women now outnumber men in university enrollment in all areas save strict math, computers and engineering (and they are closing those gaps too). However, while this is the case, there are still billboards all around the city complaining that girls receive less attention in the class than do boys.

My point was, now that women have, at least, equal opportunity to get into university and post-secondary education, the complaint that they don't get equal class time might reflect certain realities about little boys. For instance, our culture pushes them to be aggressive, competitive (at least more so than girls), certain genetic things, what we consider acceptable "play" for boys, all of these things sort of add up to a situation where sitting and listening quietly for 6-8 hours a day is much more problematic for them than it is for girls, and thus, teachers have to spend more time with them to prevent the class from just totally breaking down. I'd argue that the evidence of unequal attention from teachers reflects how hard school is for little boys, not a bias against little girls, especially in light of the enrollment rates in post-secondary.

The feminist's response to this was, it doesn't matter about enrollment, it is still unequal. At which point I started laughing and ended the conversation...

Anyways, if you are arguing that a flat tax is more equal, you are making the exact same argument that she was. Results be damned, everyone needs the exact same. Equality in absolute terms is deemed as more important than equality in relative terms, ie, it was more important that girls get equal class time rather than it being important that girls have equal access and opportunity to get a post secondary education. Its a type of bureaucratic equality that has no meaning in people's lives. And yes, I have used this example to compare conservatives to feminists, because I know they wont like it.

However, the concept is identical. People will never be equal, nor will their contexts be equal, nor will their needs be equal. A flat tax, like absolute equal classroom time, takes none of this into account. It is a superficial understanding of equality, and a poor one at that. The question is, is it more important for equality to mean, that people are actually equal, have equal opportunity and access to resources, or does it mean that, in a strict bureaucratic sense, everyone gets the same thing, regardless of context.

Originally posted by Mindset
Clinton was the first black president.

http://www.latenightwithjimmyfallon.com/billclinton.jpg Actually it was Carter.

Only black people understand peanuts after inventing them, ergo, Carter was black.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, I'm going to quote myself, because I have a great story that I think cements my point here...

I took a gender relations course, dealing with Islam and women, where I gave a presentation about some of the issues with Western feminism and why it isn't applicable to the Muslim world.

After the presentation, I got into a fairly heated debate with one of the female students in the class, who was very much what I would call an "extreme" or "dumb" feminist.

The debate wasn't about Islam at all, but more about some of the limitations with feminism in the West itself. Trying to make my point, I gave this example:

Women now outnumber men in university enrollment in all areas save strict math, computers and engineering (and they are closing those gaps too). However, while this is the case, there are still billboards all around the city complaining that girls receive less attention in the class than do boys.

My point was, now that women have, at least, equal opportunity to get into university and post-secondary education, the complaint that they don't get equal class time might reflect certain realities about little boys. For instance, our culture pushes them to be aggressive, competitive (at least more so than girls), certain genetic things, what we consider acceptable "play" for boys, all of these things sort of add up to a situation where sitting and listening quietly for 6-8 hours a day is much more problematic for them than it is for girls, and thus, teachers have to spend more time with them to prevent the class from just totally breaking down. I'd argue that the evidence of unequal attention from teachers reflects how hard school is for little boys, not a bias against little girls, especially in light of the enrollment rates in post-secondary.

The feminist's response to this was, it doesn't matter about enrollment, it is still unequal. At which point I started laughing and ended the conversation...

Anyways, if you are arguing that a flat tax is more equal, you are making the exact same argument that she was. Results be damned, everyone needs the exact same. Equality in absolute terms is deemed as more important than equality in relative terms, ie, it was more important that girls get equal class time rather than it being important that girls have equal access and opportunity to get a post secondary education. Its a type of bureaucratic equality that has no meaning in people's lives. And yes, I have used this example to compare conservatives to feminists, because I know they wont like it.

However, the concept is identical. People will never be equal, nor will their contexts be equal, nor will their needs be equal. A flat tax, like absolute equal classroom time, takes none of this into account. It is a superficial understanding of equality, and a poor one at that. The question is, is it more important for equality to mean, that people are actually equal, have equal opportunity and access to resources, or does it mean that, in a strict bureaucratic sense, everyone gets the same thing, regardless of context.

I agree of course with the sentiment. But, I personally haven't done the calculations, but basically the untaxed minimum is alone designed to work against that. If everyone pays no cent on the first say 30 000 (random number), then those people below are not impacted at all, even those at 50000 will only pay 20% on the 20 000 they make over the 30 000 threshold.

Basically you can accomplish pretty much the same thing with a flat tax as with a tax bracket system it just depends on where you put the numbers. (and it is a lot easier)

But well, that's my initial thought really, I'm sure other people have thought about it longer and found reasons why there have to be certain loopholes and why there have to be brackets, but I can't think of one from the top of my head, nor do I remember having heard a particularly convincing one, I am willing to change my mind though.

Originally posted by inimalist
lol, ya, I'm going to quote myself, because I have a great story that I think cements my point here...

I took a gender relations course, dealing with Islam and women, where I gave a presentation about some of the issues with Western feminism and why it isn't applicable to the Muslim world.

After the presentation, I got into a fairly heated debate with one of the female students in the class, who was very much what I would call an "extreme" or "dumb" feminist.

The debate wasn't about Islam at all, but more about some of the limitations with feminism in the West itself. Trying to make my point, I gave this example:

Women now outnumber men in university enrollment in all areas save strict math, computers and engineering (and they are closing those gaps too). However, while this is the case, there are still billboards all around the city complaining that girls receive less attention in the class than do boys.

My point was, now that women have, at least, equal opportunity to get into university and post-secondary education, the complaint that they don't get equal class time might reflect certain realities about little boys. For instance, our culture pushes them to be aggressive, competitive (at least more so than girls), certain genetic things, what we consider acceptable "play" for boys, all of these things sort of add up to a situation where sitting and listening quietly for 6-8 hours a day is much more problematic for them than it is for girls, and thus, teachers have to spend more time with them to prevent the class from just totally breaking down. I'd argue that the evidence of unequal attention from teachers reflects how hard school is for little boys, not a bias against little girls, especially in light of the enrollment rates in post-secondary.

The feminist's response to this was, it doesn't matter about enrollment, it is still unequal. At which point I started laughing and ended the conversation...

Anyways, if you are arguing that a flat tax is more equal, you are making the exact same argument that she was. Results be damned, everyone needs the exact same. Equality in absolute terms is deemed as more important than equality in relative terms, ie, it was more important that girls get equal class time rather than it being important that girls have equal access and opportunity to get a post secondary education. Its a type of bureaucratic equality that has no meaning in people's lives. And yes, I have used this example to compare conservatives to feminists, because I know they wont like it.

However, the concept is identical. People will never be equal, nor will their contexts be equal, nor will their needs be equal. A flat tax, like absolute equal classroom time, takes none of this into account. It is a superficial understanding of equality, and a poor one at that. The question is, is it more important for equality to mean, that people are actually equal, have equal opportunity and access to resources, or does it mean that, in a strict bureaucratic sense, everyone gets the same thing, regardless of context.



I remember that post you quoted of yourself and I did steal the general concept when explaining taxes to an extreme republican friend of mine. He was all about tax relief on the rich and more taxes for the poor because he thought everyone should be burdened equally.


On the feminism thing: I can tell you from personal experience that boys are naturally more aggressive than girls...even from a young age. They have the androgen receptors and slightly elevated testosterone levels, even before they hit puberty (median 0.035 nmol/L and 0.041 nmol/L).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC116575/

I don't know how bio-active that little difference is especially in how it translate to aggression or aggressive play. Anecdotally, the boys seem to be more competitive at a very young age and they physically fight more...even from homes that are those ulta-"RAWR! SPANKING IS TEH DEVIL AND WE HAVE TO BE LIKE MONKS WITH KIDS!".




Maybe you could shed some light from a neuroscience perspective (gender differences in brains, prepubescent.)

Originally posted by Bardock42
I agree of course with the sentiment. But, I personally haven't done the calculations, but basically the untaxed minimum is alone designed to work against that. If everyone pays no cent on the first say 30 000 (random number), then those people below are not impacted at all, even those at 50000 will only pay 20% on the 20 000 they make over the 30 000 threshold.

Basically you can accomplish pretty much the same thing with a flat tax as with a tax bracket system it just depends on where you put the numbers. (and it is a lot easier)

But well, that's my initial thought really, I'm sure other people have thought about it longer and found reasons why there have to be certain loopholes and why there have to be brackets, but I can't think of one from the top of my head, nor do I remember having heard a particularly convincing one, I am willing to change my mind though.

I tend to think that still puts undue stress on those at the limit versus those making exceptionally more than the limit.

If wages were at a point such that people at the lower limit were still well above their needs, I suppose it isn't that problematic, but, if government policy is limited to "raise all taxes" to generate revenue, it just seems like it will choke them first.

In good times, with a prosperous economy and good wages, sure, I think it would work. When stuff starts to contract, wages go down and prices go up, a flat tax sort of hinders the states ability to do anything about it, because it unequally harms the lower/middle class to raise those taxes.

Originally posted by dadudemon
I remember that post you quoted of yourself and I did steal the general concept when explaining taxes to an extreme republican friend of mine. He was all about tax relief on the rich and more taxes for the poor because he thought everyone should be burdened equally.

I made this post yesterday.. lol, it was on the last page

EDIT: did it work?

Originally posted by dadudemon
On the feminism thing: I can tell you from personal experience that boys are naturally more aggressive than girls...even from a young age. They have the androgen receptors and slightly elevated testosterone levels, even before they hit puberty (median 0.035 nmol/L and 0.041 nmol/L).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC116575/

I don't know how bio-active that little difference is especially in how it translate to aggression or aggressive play. Anecdotally, the boys seem to be more competitive at a very young age and they physically fight more...even from homes that are those ulta-"RAWR! SPANKING IS TEH DEVIL AND WE HAVE TO BE LIKE MONKS WITH KIDS!".




Maybe you could shed some light from a neuroscience perspective (gender differences in brains, prepubescent.)

it doesn't really take neuroscience. I would almost argue that, from neuroscience, these differences don't exist naturally (though, I'm not that extreme). It is far more about socialization and what culture's expectation of boys are.

We define, as in western culture defines, boys as just being more aggressive. One of my favorite examples is this beauty magazine that was like "hottest men and women" or something. All of the men were playing sports, building things, being active, whereas the women were just sitting there being hot. We just expect certain things from boys, and it comes true. Look at the toys they have, look at how big sports are for boys, you can even break it down to the type of attire that is made for children (a lot of girls clothing doesn't allow for active and rough play).

Neuroscience would say most of these things are plastic, and we could have a society that doesn't preset gender roles. This is far more of a social-developmental issue, mixed with cognitive schemas and expectations.

I agree with the feminism thing. The last few work places I have been in were 80% women working there, but they say it is still a mans world.

LOL.

Originally posted by inimalist
I made this post yesterday.. lol, it was on the last page

EDIT: did it work?
No, you made a very similar post 3 years ago. I don't have an eidetic memory, so I don't remember the content, verbatim..but I do remember the concepts. I didn't click the link to that post so I just assumed you were quoting that post from 3 years ago. Now that I think about it...you didn't use those percentages but used something in the hundreds of dollars for the poor.

If you need me to...I can search for that post and post it here so you will believe me.

Why can't the banks/government create the money they need to help the poor and not tax?

Originally posted by lord xyz
Why can't the banks/government create the money they need to help the poor and not tax? Because money in those amounts would devalue the money leading to inflation and/or shortages and doing so by executive order would be unconstitutional since only congress has the ability to authorize fiat currency. The only way to do what you're talking about is as follows. According to the law, president has the authority to mint coins and platinum coins can be priced at any value. We could solve a lot of problems, including the retards in congresses abilities to hold the country hostage by minting the country's platinum reserves into coins, depositing them, and writing checks on the values to the tune of several trillion.

Originally posted by Darth Jello
Because money in those amounts would devalue the money leading to inflation and/or shortages and doing so by executive order would be unconstitutional since only congress has the ability to authorize fiat currency. The only way to do what you're talking about is as follows. According to the law, president has the authority to mint coins and platinum coins can be priced at any value. We could solve a lot of problems, including the retards in congresses abilities to hold the country hostage by minting the country's platinum reserves into coins, depositing them, and writing checks on the values to the tune of several trillion. You know, I went to http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html and although it says congress can coin money and borrow money, the word fiat or similar isn't listed in congressional powers or otherwise.

Section 10, "Powers prohibited by states" however lists "emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts" as something the states can't do...I'm guessing the federal government can't do that either.

As for inflation, is increasing the money supply to pay off debts any better?

Originally posted by inimalist
it doesn't really take neuroscience. I would almost argue that, from neuroscience, these differences don't exist naturally (though, I'm not that extreme). It is far more about socialization and what culture's expectation of boys are.

Yes, I'm aware that it is almost entirely environment. This is why I commented on the extreme passive parents that I see that would seem to produce un-aggressive boys.

Originally posted by inimalist
Neuroscience would say most of these things are plastic, and we could have a society that doesn't preset gender roles. This is far more of a social-developmental issue, mixed with cognitive schemas and expectations.

Here's a curve-ball: the gender roll that pretty much every society has for boys is predicated on the fact that boys turn into men with more aggression, test, and androgen receptors.


Meaning...this isn't really a chicken and egg ordeal. The fact that almost 100% of modern humans developed an acceptance of male aggression was present before "humans" actually entered the scene due to a very long line of sexual asymmetry.

Indeed, we find this to be true of evolution in general. Anisogamy (an evolutionary offspring of isogamy) actually promotes biodiversity which contributes better combinations of "different gametes". If the gamete is of the same type, compatibility is rejected. If it is of differing type, they are compatible for fertilization/reproduction.

Bump this process up a few hundred million years and in complexity and you get a binary species: two differing types are required to produce a successful offspring and this is mediated by multiple paths to ensure the best results.

So, I understand why there are a binary species. Would not this be amplified if the "binary" species evolved into hermaphrodites and had an alternate mechanism for detecting how different a member of the same species is? (For example, pheromones have been shown to be useful in determining that another person has a "different" immune system...this also is supposed to slightly prevent inbreeding). It would seem that this is not the case. Regardless, that seems like a simpler mechanism (and easier to evolve) than asymmetric sexuality that ALSO uses mechanisms like the one I explained in my parenthetical. So why did we end up with sexual asymmetry?

It may seem like I'm getting off track, but I'm not.

I say all this to conclude that somehow, nature found the "best" way to produce asymmetrical sexuality. Which has lead to larger, stronger, more agressive males and smaller, less agressive, weaker females.

I say all of this to lead up to this (which you should have guessed a long time ago): society did not really breed this notion that males are supposed to be more aggressive. What "society" is doing is actually an extension of what nature already did. So I don't want to blame society for making males more aggressive: it's just a "compliment" to what nature has already done.

This does slightly conflict with my support of feminism, but not intellectually. Why? Because in our modern society, it is no longer necessary to send your biggest, strongest, most aggressive tribesmen out to hunt.

It's quite obvious that this is not an original thought of my own (from feminism) as this would be the bane and also the primary obstacle to overcome for what I call "good" feminism.

http://www.jstor.org/pss/3811161

That writing indicates that some asymmetry really cannot be overcome (with current science) and we have to just deal with it as educated, thinking, and accepting adults.




I'm not able to think very clearly, at the moment, so forgive how scatter-brained my thoughts are. Discussions like these are better handled verbally as each element can be questioned or investigated to make sure we remain on the same page.



But I can try and sum up this way: society did not really create gender roles. Gender roles created by society are just extensions of a socially complex yet sexually asymmetric species. This means I am more forgiving of ignorant "gender roles" than say, an active feminist. I see them as being almost antiquated behaviors.



It works better with an example:
We don't get angry at male birds for protecting the nest while the female "stays at home" "raising the kids." No, I'm not advocating that female humans stay home and raise kids. lol.... In fact, If I could get my wife to make enough money, I would LOVE to be a stay at home dad and raise my kids.


What does this have to do with the thread? In order to have a discourse on the Republican approach to gender, we much explore the background of gender roles and add a dash of feminist perspective.

Originally posted by inimalist
it doesn't really take neuroscience. I would almost argue that, from neuroscience, these differences don't exist naturally (though, I'm not that extreme). It is far more about socialization and what culture's expectation of boys are.

We define, as in western culture defines, boys as just being more aggressive. One of my favorite examples is this beauty magazine that was like "hottest men and women" or something. All of the men were playing sports, building things, being active, whereas the women were just sitting there being hot. We just expect certain things from boys, and it comes true. Look at the toys they have, look at how big sports are for boys, you can even break it down to the type of attire that is made for children (a lot of girls clothing doesn't allow for active and rough play).

Neuroscience would say most of these things are plastic, and we could have a society that doesn't preset gender roles. This is far more of a social-developmental issue, mixed with cognitive schemas and expectations. Did you consider that those things are expected by our culture, because that is the normal thing to do for those sexes? That makes much more sense to me than what you are insinuating. Otherwise our culture would have had to of evolved in a way that opposes what is normal, which just doesn't happen.

Girls are "expected" to sit there and look pretty because, girls like to look pretty. Boys are "expected" to be active, and to build things, because, well for one thing a man is physically more powerful than a woman, and they want to be active, they want to build things.

Evolutionary Psychology is the only subject I know where the "realizations" of basically normal people always line up in accordance with their pre-existing political and social beliefs. Funny that.

Originally posted by menokokoro
Did you consider that those things are expected by our culture, because that is the normal thing to do for those sexes? That makes much more sense to me than what you are insinuating. Otherwise our culture would have had to of evolved in a way that opposes what is normal, which just doesn't happen.

Girls are "expected" to sit there and look pretty because, girls like to look pretty. Boys are "expected" to be active, and to build things, because, well for one thing a man is physically more powerful than a woman, and they want to be active, they want to build things.

your wife must be a very happy woman

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Evolutionary Psychology is the only subject I know where the "realizations" of basically normal people always line up in accordance with their pre-existing political and social beliefs. Funny that.

cross cultural psych is like that a lot too

I think whatever biological differences in different genders there are, are at the very least severally exacerbated by the social aspects... as far as the biological differences, we should be trying to minimize their effects, not increase them. People are sexually mature after puberty, but I don't see people arguing this "proves" we should be be getting married then like we might have 2000 years ago. Thankfully we are not bound to keep doing things in line with our caveman ancestors.

.



It works better with an example:
We don't get angry at male birds for protecting the nest while the female "stays at home" "raising the kids." No, I'm not advocating that female humans stay home and raise kids. lol.... In fact, If I could get my wife to make enough money, I would LOVE to be a stay at home dad and raise my kids.


For some reason though most women find the MR. Mom thing completely abhorrent and see the man as being lazy. I would I concur would like to do that to. Seen too many women say oh, no he's going out getting a job and a paycheck and then turn around and pay 400 a week in childcare taking up most of that paycheck.

One wonders how that is worth it.

Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
.



It works better with an example:
We don't get angry at male birds for protecting the nest while the female "stays at home" "raising the kids." No, I'm not advocating that female humans stay home and raise kids. lol.... In fact, If I could get my wife to make enough money, I would LOVE to be a stay at home dad and raise my kids.


For some reason though most women find the MR. Mom thing completely abhorrent and see the man as being lazy. I would I concur would like to do that to. Seen too many women say oh, no he's going out getting a job and a paycheck and then turn around and pay 400 a week in childcare taking up most of that paycheck.

One wonders how that is worth it.

When things were bad and my ex husband was out of work.. I took a job on a set. However he did not take care of our kids very well. I still had to clean the mess he made. Walked in at the wee hours of the morning ( 2am) and had to be back to the set by 8am. Many times I walked in on him having his friends over for a card game. they made so such a racket that I couldnt get to sleep! I use to scream loud to go home or shut up, but they didnt care.
my kids were never dressed or fead well the house was never that clean and the wash was never done. OMG if he did cook, the dishes were in the sink for days. he did go food shopping he did do that pretty good.
oh and my daughter's homework was never done.. deff more orderly when he got back to work...

Originally posted by YankeeWhaler
.



It works better with an example:
We don't get angry at male birds for protecting the nest while the female "stays at home" "raising the kids." No, I'm not advocating that female humans stay home and raise kids. lol.... In fact, If I could get my wife to make enough money, I would LOVE to be a stay at home dad and raise my kids.


For some reason though most women find the MR. Mom thing completely abhorrent and see the man as being lazy. I would I concur would like to do that to. Seen too many women say oh, no he's going out getting a job and a paycheck and then turn around and pay 400 a week in childcare taking up most of that paycheck.

One wonders how that is worth it.
When I was born, my mom quit her job to raise me at home, for a few years... after which, she went back to work and it was my dad who quit to be a stay-at-home dad. That seems fair to me.

Originally posted by King Kandy
When I was born, my mom quit her job to raise me at home, for a few years... after which, she went back to work and it was my dad who quit to be a stay-at-home dad. That seems fair to me.

It may be fair, but it could possibly lead to the family having less money overall, no?

Originally posted by Bardock42
It may be fair, but it could possibly lead to the family having less money overall, no?
Oh, sure. I'm talking about if you're in a situation where you're able to do so. Obviously, your first priority is to care for your child in the physical sense, and if that requires both parents working than that's what you'll have to do.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Oh, sure. I'm talking about if you're in a situation where you're able to do so. Obviously, your first priority is to care for your child in the physical sense, and if that requires both parents working than that's what you'll have to do.

yes, when kids are young, it's ok, but when they start school I find it get much harder for both to leave the home for work.

And someone needs to be home when they get home in the teenage years..

Originally posted by alltoomany
yes, when kids are young, it's ok, but when they start school I find it get much harder for both to leave the home for work.

And someone needs to be home when they get home in the teenage years..
Hmm... I was thinking the reverse... when they are in their earliest years you should try to be around as much as possible.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Hmm... I was thinking the reverse... when they are in their earliest years you should try to be around as much as possible.

Tell me what would have YOU done when you were a teenager after school knowing your mom and dad were at work?