Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Keep in mind that "Mostly in rage" part.
I was watching the BBC early this morning, and they showed a clip of her saying something to the effect of "We need to do what's right for our people, and our voters". That right there made me think about the difference between the two groups, Republicans and Democrats. Democrats view the US as a divided country, where everyone is an American. Republicans view the US as a shrinking corporation where half the people aren't Republicans. It was the "OUR" people/voters part that got to me (and clearly what I focused on). It's sort of like she's getting away on semantics with openly saying "Fuck everyone who doesn't agree with us, we're going to do what's right for the people who voted for us, rather than everyone in the country. Fuck those guys." I think that is the major problem in your country right now. As bad as Republicans are in this sense [Republicans first rather than Everyone at the same time], I'm pretty sure that in the past they at least gave a little squirt of a shit about the rest of the country (The democratic part). But now; now all they care about is beating the black guy who has control of their country. It's as if now they view the Democratic voters as ________-loving God-haters. They had clips from regular Republicans; an old man saying "we need to elect the person who can beat Barrack Obama", and a young girl (maybe woman, but she looked 17ish) "I really agree with his [Rick Santorum] views against gay marriage. I agree with that." That is the Republican voter? People who want to elect someone who won't better a country, but will rather beat the other guy? Or someone who will remove the last 5 years of social progression in your country? It's not a fucking game. It's like the dumb people (I'm not removing Democrats from this) do just view it as a "This guy vs that guy" game, and don't even give a shit about what the effect that person will have on your country as a whole will actually be. Yes, I'm aware not all Republicans are like that, and there are more moderate ones. Just as not all democrats are pot-smoking hippies who took liberal arts and dropped out of college before starting their own organic fruit juice company. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Why do I get the feeling that you had these thoughts long before you ever heard of Michele Bachman? I mean, making blanket statements about Republicans being racist bigots who only care about evil rich people is nothing new... Just do a forum search in the politics section. :D
Keep in mind, Michele Bachman lost horribly and dropped out while a moderate pragmatist is in the lead in national polls, and a former front runner is "blacker" than our current president, to use you terminology. Santorum is next to fall, because he only seems to do well when people can't hear him speak. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
But. Quote:
Quote:
I'm not ignorant to the fact it happens in other countries and other parties. It's not like I think Political Asshole-ishness is compartmentalized to the extreme American Republicans alone. But can you honestly say that there is one Republican up there that cares about, and will try improving your country for 100% of it's population? I haven't seen one Republican speech from one of those four horseman where they wanted to lower taxes for the poor, spread education, make healthcare affordable for even the people who can't afford it. I'm not saying they haven't said that, or they don't think it - just that's not what anyone is focusing on. It's all "I love God more than my republican friend here, who isn't very Republican by the way. I also think we should get Obama out of the White House. We need good Republican values back in charge." But really, I was just raging on the people who back those clowns. Because I know those politicians might be more moderate than they make themselves seem, but they have to concentrate their Republican-ness for campaigning - what bugs me is that it works, and that there are full-grown adults who share such bigoted views on the world, as if it should be run exactly how it was in the goold 'ol days when they grew up, the 40's/50's. And I'm aware old-bigots are old-bigots because they grew up in bigoted time where it was all the rage. But it's the 90's. Some people need to get with the times. Everyone is equal; black, white, jew, mormon, child, adult, sick, healthy, educated, uneducated. We're a'll people. Billions of us, all the same. Politics as a whole these days disgusts me. And while there no doubt are many shady Democrats who own shady corporations who launder money and break the law for self-financial gain- but you seriously can't disagree that there are more Republican candidates over the years who happen to own corporations, or have CEO positions in for-profit organizations - unless you're going to make the argument that Democrats are just better at hiding the paperwork. :lolz: But to be clear, Michele Bachmann and Rick Scrotorum just irked me this morning. Set me over the edge. I've had my tea and smoked my joint. My rage has subsided. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Typhoid, it sounds like you don't like the evangelical part of the Republican party -- don't worry, no one like that part of the party except for evangelical Republicans. :)
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Do we really want to have this conversation again? It's been a DECADE of the same "good vs. evil" nonsense. I believe my political ideology helps society, and you believe yours helps society. Let's just agree to disagree on generalities. If you want to discuss specific policy, then I'm all for it, but these broad statements are just tired.
I do think your comments about not hearing Republican ideas about education, taxes, healthcare expose two challenges of most legitimate republican ideas: They don't fit in soundbites, and the media is biased toward simple soundbites and sensationalism, and no longer wishes to engage in complex ideas. Explaining the Republican ideology in regard to eduction is a long conversation, an doesn't fit well in today's short attention span society. I could literally write paragraphs (and I think I have), but if the media only produces headlines like "Republicans want to eliminate the department of education!" it's difficult to get the message out. The same goes for healthcare. I will say that I am a Republican that is not a supporter of Bachman or Santorum, for many of the reasons you mention, and I am obviously not alone. Hell, I've basically called Santorum a scumbag because I've listened closely to him for a long time. He, and perhaps Bachman, are theocrats who want to tell people how they have to live their lives because people are too stupid to do it themselves. Conversely, I think those to the far left want to do the same thing but in a different way. Quote:
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Like I said, i was just raging over those few individuals, not the whole. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I just hate those fucking scrotebags, and hate the fact they A) Get attention and B) Get such seemingly odd numbers of support for the fucked up shit they say. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Oh, and global warming denying! |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
I sympathize with almost everything you said Typh, although I would also add there are just as many crazy Democrats as crazy Republicans.
To play devil's advocate (pardon the pun), there are a lot of evangelicals in America and they do make up a sizable contingency in both political sway and fundraising dollars. I suppose they wouldn't be quite so irritating if they didn't want to impose their social views on everyone (what I would call "conditional conservatism") ... the Democrats try to do this as well though, just from the other side. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Nascar watching is always a bad thing. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
I don't know what it is about the Republican party that attracts the crazies, but I think it does so more than the Democrat party. I think it has to do with their prerogative to harbor and encourage intolerance. Just about any Republican congressman you ask will say they don't support gay marriage, at least not openly. There's something fundamentally flawed with that. You can say the entire Republican party isn't composed of evangelical Christians, but they have their claws in deep enough that it's still a valid criticism to say that the party is representative of them. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is a tangent- again - but I saw an old American citizen on the news and he said "We can't let those Middle East nations get too powerful, they're nations and people ruled by religion." - A relatively fine point for the 21st century. Religion ruling a country is antiquated. If I changed the channel there, that would have been great. But then he had to end it with the gem "God Bless America." For fucks' sake, do you even realize what you're saying. :lol: I found that to be one of the most laugh-worthy news moments I've seen recently. It made me blow ash all over my table. Yeah, I watch the news and smoke. Getting two birds stoned at once. Quote:
That entire paragraph is not serious, just a tongue-in-cheek joke - for the love of science. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
I think you'd like this country song Typhoid:
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
I can't believe that music video exists.
I appreciate this thread for the feeling that created it. However, why are we even allotting emotional response to the likes of Bachmann? Isn't the entire political arena (the one present through media focus) simply partisan semantic confusory? The fact is Obama had the highest corporate funded campaign in history. He was the candidate of choice for the special interests that weave Republican nostalgia as fabric for a certain political tent, and democrats likewise. For fucks sake Obama just signed the most evil bill(NDAA), citing defense budget precedents. This type of reversal from his campaign promises reaches further than republican interference. He had two years to introduce new legislation. The best he could do was sign a corporately securing healthcare bill. and btw, Obama didn't withdraw from Iraq. That was already signed in place by Bush. America needs to elect an independent candidate. What other boycott options are there? |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
That music video is really bad. I have to admit I enjoy the occasional country song, heard that one on the radio, and had the bad idea to look up the band. Needless to say, I won't be listening to them again.
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
I take that back, it definds how you define crazy. I will say this: there are more Dangerous crazy Republicans. Crazy democrats protest in parks, smoke weed, and listen to Neil Young. Crazy Republicans talking about killing Obama, own 4 different automatic rifles and shoot up schools and grocery stores. Republicans will try to deny this but it is true. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Since we're posting country music videos:
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
That was fucking depressing.
Sly - like Kip Moore? |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
When you have a two party system the fringes will always be a part of each party because there is no realistic alternative. The only saving grace is that they never have enough sway to dominate the parties. For example, there are three major issues in republican politics: Fiscal, Social, and Security. You need to have 2 of the 3 to get the nomination. Right now Romney is strong with fiscal, moderate with security and weak with social. Santorum is strong with social, moderate with security, and weak on fiscal (although he is trying to catch up). Paul is strong on fiscal, but weak on security and social issues (this is why he has a predestined cap and will never get the nomination, and he knows it). Bush won re-election because he was strong on social and security issues, and seemed moderate on fiscal at the time. In comparison, McCain was strong on security, was weak on social issues, and when the economy flopped in 2008 he was eviscerated on fiscal issues. Hence, his defeat. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
First off, he said "Republicans talking about", not "Republicans actually following through with". Just clarifying for him, and all. I can see what he's saying though. I'm not saying it's fact, but I get his angle, I think: Your average extreme drunk Democrat will talk about staging a rally, or a people's movement. "Man, we should totally just like...go sit outside city hall tomorrow. Go make a facebook event." Your average extreme drunk Republican will talk about what he and his gun can do. "Man, someone needs to shoot that motherfucker." :lol: |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
... who dropped out of the race after dropping like a rock in the polls and bombing in Iowa of all places.
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
What the hell does that have to do with this question that you just asked? Quote:
Meh. You asked. I gave an answer. Her dropping out, or where she dropped out doesn't change the fact that she's still an extreme Republitool. Palin didn't win - still an idiotic Republitool. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Typh, my issue is that you continually portray the fringe s common, hence the ridiculous description of "average extreme". It's like calling someone a skinny fat person. It makes no sense.
By the way, Romney won 40% of the vote in New Hampshire, drubbing the competition. Santorum plummeted while Perry didn't even win 1 delegate. So much for the "average extreme" wing of the party... |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Thing 1 [There is no thing 2] is that a few posts ago, your issue [not like it's an actual issue] wasn't with me. Why you're projecting it onto me now as if it was originally with me, I don't know. I don't portray the fringe as common. Look at my initial post and every other post. I said numerous times "I know it's a minority"/"I know it's not all Republicans"/"Im not referring to you as one of these people, thats why I'm not addressing you". I even acknowledged in almost every post that this topic was made irrationally and in rage. Hell, the thread title has "mostly in rage" and "Michele Bachmann made me think" in it. I also wasn't portraying the American Republic-fringe as anything other than everything it is in reality to an outsider. While I may be viewed as a Political Super-Democrat to you - I actually vote Conservative in my own country, despite being a liberal person. You're too hung up on that "average extreme" thing. That is your Abortion-topic. You misread how I meant it. Your average extreme-Republican/Democrat. Not Your average-extreme Republican/Democrat. I'm using average as "Average person", but the "Average person" I was referring to was an "Extreme Republican" or "Extreme Democrat". Essentially I meant your average "Fringe" person, since you used that word yourself, that should clear everything up. ;) Quote:
Just because they didn't win doesn't mean they, nor the people who support them stop existing. Lack of votes doesn't negate existence. Maybe that's why Republicans are so obsessed with winning elections by any means necessary. If they don't win they're afraid they'll vanish! :ohreilly: Edit: In all seriousness, I dislike Romney as a person, and hope he fails based on that alone. He's a power monger, and he doesn't even hide it. At least attempt to shield who you really are while you're campaigning. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
...
Are you off your meds? |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Possibly you need to smoke a joint in order to chill out a little. Utilize the knowledge that I joke all the time, and smoke joints. :lol: Time and time again you choose to take me super seriously in a thread about Michele Bachmann (...Michele...Bachmann...) which I created simply to bitch about how I fucking hate that cunt (And I don't hate many people) and the cunts she represents (the people that actually vote for her, and believe the core values she and those like her preach). Are you familiar with Andy Kaufman? I do this to entertain myself, if the viewers get enjoyment out of it - cool. Not my goal at this moment. I'm killing time until my tea is steeped, and this joint is done. Obviously there is the occasional truth to rare things I say [But not really], but it's usually wrapped in a blanket of outlandish comments on a bed of almost-racist remarks. Seriously dude, re-read most of my posts, especially in this thread. The sole purpose of most of my posts is to entertain myself and kill time. Chill. |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Ok, so this is a result of you being ON meds... got it.
And for the record, I only engaged because you made generic comments about all Republicans within your first few posts, not because you went after Bachman. And I don't fall for the trick of hiding baseless assertions in "jokes". Ridicule is actually one of Saul Alinsky' "Rules for Radicals" because the person making the false or ignorant assertions can't held accountable because he "is just joking". This is why I have always had an issue with Michael Moore and to an extent, Jon Stewart. They are intellectual cowards. The bottom line is you find it your jokes funny because you think your comedy is based in truth, and I will always point out when you are being false regardless of whether or not you are "joking". |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
Quote:
It just happens that since this is a forum where I kill time, it all gets concentrated here. Quote:
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Sorry, I come from the school of "say what you mean and mean what you say". The "say dumb shit to aggravate people" school never made sense to me...
|
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
I suppose that's the difference between us. I was educated at both of those fine establishments. The only times I purposely try to aggravate people is either when I'm very drunk and bored - which doesn't happen anymore- or am on the internet. It just so happens that since I stopped drinking, this is the only outlet I have. But don't get me wrong. As after-school-special as this thread has become, the OP was legit, despite being irrational rage. I really did make this thread because those type of Republicans frustrate me. Other political people frustrate me, and especially the leaders of my own country, and some other things - so it's not like it's only that type of Republican that I dislike. It's that type of person I dislike. It just happens that a lot of ignorant racists do tend to be very extreme on the political scale, and in your country those people are Republican. You have to admit, there aren't many offensively racist people (or people very ignorant to other cultures - having a completely closed mind) who consider themselves to be Democrats. I do mean that seriously. I doubt anyone could argue there is an equal number of racists between Republicans and Democrats. I'm not saying Democratic racists don't exist, (or racists who consider themselves to be impartial or in other parties or what-have-you) I'm just saying there are far more people that consider themselves to be some type of Republican who happen to be so ignorantly and offensively racist. And it is those people I dislike. Not their political affiliation. But when referring to them it is much easier to refer to them as "Republicans", just as it's easier to refer to a fucking hippy as a "Democrat". Now, in reality I am aware the Republican party is not a racist party, or a pro-white party. They are a pro-business party; They are a pro-senate party. They are, in essence - a party that wants a Republic. (I guess that's what it actually is - the Democratic People's Republic of America. Much like North Korea, minus the communism...depending on who you ask.) A country run by high ranking senate members who make the best decisions for the mob. Where the Democrats aim to be a country which is run by the echo of the voters, whatever their sexual preference, religion, or skin colour. I'm fine with that. It is what it is, and it's not even my country - so really - Big deal to me. I have nothing against "Republicans". But there are certain people who consider themselves to be Republican whom I think there is a special circle of hell reserved for; which consists of an eternity of owning nothing but failing businesses (or successful abortion clinics) in poor neighbourhoods populated by no white people who all are in same-sex marriages and nobody speaks English. To be fair, I hate hippies. Can't stand 'em. The full on no-showering-dreadlock-having-shady-tree-sitting-guitar-strumming-no-shoe-wearing-tree-hugging-smelly-fuckin'-hippy. I hate the college kids who do it as a statement, and I hate the people who do it for a living. They're just as ignorant, but in the exact opposite way. You can't put people 100% ahead of the 'Country'. If you have a failing economy, social policies will not pull you out of that. (Hell, in the Occupy Wallstreet thread when I was saying those people need to get a fucking job, I meant it. Not getting a job definitely isn't the way to boost your economy. Number of jobs available is a different subject, but I assume half of those jerkwads don't actively look for a job.) This is why I believe you've got such a problem now - before when both parties worked together that achieved the perfect middle of social change and corporate growth. But now that nobody is working together, the view is seemingly "one or the other". What actually bugs me is that it appears that nobody in your country is willing to work with the other side for the betterment of future generations of people not related to themselves. IE: Bettering the country as a whole, rather than bettering part A, or part B, while diminishing part C (and of course part C is always whatever the other guy wanted to improve). It appears like most have lost what leading a country actually means, and are simply putting winning, and their views ahead of "How will I affect my country in 10 years time" or "Will this honestly better the lives of everyone in the country I am the head of." It seems as if these people (all of them, both sides) are slowly forgetting they're not "ruling" a Country. They're the figurehead of the masses. Like Agent Smith said in V for Vendetta: "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of it's people." |
Re: Michele Bachmann made me think [Mostly in rage]
Quote:
I don't like country music. I like Alison Krauss, I think she has a beautiful voice. I also enjoy Lady Antebellum. Few country music things are pleasant to my ears. |
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:24 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
GameTavern