Exhaustion 2012 (or, It's Not Forcible Rape if the SuperPAC is Willing) - by june gloom
CCCToad on 31/8/2012 at 17:37
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
The rest of the world seemed to like Reagan enough, even though he was the person who sold the GOP out to the christian right.
Can be argued.....though most of that actually came from the Gingrich era. The early 90s were also a time period in which Pat Robertson and his ilk were ramping up their political activism.
Shug on 31/8/2012 at 18:22
Quote Posted by Jason Moyer
Look, I voted for Gore (along with a solid majority of Americans), I hate GWB, but he won the election by the rules that we use to determine these things.
I assume by 'the rules to determine these things' you mean the supreme court of america arrived to make another terrible judgement to match their other illustrious miscarriages
Seriously though, was it not regarded as a pretty big hash by people that are in the know on these things?
Morte on 31/8/2012 at 19:37
The way I see it, the Republican party -- fueled by a noxious brew of moneyed interests, salvation anxiety and the particularly American perversion of Christianity that is is prosperity doctrine -- is quickly approaching some sort of end point of tribalism. Soon they'll cheer the world burning because Liberals hate having their houses on fire.
gozioso on 1/9/2012 at 00:20
Quote Posted by Vivian
Mate, have you
seen Prince Charles? There's some serious shadow-over-innsmouth type shit going on with his face. What class system? It's just a reflection of how rich you are. We have as much of a class system as any other country.
LMAO!!! :joke:
LarryG on 1/9/2012 at 05:13
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
...people are still naturally in a certain class ...
Am I the only one who has a little trouble with this statement? I just don't buy into the idea that the ones who were lucky enough to have wealthy and privileged parents somehow "naturally" deserve to be treated differently than anyone else, let alone are "natural" leaders. Take away their money and friends and special education, and I wonder how "naturally evident" it would be that they belong to a certain class. Children adopted by the elite tend to behave as though they are "naturally" privileged, regardless of the socioeconomic status of their natural parents. I'm afraid that when it comes to someone showing "good breeding" all it has ever shown is good upbringing. Manners, sophistication, self-confidence are all learned not inherited. There is no divine right to rule; that's pure propaganda from the rulers. Their ancestors were just the best bullies and thugs around who stole from the everyone else. The weird thing is that so many years (centuries) later the heirs of the bullied and dispossessed are still convinced that the the bullies and their heirs are somehow "better" than they are. How hard we work to perpetuate and sustain our own chains!
SubJeff on 1/9/2012 at 08:07
I think you're hung up on class meaning people think they are better than others. It doesn't.
Take away money, social connections and education? What? Why not take away their memories and any languages they know? What is the point of this exercise? To prove that no person is better than any other at the most basic level? Well of course that is true but the things you are asking to remove are important parts in a person's make up so it doesn't quite make sense.
It's like the exam is over, A scored higher than B, and you're saying "Hey A, you think your score is better? What if we hadn't let you revise, eh? What if we hadn't let you learn any of that stuff before you went into the exam, eh? Who'd be better then?"
:rolleyes:
Vasquez on 1/9/2012 at 10:04
Quote Posted by LarryG
I just don't buy into the idea that the ones who were lucky enough to have wealthy and privileged parents somehow "naturally" deserve to be treated differently than anyone else, let alone are "natural" leaders.
Species-wise, humans are social pack animals, and they quite naturally tend to form hierarchies. And I'm not saying we shouldn't strive for equality, I'm saying this biological fact should be recognised and addressed - if we keep overlooking our "animal side" and stick to the false assumption that humans are somehow above all of it, we most surely will never have even a slightest chance to achieve true equality.
Personally, I don't have big expectations that on individual level we'll ever see each other as equals, but I'm sure we have a chance of doing a bit better than right now.
Scots Taffer on 1/9/2012 at 10:10
Quote Posted by Subjective Effect
The serve a number of purposes. Firstly and most obvious is the tourism. People come to see stuff in the UK, and specifically London, because of them and there is no doubt it's because the family is still functioning (unlike in France or Germany) since other European countries have equally, if not more interesting, Royal histories and artefacts and they don't get the same.
The Royals serve as "side-step" ambassadors for the UK. They go on Royal visits to countries we want something from and this is A Big Deal. Want to negotiate some mining deal? Queen goes to country first.
So tourism and diplomatic supremacy?
The first one is trumped by pretty much every other European country that manages to have a tourist trade partly driven by their
former monarchies/governments etc.
As for the second... Yeah, I recall the last time the queen rocked up and it achieved some diplomatic coup not otherwise achieved by conventional methods.
Thirith on 1/9/2012 at 10:39
Unless I misunderstand you, you seem to be saying that the fact of Royal visits proves that they're worthwhile, but Her Majesty doing them != those visits having a measurable positive effect. Obviously the Royals do what they can to appear to have a valid function and reason for continuing to exist, but I've often had the impression that the positive net benefit of the Royals was primarily a fiction that Brits buy into very willingly than anything that's actually been proven. (A bit like Cameron's "The Olympic Games will get us so much money in terms of tourism and long-term development!", when the reality is most likely going to be that any tangible, measurable gains will be outweighed by the cost.)
