Shug on 12/4/2012 at 11:46
Aside from being a crazy bastard I find it incredible that Santorum openly talked about censorship as okay (i.e. getting rid of his "google problem") and nobody seemed to find it particularly alarming
CCCToad on 12/4/2012 at 14:08
Incredible? Yes
Predictable? Absolutely.
Understand that the american "conservative" mindset isn't what it used to be, and these days consists of little more than authoritarian mindset. These people are perfectly happy to be subjects in a monarchy as long as their monarch hates the same people they do.
DDL on 12/4/2012 at 16:50
NEWS FLASH SHOCKER: people identify with leaders that share their views :eek:
Coz let's be honest, replace "hates" with "feels the same way about", and you could describe any people, ever.
Well, except libertarians, but they're all fucking crazy.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/4/2012 at 00:21
Quote Posted by CCCToad
I PAINT EVERYONE WITH SUCH A SIMPLISTIC BROAD BRUSH THAT MY OPINIONS ARE MEANINGLESS.
.
CCCToad on 13/4/2012 at 00:28
Funny how anyone else can make as a ridiculous a statement hating on republicans they want and RBJ is perfectly fine with it. Besides which, I fail to see how its any more oversimplified than stating that all organized religion is a fraud.
Besides, its fact that GOP-ers are fascists and probably don't even realize the implications of their beliefs.
Rug Burn Junky on 13/4/2012 at 01:46
Because while others may have strong descriptions which exaggerate existing truths, your hyperbolic stupidity is not merely persistent, but detailed in how blatantly wrong it is (ie. Obama=neocon? Christ, that's like complaining about how multicultural the Klan is).
Throw in the fact that you leap off of these assumptions as though they were a diving board into an empty swimming pool, i have to wonder how you manage to continue to deceive yourself into believing that you are merely a sober contributor dispensing to any political discussion.
But as bemused as i am by that question, i really don't care. I just wish every political discussion on this forum weren't suffocated in the crib by your tangents into idiocy, though i do enjoy watching you crack your skull on concrete.
CCCToad on 13/4/2012 at 04:55
In all fairness, I think my summation was about as acucrate a description of Republicans as was possible in such a short space. American "conservatism" = fascism lite.
And, I will give that in many "neocon" areas, Obama isn't, a misuse of words on my part. Point i was poorly attempting to make is that both Romney and Obama follow the Bush Doctrine to a T.
faetal on 13/4/2012 at 11:20
This is likely because there is way too much of a wealth = influence issue in US politics for any president to truly have an effect. The Bush doctrine was in essence just the corporate interests charter, as will be any presidency in the US on account of how it all fits together mechanistically. Much as it is in the UK, I'm beginning to see government for what it is - a PR department for the wealthy elite, which can be conveniently blamed for all problems and switched out for an alternative every x cycles in order to provide the illusion of democratic choice.
(Edit - and by beginning to see, I mean beginning to stop ignoring what I've known for about a decade)
Azaran on 13/4/2012 at 15:43
No, justice would be if the Republican party was struck by a major scandal that permanently destroyed its reputation.
heywood on 13/4/2012 at 23:20
Quote Posted by faetal
This is likely because there is way too much of a wealth = influence issue in US politics for any president to truly have an effect. The Bush doctrine was in essence just the corporate interests charter, as will be any presidency in the US on account of how it all fits together mechanistically. Much as it is in the UK, I'm beginning to see government for what it is - a PR department for the wealthy elite, which can be conveniently blamed for all problems and switched out for an alternative every x cycles in order to provide the illusion of democratic choice.
(Edit - and by beginning to see, I mean beginning to stop ignoring what I've known for about a decade)
That's certainly one reason, but I think it's been overemphasized of late.
The US executive branch has about 4 million employees, enough regulations and policies to fill a landfill and much of its budget is obligated in multi-year contracts. Bureaucracies that large don't change direction quickly.
Worse, the electorate prefers to cast votes for people whose ideas, values, intentions, and charisma they like and don't give adequate consideration to leadership ability and proven experience running a large bureaucracy. Then when the executive branch changes hands we throw out the entire top level of management and replace them with political appointees. So the executive branch is really run by underpaid mid and senior level managers who have vested their career in the agency they work for.
In our system, there is a huge gap between the actual power of political leaders to make change and the expectations of the electorate who seem to think they're handing god-like powers to each new administration.
