Jump to content

The Democrat Thread


Rex Kickass

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • StrangeSox

    3536

  • Balta1701

    3002

  • lostfan

    1460

  • BigSqwert

    1397

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 11:05 AM)
So in other words, you have no problem with the concept of buying votes, you just care about the mechanism of how its done? It sounds like I've rapidly killed your principles there.

I have an idea. Let's just get rid of the government all together!

 

No, I don't like it, but it will always happen. Our government is just as corrupt (if not more so) then any of these businesses you love to throw s*** all over.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:26 AM)
Our government is just as corrupt (if not more so) then any of these businesses you love to throw s*** all over.

Of course it is. Because for at least the last 20-30 years (can't speak to before that because frankly I wasn't around)...they've been run by the same people. That's the short definition of a plutocracy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 11:51 AM)
Of course it is. Because for at least the last 20-30 years (can't speak to before that because frankly I wasn't around)...they've been run by the same people. That's the short definition of a plutocracy.

Exactly! And we expect "change"?

 

That's the hard part and why I asked the other day... is it time for term limits?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 09:55 AM)
Exactly! And we expect "change"?

 

That's the hard part and why I asked the other day... is it time for term limits?

And as I replied...term limits do nothing as long as the system requires you to kowtow to the highest bidder in order to get elected. Hell, if we're looking at it in that regard, it could easily make things worse, because it takes a lot more money to run a competitive race than it does to run nearly-unopposed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 11:56 AM)
And as I replied...term limits do nothing as long as the system requires you to kowtow to the highest bidder in order to get elected. Hell, if we're looking at it in that regard, it could easily make things worse, because it takes a lot more money to run a competitive race than it does to run nearly-unopposed.

I hadn't thought of it the way you said it, and that's true too. So I guess we're screwed no matter what. There's no way that we can get rid of corruption unless lobbiests are 100% outlawed, and that won't happen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:09 AM)
I hadn't thought of it the way you said it, and that's true too. So I guess we're screwed no matter what. There's no way that we can get rid of corruption unless lobbiests are 100% outlawed, and that won't happen.

3 words. Public campaign financing. It's the closest thing to a panacea I can offer. It's difficult to institute and people can still go around it if they want to self-finance, but spending the $5-$10 billion in public funds on making sure that no official campaigning for office has to beg businesses, interest groups, and rich people for money will pay for itself many times over.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 12:12 PM)
3 words. Public campaign financing. It's the closest thing to a panacea I can offer. It's difficult to institute and people can still go around it if they want to self-finance, but spending the $5-$10 billion in public funds on making sure that no official campaigning for office has to beg businesses, interest groups, and rich people for money will pay for itself many times over.

So get rid of the system and make it totally public? Then, the "rich" get their guy, right?

 

I'm asking because it's something that I wish we ALL could fix.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Mar 18, 2009 -> 10:14 AM)
So get rid of the system and make it totally public? Then, the "rich" get their guy, right?

 

I'm asking because it's something that I wish we ALL could fix.

Yes, totally scrap the current system, and offer a competitive system that is funded through tax dollars. It has to actually meet all of the fundraising demands and not be restrictive such that there's no benefit to people for opting out, and it has to allow people to spend even more if their opponent does opt out or is rich enough to self-finance. A number of states have tried similar things. There is of course a downside, as it makes it harder for 3rd party or insurgent candidates to truly get a shot. Hillary Clinton might well be president now if that was the system. But I think it'd be a major improvement, most importantly at the Congressional level.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another Bows to Rush after blasting him...

New York congressional candidate Jim Tedisco has boldly gone where few Republicans have been before: publicly blowing off firebrand conservative talk host Rush Limbaugh.

 

"Rush Limbaugh is meaningless to me," Tedisco said in an interview with the Oneonta (N.Y.) Daily Star editorial board on Thursday. "The only constituency I'm worried about are the residents of the 20th Congressional District.''

 

The Huffington Post contacted Tedisco's campaign to ask for him to expand on his thoughts on Limbaugh.

 

"Jim's comments were in response to a question about what voters are asking him about on the campaign trail," writes campaign spokesman Adam Kramer. "So far, the concerns he has been hearing from voters on the campaign trail have been local in nature, such as his support for lower property taxes, fiscal responsibility, and his opponent's appalling support for the AIG bonus loophole. That was his point and any effort to characterize it otherwise is a distortion of the facts."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Now, I'm not about to defend Obama's "Special Olympics" comment (it was stupid and in poor taste, so he deserves the criticism he's getting right now)... but am I the only one who can't help but to think that if Obama was a Republican and generated a similar backlash, that the conservative talking heads would be whining about how there is only "politically correct" freedom of speech in America? They do the whole faux outrage thing whenever someone makes a racially insensitive remark or a gay joke that they're forced to apologize for later, I can't see why this would be any different.

Edited by lostfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 06:28 PM)
Now, I'm not about to defend Obama's "Special Olympics" comment (it was stupid and in poor taste, so he deserves the criticism he's getting right now)... but am I the only one who can't help but to think that if Obama was a Republican and generated a similar backlash, that the conservative talking heads would be whining about how there is only "politically correct" freedom of speech in America? They do the whole faux outrage thing whenever someone makes a racially insensitive remark or a gay joke that they're forced to apologize for later, I can't see why this would be any different.

I think in this case you can throw away party lines and just say, its was a dumb thing to say. Sure there will be people from each side looking to exaggerate or defend anything like this but at the end of the day there wasnt anything malicious about the comment. Its a dumb analogy a lot of people have made and a joke thats probably said behind a lot of closed doors. While I do think ANY president should know better than to slip and say it, there are more important things going on in the world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 08:01 PM)
I think in this case you can throw away party lines and just say, its was a dumb thing to say. Sure there will be people from each side looking to exaggerate or defend anything like this but at the end of the day there wasnt anything malicious about the comment. Its a dumb analogy a lot of people have made and a joke thats probably said behind a lot of closed doors. While I do think ANY president should know better than to slip and say it, there are more important things going on in the world.

Hey now, I hardly ever make partisan rants like that, just let me have my one! :lolhitting

 

My mini-rant isn't really directed at what people are saying about Obama, or partisanship in general (as I said in the first post, he deserves his criticism, but it'll blow over sooner rather than later), it's more about people who only see the First Amendment as it suits them. Let someone call them out for saying something insensitive that pissed people off (which 1A has absolutely nothing to do with by the way, if you say something dumb and there's consequences, it's your fault, that's not protected), then it's PC America gone crazy. But that doesn't apply if someone they don't like does the same thing. Flame away!

Edited by lostfan
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 06:28 PM)
Now, I'm not about to defend Obama's "Special Olympics" comment (it was stupid and in poor taste, so he deserves the criticism he's getting right now)... but am I the only one who can't help but to think that if Obama was a Republican and generated a similar backlash, that the conservative talking heads would be whining about how there is only "politically correct" freedom of speech in America? They do the whole faux outrage thing whenever someone makes a racially insensitive remark or a gay joke that they're forced to apologize for later, I can't see why this would be any different.

 

I won't attack Obama, nor would I attack one of my Republican politicians because I would be a hypocrite if I did. As bad as it is , I've made a joke about the mentally disabled in the past. It's not right, but I think it's happened with many people in the past.

Edited by WilliamTell
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (WilliamTell @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 08:25 PM)
I won't attack Obama, nor would I attack one of my Republican politicians because I would be a hypocrite if I did. As bad as it is , I've made a joke about the mentally disabled in the past. It's not right, but I think it's happened with many people in the past.

I think I honestly make a reasonable effort not to make fun of the mentally disabled, for example I don't say "retard" or things like that and I tell kids I don't want to hear them using it around me, and at work there is a company that hires mentally handicapped people to clean up, and I'd probably be very offended if a co-worker didn't treat them with the same dignity and respect anyone else would get (nobody does this, fortunately). But I'm not perfect about it, I'll call someone out in a heartbeat if I think they're stupid (big difference between being mentally handicapped and just being plain stupid IMO), and I say "are you retarded" or "I think so and so is mildly retarded" even though I probably shouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (lostfan @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 07:05 PM)
Hey now, I hardly ever make partisan rants like that, just let me have my one! :lolhitting

 

My mini-rant isn't really directed at what people are saying about Obama, or partisanship in general (as I said in the first post, he deserves his criticism, but it'll blow over sooner rather than later), it's more about people who only see the First Amendment as it suits them. Let someone call them out for saying something insensitive that pissed people off (which 1A has absolutely nothing to do with by the way, if you say something dumb and there's consequences, it's your fault, that's not protected), then it's PC America gone crazy. But that doesn't apply if someone they don't like does the same thing. Flame away!

Yup, that pretty much sums it up. Ive jumped on Obama for small things in the past but I never would over saying something that isnt PC. I think political correctness is taken too far and everyone needs to lighten up on it if the topic isnt meant to truly hurt anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's two things that come to mind for me on the "special olympics" outrage...

 

First, it's a completely stupid outrage, but it does show what Obama thinks when the telepromter isn't telling him what to say. But, again, I repeat, this is stupid outrage and should really be dismissed as so... he's not nearly so polished, is my point here...

 

BUT WAIT... (I feel like an infomercial)...

 

If this were a Republican saying this, they would have been CRUCIFIED and we would be heeding calls of resignation by now, and I'm damn serious about this. Hello, Trent Lott, etc. That line of hypocracy is where I have a problem.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Mar 20, 2009 -> 07:37 PM)
Yup, that pretty much sums it up. Ive jumped on Obama for small things in the past but I never would over saying something that isnt PC. I think political correctness is taken too far and everyone needs to lighten up on it if the topic isnt meant to truly hurt anyone.

 

Yeah PC goes way too far in my opinion. As president you're under a microscope all the time, it's almost impossible to not say something offensive or just plain stupid. I had more of a problem with Obama giving Britain back a present that was a bust of Winston Churchill. I found that sort of rude, but that's another story.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...