posted
No seriously my mom says she thinks he's going to croak, that he has the look of a one foot in the graver and so she's gonna vote for him so John Edwards will be president. I'm kind of having a tough time deciding who to vote for so maybe this will tip the balance
cheney heart-blarsts, george ensures no more jennas by repeatedly racking himself, kerry mistakes his "special sauce" for a disenfranchized 58th variety, or Edwards rethinks his choice of a distrophied arse of a wife but gains the benefit of a SAG backing?
posted
I'm no doctor, but I'm pretty sure we're all going to die.
And if you'd watched John Kerry playing ice hockey a few months back, you'd have seen that he seems to be in perfect health. I don't think he's dying any more quickly than any other man his age.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you're not going to even try and intelligently state a position, the least you could do is try and make it funny.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"And if you're not going to even try and intelligently state a position, the least you could do is try and make it funny"
WHOA! Down Boy! If I'd wanted to do either one I would have. I was asking a question, brought on by the fact that I mostly tend consider my mother not expressly clinically insane, if pretty severely intuitive. And if I may say so you will feel pretty stupid if he does get elected and die in office. As for my position, chump, I'm still trying to figure that out.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well if he's definitely going to win, I guess i don't need to vote for him, and I can go with a safer bet, but the fact is that a war time United States President has never lost, so might be a tougher call than just who's got the better campaign.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And if I may say so you will feel pretty stupid if he does get elected and die in office.
What, because someone's "intuitive" mom predicted it? Not likely.
quote:As for my position, chump, I'm still trying to figure that out.
Yes, well. I'm rubber, and you're glue. Everything you say bounces off of me and sticks to you.
If nothing else, I have to say that you give this forum a very chatroom-esque feel, and that brings back fond memories of my own high school blowhard phase. Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
how can a man desert his duty and win a war? (histrionics and current behavior?) not that a republican has anything at stake other than preserving the fancy of the elitist brotherhood he serves.
posted
Fallow, I try to make allowances for your peculiar posting style, but if you think I serve any elitist brotherhood--think again.
Look at it this way--the Republicans at least theoretically will allow a person to get rich, even if in practice wealth tends to get confined to those who are already rich. The Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us in the form of social programs controlled by the government--which, in turn, must be controlled by Democrats.
Neither is really what I want, but the Republicans are closer.
posted
No mean old frisco, not because my mother predicted it, though I could do that via hemlock, but you'd look feel the fool nonetheless, women's intuition is not neccessarily to sneeze at
"If nothing else, I have to say that you give this forum a very chatroom-esque feel, and that brings back fond memories of my own high school blowhard phase"
Why thank you, I was just thinking that myself. I do pretty well at that don't I. not quite Spam but close, very close.
posted
"Look at it this way--the Republicans at least theoretically will allow a person to get rich, even if in practice wealth tends to get confined to those who are already rich. The Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us in the form of social programs controlled by the government--which, in turn, must be controlled by Democrats."
Well see I've got this new operating revoloutionary theory that maybe they're not all bad, and so maybe I don't have to vote independent or green or what have you or not at all this time.
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:No mean old frisco, because my mother predicted it, though I could do that via hemlock, but you'd look feel the fool nonetheless, women's intuition is not neccessarily to sneeze at
I have no idea what this means, but I assume it has something to do with your mother's allergies. If it's Benadryl she needs to stop these crazy visions, I have an extra bottle she's welcome to.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, Sun, they're not all bad. I was speaking in generalities. There are plenty of individual Republicans who want everyone to have their own, personal, private store of wealth, and plenty of individual Democrats who want to be sure everyone is well-taken-care-of, nothing more. But as groups, and wielding the power of the state to make things go their way, the ideals tend to get twisted into something less noble.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"I have no idea what this means, but I assume it has something to do with your mother's allergies. If it's Benadryl she needs to stop these crazy visions, I have an extra bottle she's welcome to."
ROFLOLOLOL You have no idea what it means because I totally flubbed it up, go back and read the edited version
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh and Frisco I'm going to tell her you said that and she'll probably behead you personally, free of charge
Posts: 1103 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fallow, I'd like to be able to take care of myself rather than have someone take care of me--caretakers have this dangerous tendency to get unreliable when there's trouble--and so I theoretically stand with the Republicans. I do recognize that there are some people who can't take care of themselves, and they should be provided for, but the state shouldn't infantilize everyone else to do it.
And I also recognize that the Republican position is all-too-easily twisted, so I reserve the right to support other candidates when I think they'll do a better job.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Democrats want to take all our money so that everyone is poor, then dole it back to us in the form of social programs controlled by the government--which, in turn, must be controlled by Democrats.
Let me get this straight--you believe that the Democrats are actually Communists? How odd.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That would be a very extreme interpretation of what I said, but in a manner of speaking, I suppose you could look at it that way. Democrats want high taxes and big social programs to transfer wealth to the poor. Most of them mean no harm by it--they're just looking to make the poor better off and don't expect to harm the rich much. But in order to do this, they have to put that tax money in the hands of the government, and the government is just people--no more (or less) trustworthy than anyone else. Money is power, and we know what people in power typically do with power--they try to accumulate more.
Remember, I'm not accusing Democrats alone, or any individual Democrat. The moneyed classes that enjoy Republican policies the most are no bettter than the government bureaucrats about taking more money and power for themselves. But at least the Republicans say the money you earn is yours--not the government's.
That's why I said in another thread that, if I thought it were possible, I'd favor heavy estate taxes. Money transferred from generation to generation isn't earned, and therefore isn't (necessarily) deserved. But it's also unfortunately easy to protect.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:That would be a very extreme interpretation of what I said
Really? You did say that the Democrats want to take and then redistribute all of everyone's money, right? Or did I hallucinate that?
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
ae, read speeches by Democrats. Read the party platform. The constant emphasis is on social welfare projects and higher taxes to support them. What else can you call it?
It's well-meaning, for the most part, but it's real. It's the natural consequence of individual greed. It's just expressed in a different way from the Republican version.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Trevor....I'm not trying to incite an argument. Fallow asked me what my position was. Each successive post has asked me to clarify.
Truthfully, the results look more and more extreme in my own mind, which could be a sign that I'm on the wrong track, or it could just be a sign that as I clarify I'm accidentally magnifying the extremes.
All I'm saying is that people seek power, those who have more of it can more easily gain still more, and Democrats and Republicans (or more accurately their party machinery and the more corrupt individuals) have their own distinctive methods of gaining it. I'm not even saying one is (much) better than the other.
It's certainly no more trollish than the way some of the more liberal people here consistently accuse Republicans (only) of corruption. At least I'm being evenhanded.
Addit: it has suddenly occurred to me that it might be ae you're accusing of trolling.
posted
I have never said anything about a 100% tax rate, ae, and you can see that quite easily. There may be some extremists or very corrupt individuals among the Democrats who might propose it, but they can doubtless see that an action like that would be transparent.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Transparent, meaning that it's what all Democrats REALLY want, but don't have the guts to say?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wondered, for those of you who said in This Thead that you didn't like "southern" accents -- what did you think of John Edwards speech last night?
posted
Ack! You're right, ae--but as I said, I was explaining the basic concept behind the parties, exaggerating for emphasis. If you'll look carefully, I said something equally uncomplimentary about Republicans (they also want to take all our money, but for a few private individuals instead of government bureaucrats). Neither is literally true of either group as a whole; I was describing general tendencies. Consider it a slip of the fingers, or of the mind. If it was offensive, I apologize.
Tom, by "transparent" I meant that if the worst imaginable extremists actually did what they wanted openly, it would be obvious that they were corrupt. It could be that no one is actually so extreme (though I doubt it). I'm describing why I find the root principles of neither major party entirely trustworthy. Fortunately, individuals fail to live up to them entirely.
Addit: I notice so far, only Jaiden has said a word about my characterization of Republicans, and I'm not sure he was responding to me. Is it because you think all Republicans really live up to the "everything for me" principle I abstracted?
posted
I think the logical extension of the Ayn Randian principles that you've ascribed to some members of the Republican Party really DO amount to "everything for me" -- or, rather, "I get as much as I can for myself, and expect other people to do the same for themselves." Is this NOT what you're saying?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tom, I am indeed saying that. About principles , not a whole class of people. I'm saying that about Democrats and their principles, too; they're just getting there by a different means. And I'm saying that at least the Republican means has some relevance to my goals and principles, one of which is to earn enough money to be able to take care of myself instead of being taken care of by the government.
My problem with ae's characterization is that he seems to think I'm implying that all Democrats are secretly plotting to bring about a Communist revolution. With possible rare exceptions, I don't think that's true at all. As you put it, the problem is the "logical extension of their principles". And, of course, he applies this characterization only to what I say about one party.
quote:Ack! You're right, ae--but as I said, I was explaining the basic concept behind the parties, exaggerating for emphasis. If you'll look carefully, I said something equally uncomplimentary about Republicans (they also want to take all our money, but for a few private individuals instead of government bureaucrats).
Since I'm not a Democrat or for that matter an American, it doesn't really make much of a difference to me. It just seems to me that you're oversimplifying things terribly—and, more to the point, inaccurately.
quote:by "transparent" I meant that if the worst imaginable extremists actually did what they wanted openly, it would be obvious that they were corrupt.
Actually it would be obvious that they were Communists.
Posts: 2443 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's where we'll just have to differ on opinion, I guess. Have never actually run across a human who'd been around more than 115 years, but I'm told the upper limit is in the 120s.
I hope you're not suggesting that Kerry is a god, 'cause I think that would be sorta gauche, too. Posts: 1664 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
I mean he might die right? it's been done.
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
