Randomville

Politics => Political Discussions => Topic started by: MattD on September 05, 2012, 12:08:03 AM

Title: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: MattD on September 05, 2012, 12:08:03 AM
So I guess I will use the Randomville Forum to try and figure out if Republicans hate everyone.....  At this point in my life I think I have honestly quit caring about politics for the most part, largely due to the insanely high levels of negativity that is associated with the discussions.  However this year seems worse than ever.  I honestly think I will return to using facebook in December so I can actually retain a friendship with half of the people I know.......  I feel like all the people I know that are Republicans are on the borderline of committing a hate crime by the comments that they are making.  Am I the only one noticing this?   
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: MissKitty on September 05, 2012, 06:02:48 AM
MattD, might be best to pose this question in the Politics forum. When Randomville was formed, we didn't even create a politics forum, such was our disgust with the ugliness that regularly happened on our former board. We only recently added one, after taking a vote on it.

Not trying to stymie the conversation, just asking that it be placed where those who want to talk politics can do so without the rest of the board getting sucked into it.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Cockney Rebel on September 05, 2012, 06:03:57 AM
No I don't think you are.

The Republicans do seem to have a nasty trait lately of being remarkably self destructive, almost as if to piss off a lot of their own supporters.

That's how a rational person sees it. However, whenever one of their inflammatory remarks gets released it bizarrely only seems to stir up the support of their own kind galvanising their base and spreading the racist/sexist/homophobic/ill-informed nonsense even further. It's almost as if they can't think for themselves and Faux News has to do all their thinking for them?

The power behind the Republican throne does seem to be held by a tiny handful of people and/or corporations with no thought whatsoever for the general American public.

I don't necessarily think all Republicans hate everyone, I just think many are being coerced and forced into doing so by figures that seem to want to perpetuate everything that is bad about America's history.

I promised myself I wouldn't get as 'wound up' by this election as I was 2008's but every so often I will just have to let off steam.

Cockney "I can't vote anyway" Rebel
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Homsar on September 05, 2012, 08:27:07 AM
The power behind the Republican throne does seem to be held by a tiny handful of people and/or corporations with no thought whatsoever for the general American public.
I knew it.  Commies!
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 05, 2012, 09:42:43 AM
Just the opposite of communism, isn't it?  A very small majority of the people controlling most of the money and all of the power and the greater majority have almost none of the money and none of the power.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 05, 2012, 10:10:02 AM
i identify as a libertarian (both the major parties are fucking bad in my book).  as a libertarian i hate a system that allows people to mooch off the work of others.  i was once pretty liberal and one day i realized that it wasn't moral for me to be a liberal.  it was cool and romantic, every cause deserved my attention.  fuck bush fuck the rich goddamn white man keeping the black man down.  it was about this time that i read atlas shrugged and ayn rand was preaching what i recently discovered for myself.  and you have to remember that all politics is is pandering.  i can't understand why anyone would want to be a politician. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Butter on September 05, 2012, 10:38:53 AM
it was about this time that i read atlas shrugged and ayn rand was preaching what i recently discovered for myself.

There is not a facepalm big enough to demonstrate the way I feel about this comment.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: cyclone on September 05, 2012, 11:06:32 AM
There is not a facepalm big enough to demonstrate the way I feel about this comment.

I didn't want to be a dick, but yeah.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 05, 2012, 11:08:44 AM
Thirded
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 05, 2012, 11:21:21 AM
so y'all read the book?  i love how that's the part that was quoted from my post
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: cyclone on September 05, 2012, 12:40:27 PM
so y'all read the book?  i love how that's the part that was quoted from my post

I should tell you for starters that as someone who identifies as fairly well-read, Ayn Rand is by far among my very least favorite canonical, successful authors.  I read (most) of Atlas Shrugged years ago.  Where can I even begin in how much I detested that book?  Not only did I find it objectively poorly written, but Rand's barely coherent, over-simplistic philosophy disguised as a poignant defense of unfettered capitalism was borderline offensive to me.  The narrative and "good/bad" mechanical characters were essentially action figures IIRC.  I found them completely implausible and void of humanity. There were really no redeeming qualities to me.  It came across completely tepid and a praise of greed.  And it isn't purely about the political influence.  Find me a handful of useful, well-written works of fiction used to convey such a political message.  Is this were a manifesto where the objectivism was replaced with the advocating of a welfare state, it would have still sucked. I would also add that I wonder if you were aware of the general academic consensus about Rand and this book in particular.  Not that I'm saying that that should be something that persuades you one way or another, because it shouldn't. I'm just a little surprised that you would be surprised that a few of us had that (facepalm) reaction to the nature of the book influencing you on the political spectrum.  In summary, the ridicule is that it's an unapologetic work that promotes selfishness as a virtue, and a work where young people (read: teenagers) has been the target demographic for decades.  The amateurish, pseudo-philosophy is criticized fairly prominently.  Do people actually think that laissez-faire capitalism is the answer?  The fact that the influence of the book has risen so much on the far right of the political spectrum is also pretty telling, at least to me.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: luisterpaul on September 05, 2012, 12:44:56 PM
“There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old’s life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs.”
― John Rogers
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 05, 2012, 01:28:45 PM
so y'all read the book?  i love how that's the part that was quoted from my post

I should tell you for starters that as someone who identifies as fairly well-read, Ayn Rand is by far among my very least favorite canonical, successful authors.  I read (most) of Atlas Shrugged years ago.  Where can I even begin in how much I detested that book?  Not only did I find it objectively poorly written, but Rand's barely coherent, over-simplistic philosophy disguised as a poignant defense of unfettered capitalism was borderline offensive to me.  The narrative and "good/bad" mechanical characters were essentially action figures IIRC.  I found them completely implausible and void of humanity. There were really no redeeming qualities to me.  It came across completely tepid and a praise of greed.  And it isn't purely about the political influence.  Find me a handful of useful, well-written works of fiction used to convey such a political message.  Is this were a manifesto where the objectivism was replaced with the advocating of a welfare state, it would have still sucked. I would also add that I wonder if you were aware of the general academic consensus about Rand and this book in particular.  Not that I'm saying that that should be something that persuades you one way or another, because it shouldn't. I'm just a little surprised that you would be surprised that a few of us had that (facepalm) reaction to the nature of the book influencing you on the political spectrum.  In summary, the ridicule is that it's an unapologetic work that promotes selfishness as a virtue, and a work where young people (read: teenagers) has been the target demographic for decades.  The amateurish, pseudo-philosophy is criticized fairly prominently.  Do people actually think that laissez-faire capitalism is the answer?  The fact that the influence of the book has risen so much on the far right of the political spectrum is also pretty telling, at least to me.

oh, i'm not surprised at all.  i'm just a tad curious as to why my reference to the book was the only thing mentioned. 

pseudo-philosophy, maybe.  but she's only been dead for half a century.  give her some time.  radical ideas don't become mainstream overnight.  selfishness as a virtue, absolutely.  there's the brilliance in it.  if everyone put others before them, no one would get anywhere. being selfish is not a bad thing.  arrogance does not have to be a bad thing.  greed does not have to be a bad thing.  if it weren't for those things, give me an idea where mankind would be?  and to punish those who create?  those that always strive for first place?  give me an idea of a world not fueled by competition.  competition is the hallmark of genius. 

there is humanity in her characters.  they are passionate about people who are passionate, people who strive, not a system that breeds a parasitic nature.  the point of the book is, you're given this body and this mind.  use it responsibly and make your self happy.  in john galt's speech (if you read it), she says charity is fine, only if you truly believe the person will make a sound end of it.  and i paraphrased that.   

is it so crazy to expect people to be responsible for themselves?  is it so crazy not to have a welfare state?  you can bitch and moan all day about her narrative, her characters, etc... but how can you deny the fundamental fact that people can't do a damn thing about the situation they were born into, except prosper.   what's stopping you?     
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 05, 2012, 01:29:16 PM
It's funny.  I read Anthem when I was in high school and enjoyed it a lot, and have read it multiple times since.  I guess it's kind of Atlas Shrugged lite... all of the cautionary tale of a government gone wrong without all of the selfish, objectivist nonsense.

How anybody could regard the economic-Darwinism espoused in Atlas Shrugged as a possible real world philosophy is beyond me.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 05, 2012, 01:35:06 PM
It's funny.  I read Anthem when I was in high school and enjoyed it a lot, and have read it multiple times since.  I guess it's kind of Atlas Shrugged lite... all of the cautionary tale of a government gone wrong without all of the selfish, objectivist nonsense.

How anybody could regard the economic-Darwinism espoused in Atlas Shrugged as a possible real world philosophy is beyond me.

do you think 1984 is a possibility?  Brave New World?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 05, 2012, 01:43:08 PM
Do I think the situations are possible?  Not really.  There are a lot of bad governments in recorded history that tried to abuse their people and they all got taken out, or are in the process thereof.  I really don't think that such a situation is ever going to persist without opposition by groups of people from within or by other societies.  Pretty much in direct contrast to the way the books you've mentioned played out.

You might as well be asking me if I think Roland conquering the Dark Tower is possible.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 05, 2012, 02:03:06 PM
Do I think the situations are possible?  Not really.  There are a lot of bad governments in recorded history that tried to abuse their people and they all got taken out, or are in the process thereof.  I really don't think that such a situation is ever going to persist without opposition by groups of people from within or by other societies.  Pretty much in direct contrast to the way the books you've mentioned played out.

You might as well be asking me if I think Roland conquering the Dark Tower is possible.

anthem was created as a reaction to soviet style oppression.  communism still flourishes, though cloaked. china recognizes the virtues of capitalism though still control their people.  and i'm not gonna say obama is a socialist, i'm not that guy, but he loves the government making our choices.  and it's not just him, just any liberal elite who knows what's best for us. 

Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Butter on September 05, 2012, 02:08:44 PM
so y'all read the book?  i love how that's the part that was quoted from my post

I don't really want a debate, but I am surprised that you're surprised.  For being a "libertarian", you sure picked an ultra-conservative paean to specifically mention as a turning point in your political awakening.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 05, 2012, 02:22:54 PM
so y'all read the book?  i love how that's the part that was quoted from my post

I don't really want a debate, but I am surprised that you're surprised.  For being a "libertarian", you sure picked an ultra-conservative paean to specifically mention as a turning point in your political awakening.

well, whom should i have chosen?  the book spoke to me.  if i hadn't mentioned her name, this thread would be silent.  but that's the only thing y'all have latched onto.  nothing else from my post.  but i welcome spirited debate!
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Buzzstein on September 05, 2012, 03:29:23 PM
Atlas Shrugged is nothing but propaganda. Rand's sense of morality was extreme and completely backwards. Some selfishness is good. A lot of selfishness is not. I'm disabled and “mooch” off the government. It's easy for someone who doesn't rely on help from the government to be a libertarian. It's the concept of free market capitalism that is idealistically foolish, not modern liberalism.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 05, 2012, 03:54:28 PM
Atlas Shrugged is nothing but propaganda. Rand's sense of morality was extreme and completely backwards. Some selfishness is good. A lot of selfishness is not. I'm disabled and “mooch” off the government. It's easy for someone who doesn't rely on help from the government to be a libertarian. It's the concept of free market capitalism that is idealistically foolish, not modern liberalism.

it's not propaganda.  buzz, i haven't met you, but i am aware of your condition.  on the other hand, you're a pretty articulate guy who knows fuck tons more about music than i do.  hell, you know a lot more about politics than i do.  you're able to type that message, surly you make some bucks offa that.  ever read or seen the diving bell and the butterfly?  man, i can't preach to you.  i don't know what it's like.  all i'm saying is that it's possible.  make it back to cincinnati brother, and i'll buy ya a beer
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: jcarwash31 on September 05, 2012, 04:11:58 PM
is it so crazy to expect people to be responsible for themselves?     
No, it isn't, but personal responsibility will only get you so far in this world.

is it so crazy not to have a welfare state?       
It probably is. A whole lot of people are just a lay off and a significant medical situation away from the poor house and all the personal responsibility in the world won't help you out. There are plenty of good, hard working people who work multiple jobs and still can't make ends meet, but apparently they aren't worthy of help.

but how can you deny the fundamental fact that people can't do a damn thing about the situation they were born into, except prosper.   what's stopping you?     
This statement is so dismissive.  We all need to recognize how big of a role the situation we were born into played into where we are now.  I was born male, middle class, and white (y'all don't know what it's like). The expectation for me from a very early age was that I'd go to college and get a good job somewhere. There was never a question of "if I go to college". It was always "when I go to college".  All of my siblings went to college; 2 of them are engineers, and 1 has a PHD.  Honestly, I don't think I really had to work all that hard to get where I am.

Others are born into incredible wealth and contribute nothing of value to society and can be complete train wrecks in public, but yet are still held up and revered in some weird way.  Why are they more valued than someone born into poverty who managed to make it past the age of 19 without going to jail or being killed in a neighborhood where the odds of this are slim?

The implication of your statement is that if you are poor, then you are either too lazy or too stupid and you are a leach on society.  This simply is not true.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: lutz on September 05, 2012, 05:08:42 PM
selfishness as a virtue, absolutely.  there's the brilliance in it.  if everyone put others before them, no one would get anywhere. being selfish is not a bad thing.  arrogance does not have to be a bad thing.  greed does not have to be a bad thing.  if it weren't for those things, give me an idea where mankind would be?  and to punish those who create?  those that always strive for first place?  give me an idea of a world not fueled by competition.  competition is the hallmark of genius.
If cavemen had behaved like this then the human race would not exist. In a society you help each other: by sharing childcare duties, hunting together, staying awake at night to look out for danger while others sleep. Selfishness doesn't help anyone in the long run.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Poncho on September 05, 2012, 05:44:13 PM
What the heck?

WRONG FORUM NEW BOSS GUY


Poor form.  Poor form.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: MattD on September 05, 2012, 06:12:58 PM
Not gonna argue with you Poncho.  Never meant to start this kind of debate here....  Removing this thread in at midnight kiddies, back to music and fun stuff.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: lutz on September 05, 2012, 06:43:44 PM
As an admin, can't you move it to the Politics forum?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Ella Minnow Pea on September 05, 2012, 06:50:23 PM
You should be able to move it. At least that's a feature on other boards. It's not a bad discussion, it's just in the wrong place. We had another discussion on Rand there already.

As far as the original question goes, the ones in my immediate family don't hate everyone. Of course, they are of the fiscal conservative, smaller federal government (state & local is okay) mindset. I read a great book this year - Taft 2012. It's amazing to think there were once Progressive Republicans. Sigh...
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Juliana on September 05, 2012, 06:56:38 PM
You might as well be asking me if I think Roland conquering the Dark Tower is possible.

a set of books you'll never finish
*gauntlet, thrown*
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: trixi on September 05, 2012, 09:34:56 PM
So MattD, on the political front, how many ads is Indiana getting on TV?  Here in OH, we've been seeing them for months to the point I don't pay attention to any of them anymore.  A weekend trip to PA gave me a much enjoyed respite. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: va-vacious on September 05, 2012, 09:38:21 PM


As far as the original question goes, the ones in my immediate family don't hate everyone. Of course, they are of the fiscal conservative, smaller federal government (state & local is okay) mindset. I read a great book this year - Taft 2012. It's amazing to think there were once Progressive Republicans. Sigh...

Yes, they don't hate everyone, but I really freaked our grandmother out in the last presidential election when she said she didn't like McCain and I told her to actually look at Obama's position. She told all the residents at her retirement home about it.  The next time I visited, one of the ladies called me over to her lunch table, pulled aside the collar of her jacket and showed me her Obama pin. "I have to hide it around here, " she said, "Noone here would understand!"  I thought that was cute.

And I have several Republican friends from childhood who are loving and compassionate even to those that the party seems to hate. They still spout the party line, but their actions are different (sometimes)
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Butter on September 06, 2012, 07:59:36 AM
I don't know that anyone hates EVERYONE, but Republicans sure do seem to hate compromise a lot more these days than they used to.  I remember the old days when there used to be room for compromise from both parties.  Now it seems as if it is always "our way or the highway", and compromise is viewed as some sort of toxic, 4-letter word.  Shit gets old.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Jen on September 06, 2012, 08:10:09 AM
So MattD, on the political front, how many ads is Indiana getting on TV?  Here in OH, we've been seeing them for months to the point I don't pay attention to any of them anymore.  A weekend trip to PA gave me a much enjoyed respite. 

Months? Don't you mean years? I seem to recall some sort of political ad ever since Obama was elected. Good thing for the Tivo!

When you demonize the other party, you are just believing the hype and rhetoric. Don't. Do. It. Have actual conversations, in person, with your family, friends, neighbors. Listen and learn. Teach and share knowledge. Only then can we all come together and get rid of the losers in Washington. I truly believe that most Americans are the same: they want to wake up each day, safe, sound and with a roof over their head, food in their kitchen and good health. The more we communicate with people, IN PERSON and not on Facebook, the more we can shut the extreme crazies in both parties up.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: c-lando on September 06, 2012, 09:39:12 AM
You might as well be asking me if I think Roland conquering the Dark Tower is possible.

a set of books you'll never finish
*gauntlet, thrown*
I love you two.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 06, 2012, 09:44:35 AM
is it so crazy to expect people to be responsible for themselves?     
No, it isn't, but personal responsibility will only get you so far in this world.

is it so crazy not to have a welfare state?       
It probably is. A whole lot of people are just a lay off and a significant medical situation away from the poor house and all the personal responsibility in the world won't help you out. There are plenty of good, hard working people who work multiple jobs and still can't make ends meet, but apparently they aren't worthy of help.

but how can you deny the fundamental fact that people can't do a damn thing about the situation they were born into, except prosper.   what's stopping you?     
This statement is so dismissive.  We all need to recognize how big of a role the situation we were born into played into where we are now.  I was born male, middle class, and white (y'all don't know what it's like). The expectation for me from a very early age was that I'd go to college and get a good job somewhere. There was never a question of "if I go to college". It was always "when I go to college".  All of my siblings went to college; 2 of them are engineers, and 1 has a PHD.  Honestly, I don't think I really had to work all that hard to get where I am.

Others are born into incredible wealth and contribute nothing of value to society and can be complete train wrecks in public, but yet are still held up and revered in some weird way.  Why are they more valued than someone born into poverty who managed to make it past the age of 19 without going to jail or being killed in a neighborhood where the odds of this are slim?

The implication of your statement is that if you are poor, then you are either too lazy or too stupid and you are a leach on society.  This simply is not true.

i'm suggesting a manufactured cycle of poverty does a grave injustice to humanity and esp minorities.  i'm not saying aid is bad, but permanent shouldn't be the new temporary.  if you were born poor, wouldn't you at least want to better your situation?  people can't change where they're from, but they can change their future.  relying on handouts improves nobody's future when it's abused almost beyond repair.  and it only perpetuates the antagonism those without have against those that have.   the best, most humane thing you can do for someone caught in a poverty trap is cut them off.  what the fuck does the value of a dollar mean when the government subsidizes your entire life?  why should anyone fault where someone's born or what they're born into?  tough luck man.  shit sucks.  call it dismissive or call it life.  give a man a fish, feed him for a day.  teach a man to fish, feed him for his life.  
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 06, 2012, 10:04:35 AM
anthem was created as a reaction to soviet style oppression.  communism still flourishes, though cloaked. china recognizes the virtues of capitalism though still control their people.  and i'm not gonna say obama is a socialist, i'm not that guy, but he loves the government making our choices.  and it's not just him, just any liberal elite who knows what's best for us.  

I didn't say there are never such states.  I said that they are not on the level of what Rand et al. dreamed up and that even where oppressive states have occurred they don't last.  Your current examples don't come close to this and they are of short duration, those situations will change just as other such states have changed over time.  Soviet Russia, Communist China, N. Korea and the like will go down eventually and not because one doe eyed narcissist decides to climb into the sewer and rediscover the light bulb.

I'd love to know what choices Obama is supposedly making for people.  I just don't see it.

It seems to me that you're just completely decided that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water.  I see no point in arguing with you further.  Absolutely delusional.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 06, 2012, 10:05:51 AM
selfishness as a virtue, absolutely.  there's the brilliance in it.  if everyone put others before them, no one would get anywhere. being selfish is not a bad thing.  arrogance does not have to be a bad thing.  greed does not have to be a bad thing.  if it weren't for those things, give me an idea where mankind would be?  and to punish those who create?  those that always strive for first place?  give me an idea of a world not fueled by competition.  competition is the hallmark of genius.
If cavemen had behaved like this then the human race would not exist. In a society you help each other: by sharing childcare duties, hunting together, staying awake at night to look out for danger while others sleep. Selfishness doesn't help anyone in the long run.

i imagine cavemen were the least generous people ever.  
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 06, 2012, 10:09:07 AM
i imagine cavemen were the least generous people ever.  

Obviously you weren't a sociology major.  Try reading a non-fiction book sometime.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 06, 2012, 10:18:31 AM
i imagine cavemen were the least generous people ever.  

Obviously you weren't a sociology major.  Try reading a non-fiction book sometime.

that is correct.  poli sci.  it was just a guess that when your main concerns were the basic tenants of survival, you'd kinda develop a me first attitude.  of course most of my knowledge on this subject comes from the god's must be crazy.  society is a natural reaction and the only rational course a multitude of people can take.  i'd be delighted to read some recommended nonfiction.  the last nonfiction i read was poor economics, which looked into various installments of aid to poorer nations and see what worked and what didn't.  not a lot worked.

Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 06, 2012, 10:45:06 AM


Quote
I didn't say there are never such states.  I said that they are not on the level of what Rand et al. dreamed up and that even where oppressive states have occurred they don't last.  Your current examples don't come close to this and they are of short duration, those situations will change just as other such states have changed over time.  Soviet Russia, Communist China, N. Korea and the like will go down eventually and not because one doe eyed narcissist decides to climb into the sewer and rediscover the light bulb.

true.  and that's what eventually happens in atlas shrugged.  of course it's hyperbole and dramatic satire of what happens if government gets too big.  

Quote
I'd love to know what choices Obama is supposedly making for people.  I just don't see it.

alright, i might have jumped the gun a bit with that statement.  though (even though it was ruled constitutional) forcing people to buy health insurance (well, those lucky enough to afford it) strikes me as making my decision.  not only perpetuating the welfare state, but doing nothing to curb it.  work sucks, munch on these government doritoes.  i don't want you to succeed, i want you in this vicious cycle so i can count on your vote.  now, don't go out and get a conscience.  that ain't covered under food stamps and def not medicaid.  and like i said, it's not just obama, fucking bloomberg banning big ass sodas, it's a damn nanny state.  if you want i can give more examples.  liberals want everyone to live like them.  

Quote
It seems to me that you're just completely decided that the baby should be thrown out with the bath water.  I see no point in arguing with you further.  Absolutely delusional.
 

it's unfortunate you say that.  the opposite of your beliefs is delusion?  
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 06, 2012, 10:56:48 AM
alright, i might have jumped the gun a bit with that statement.  though (even though it was ruled constitutional) forcing people to buy health insurance (well, those lucky enough to afford it) strikes me as making my decision.

it's unfortunate you say that.  the opposite of your beliefs is delusion?  

There is the option of opting out of ACA.  I don't see how that amounts to anybody being forced.

Your beliefs are delusion, in my opinion.  I wasn't generalizing beliefs in opposition to mine.  But if pressed I would say that yes, doing away with all social programs because they are abused by some and/or being of the belief that absolutely everyone is capable of pulling themselves out of any situation (or really that they should have to, when they could be helped) are delusional ways of thinking.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 06, 2012, 11:13:34 AM
alright, i might have jumped the gun a bit with that statement.  though (even though it was ruled constitutional) forcing people to buy health insurance (well, those lucky enough to afford it) strikes me as making my decision.

it's unfortunate you say that.  the opposite of your beliefs is delusion?  

There is the option of opting out of ACA.  I don't see how that amounts to anybody being forced.

by paying a tax?

Quote
Your beliefs are delusion, in my opinion.  I wasn't generalizing beliefs in opposition to mine.  But if pressed I would say that yes, doing away with all social programs because they are abused by some and/or being of the belief that absolutely everyone is capable of pulling themselves out of any situation (or really that they should have to, when they could be helped) are delusional ways of thinking.

i didn't say do away with social programs.  the topic i was addressing was the poverty cycle and how it only hurts people in the long run.  are you suggesting that people born poor are completely helpless, that the only way for them to survive is through handouts?  we're only making it harder for people to get out of the struggle by treating them as second class citizens.  i understand why people don't agree with me because it's a tough concept to accept.  the great society put forth by lbj was great intentions, though the consequences are dire.  responsibility kicked the bucket when we became compassionate. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 06, 2012, 11:16:54 AM
I hope you're never faced with being down and out, or being in a deeper hole than you can dig you're way out of.  But if you ever are lets revisit this after.  Until then, imma do what I said I was going to do and quit arguing with you.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 06, 2012, 11:37:26 AM
I hope you're never faced with being down and out, or being in a deeper hole than you can dig you're way out of.  But if you ever are lets revisit this after.  Until then, imma do what I said I was going to do and quit arguing with you.

peace, brother or sister.  sorry you felt we were arguing
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 06, 2012, 11:46:48 AM
Brother... and I know it wasn't personal, but I see no reason to continue it all the same. 

So... how bout them Reds?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 06, 2012, 12:13:40 PM
Brother... and I know it wasn't personal, but I see no reason to continue it all the same. 

So... how bout them Reds?

man, just when i thought i was about to convert you.  no hard feelings at all dude.  an alternative voice is always a good thing in my book.  but i was serious about recommended reading material regarding cavemen.  that votto apparently hasn't missed a beat.  bruce with a four game dinger streak and ludwick the comeback player of the year?  that frazier's been playing some rook of the year ball.  just hope we don't see those damn redbirds in october. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Atzend on September 06, 2012, 10:57:16 PM
i imagine cavemen were the least generous people ever.  

Obviously you weren't a sociology major.  Try reading a non-fiction book sometime.

And you weren't an anthropology major.  

Quote from: daytime drinking
the topic i was addressing was the poverty cycle and how it only hurts people in the long run.  are you suggesting that people born poor are completely helpless, that the only way for them to survive is through handouts?  we're only making it harder for people to get out of the struggle by treating them as second class citizens.  i understand why people don't agree with me because it's a tough concept to accept.  the great society put forth by lbj was great intentions, though the consequences are dire.  responsibility kicked the bucket when we became compassionate.

I will argue with you. Here's the tough concept for many to accept:

The argument you are making regarding poverty and second class citizenry are symptoms of institutionalized social ideologies and assumptions over long periods of time that are imbedded so deeply into our (and other) cultures they are typically ignored and assumed obsolete so the problem must be rooted in the individual and not the society as a whole.  Ayn Rand and other similar conservative viewpoints favor "social" darwinism.  Attempting to apply a naturally occurring and random evolutionary process to social constructs is an incorrect assumption.  I agree, it is a persons responsibility to themselves, those close to them and society to make an attempt to contribute to not only further themselves, but the group. However, many are stuck based on lack of economic opportunity and perpetuate cycles not because of a reliance on handouts, but geographical location, race, gender, economic levels, social status and lack of support (emotionally, mentally, and financially).  There are people who are lazy and selfish, but there may be much more to it that may lead them to embody those behaviors besides perceived government enabling.  There is a cycle of poverty, but it's rooted in much more than a case of "I don't wanna, cause I don't have to". To believe that there is one simple cause to why those in lower socio-economic situations choose a path that does not promote them to achieve upward social mobility relies on one simple solution that encompasses a footwear tagline "just do it!" is like holding an empty wrapping paper tube up to one eye.  There is no one cause nor one solution.  The problem is as complex as each individual who is in an unwanted position of poverty, second class-citizenry, and ignorance.  





Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 07, 2012, 07:57:08 AM
Imma sit back and let people that know what they're talking about argue from now on.  Bravo, Jess.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Cockney Rebel on September 07, 2012, 08:03:34 AM
(http://www.vividideas.net/imgs/woxy_doindue.jpg)

Funnily enough I found this in one of my folders the other day...
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Markalot on September 07, 2012, 09:07:35 AM
I have no well organized thoughts on any of this.

Atlas Shrugged is a work of fiction with the audience being small minded people who like to think the world will be better if we just did this ....

Regardless of what this is, regardless of who wrote it, regardless of how good the book or the speech was, this never works by itself.

So anyone who argues welfare is horrible and everyone ends up dependent is wrong.

Anyone who argues welfare is critical to our society and works well is wrong.

This country was founded on compromise and compromise is the only way it works.

People hate Obamacare but love most of the pieces.  I want to see someone try and repeal the entire thing including lifetime limits on sick kids insurance, pre-existing condition protection, and the like.

As a manager, when someone comes to me and tells me they don't like something I ask for their idea.  It comes as no surprise most people just like to whine instead of solve problems.  If Romney can't articulate a solution to the problems in our economy, much less the healthcare system, he will lose.

Going back to the thread topic, Republicans have been taken over the the religious right and most modern religions seem more focused on hate and division than anything else.  Apparently hate brings in more donations than love.  Of course there are huge exceptions to this, but those exceptions are not politically active.

I am a registered republican, still.  I hate most people so it seems to fit.  :)
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 07, 2012, 10:21:30 AM
As a manager, when someone comes to me and tells me they don't like something I ask for their idea.  It comes as no surprise most people just like to whine instead of solve problems. 

Ain't that the truth.  I've been very guilty of this over the years and it never even occurred to me until I was moved to a new manager that actually manages her people.  Most managers just listen to the whining and disregard it and the person walks away having no chance of getting any relief for their issue, because they've not been given the opportunity to be a part of the solution, they were just written off as a whiner.  It sucks to go to your boss and get your problem put back on you, but if you don't have a solution, or you think it's too much work to do what needs to be done, then it wasn't that much of a problem and you should have kept it to yourself.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 07, 2012, 11:37:22 AM

Quote from: daytime drinking
the topic i was addressing was the poverty cycle and how it only hurts people in the long run.  are you suggesting that people born poor are completely helpless, that the only way for them to survive is through handouts?  we're only making it harder for people to get out of the struggle by treating them as second class citizens.  i understand why people don't agree with me because it's a tough concept to accept.  the great society put forth by lbj was great intentions, though the consequences are dire.  responsibility kicked the bucket when we became compassionate.

I will argue with you. Here's the tough concept for many to accept:

The argument you are making regarding poverty and second class citizenry are symptoms of institutionalized social ideologies and assumptions over long periods of time that are imbedded so deeply into our (and other) cultures they are typically ignored and assumed obsolete so the problem must be rooted in the individual and not the society as a whole.

i'm not suggesting the individual is completely responsible for their situation.  massive government intrusion has corrupted their lives.  

Quote
Ayn Rand and other similar conservative viewpoints favor "social" darwinism.  Attempting to apply a naturally occurring and random evolutionary process to social constructs is an incorrect assumption.

in a world void of corruption, i would agree with straight up social darwinism.  but in the world we live in with big business tugging big government in the backseat of a beat up pinto, that isn't the case. a world with unfettered capitalism, it could only make sense.  

Quote
I agree, it is a persons responsibility to themselves, those close to them and society to make an attempt to contribute to not only further themselves, but the group. However, many are stuck based on lack of economic opportunity and perpetuate cycles not because of a reliance on handouts, but geographical location, race, gender, economic levels, social status and lack of support (emotionally, mentally, and financially).  There are people who are lazy and selfish, but there may be much more to it that may lead them to embody those behaviors besides perceived government enabling.  There is a cycle of poverty, but it's rooted in much more than a case of "I don't wanna, cause I don't have to". To believe that there is one simple cause to why those in lower socio-economic situations choose a path that does not promote them to achieve upward social mobility relies on one simple solution that encompasses a footwear tagline "just do it!" is like holding an empty wrapping paper tube up to one eye.  There is no one cause nor one solution.  The problem is as complex as each individual who is in an unwanted position of poverty, second class-citizenry, and ignorance.  

i read a playboy article a few months ago about a town called war, it's in the hills of west virginia.  it's a town of less than a 1,000 people, half below the poverty line.  huge meth/ painpill problem.  the article didn't mention it, but i think i safely assume that a majority of those folks survived off of government assistance.  even with assistance the government can't help them.  what do you do?  there are countless towns like this.  when i mentioned a few posts earlier that the best way to tackle the cycle of poverty is to cut folks off that can chiefly apply here, in war.  will it work?  no idea.  maybe folks will wise up and move making war another ghost town.  

i could very well be wrong, maybe these causes you established as the root of cyclical poverty (i'm not denying that they aren't a factor) are the reasons.   i could very well be overestimating the amount of people who abuse welfare.  but, who's doing anything about it?  
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on September 07, 2012, 11:58:49 AM
i read a playboy article a few months ago..

A finer trade journal there never was...
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 07, 2012, 12:07:02 PM
i read a playboy article a few months ago..

A finer trade journal there never was...

i love playboy.  in the middle of a richard dawkins interview right now
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Atzend on September 07, 2012, 12:58:57 PM
Social darwinism is not viable in any political situation. It's a poorly constructed ideology brought about by a few theorists that has no practical implications. 

I'm familiar with similar stories to the one you referenced which ties into the larger point I was attempting to make.  The issues these people face are not limited to a reliance on assistance programs.  You are correct that govt help does not fix the underlying issues.  It's easy to just state that someone should move if living in an economically depressed area, but that is a case of easier said than done.  Moving costs money.  In rural towns it is not uncommon for most of the immediate and external family to live within the area limiting external support in more economically diverse areas. It's a catch 22 that leaves many stuck and depressed which feeds addiction.  Even if someone can find a job in the area it allows them to barely survive, but never save enough to leave the areas where most of their support system resides.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 07, 2012, 01:17:11 PM
Social darwinism is not viable in any political situation. It's a poorly constructed ideology brought about by a few theorists that has no practical implications.  

I'm familiar with similar stories to the one you referenced which ties into the larger point I was attempting to make.  The issues these people face are not limited to a reliance on assistance programs.  You are correct that govt help does not fix the underlying issues.  It's easy to just state that someone should move if living in an economically depressed area, but that is a case of easier said than done.  Moving costs money.  In rural towns it is not uncommon for most of the immediate and external family to live within the area limiting external support in more economically diverse areas. It's a catch 22 that leaves many stuck and depressed which feeds addiction.  Even if someone can find a job in the area it allows them to barely survive, but never save enough to leave the areas where most of their support system resides.

so what do you do?  i'm at least offering a solution.  maybe not the best or sound, but it's an idea.  you ever read the grapes of wrath?  even in the depression people tried to better their situation.  from your post it sounds as if these people have absolutely no chance whatsoever.  their back is against the wall and the wall is collapsing. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Atzend on September 07, 2012, 07:03:03 PM
But a solution isn't going to fix the problems.   Some solutions would be better overall education, more affordable preventative healthcare, better drug and mental health treatment (as opposed to incarceration), initiative to create sustainable communities and jobs in economically depressed areas (agriculture, better control over their own natural resources), decent wages, benefits, and work/family balance provided to those with jobs, and I'm sure I'll think of more later.  But all these, much like your solution, are easy for me to suggest, but far more difficult to implement.

For some their back is against the wall, but the walls not crumbling and falling so they can get out and see or build something new.
 
Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grapes of Wrath, but it's on my list sometime after I finish Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States.  I can only handle one upbeat readable romp at a time.

Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: frizgolf on September 08, 2012, 09:50:14 AM
But a solution isn't going to fix the problems.   Some solutions would be better overall education, more affordable preventative healthcare, better drug and mental health treatment (as opposed to incarceration), initiative to create sustainable communities and jobs in economically depressed areas (agriculture, better control over their own natural resources), decent wages, benefits, and work/family balance provided to those with jobs, and I'm sure I'll think of more later.  But all these, much like your solution, are easy for me to suggest, but far more difficult to implement.

For some their back is against the wall, but the walls not crumbling and falling so they can get out and see or build something new.
 
Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grapes of Wrath, but it's on my list sometime after I finish Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States.  I can only handle one upbeat readable romp at a time.


I hate that I read this reply and heard a cash register *ching* in the back of my head with every comma in your second sentence.
Who pays for all that, at least for War, WV?
I mean, I don't mind social programs that work, but when they keep pouring money down a drain there needs to be some kind of "three strikes" death sentence for aid.
Who determines what works?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: lutz on September 08, 2012, 04:46:32 PM
But a solution isn't going to fix the problems.   Some solutions would be better overall education, more affordable preventative healthcare, better drug and mental health treatment (as opposed to incarceration), initiative to create sustainable communities and jobs in economically depressed areas (agriculture, better control over their own natural resources), decent wages, benefits, and work/family balance provided to those with jobs, and I'm sure I'll think of more later.  But all these, much like your solution, are easy for me to suggest, but far more difficult to implement.

For some their back is against the wall, but the walls not crumbling and falling so they can get out and see or build something new.
 
Unfortunately, I haven't read the Grapes of Wrath, but it's on my list sometime after I finish Howard Zinn's People's History of the United States.  I can only handle one upbeat readable romp at a time.


I hate that I read this reply and heard a cash register *ching* in the back of my head with every comma in your second sentence.
Who pays for all that, at least for War, WV?
I mean, I don't mind social programs that work, but when they keep pouring money down a drain there needs to be some kind of "three strikes" death sentence for aid.
Who determines what works?
This is the difference between Scandinavia and the US. Scandinavians are happy to pay higher taxes for a better quality of life, while Americans feel they're being robbed.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: notoriouspbake on September 08, 2012, 07:19:01 PM
riddle me this: for behaviors that are the same (cheating the government for personal gain), why are welfare cheats demonized while those who find and take advantage of tax loopholes are considered to be stalwarts of the business/finiancial community?

either way, both behaviors are denying revenue from being in the pot for the greater good.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Atzend on September 08, 2012, 09:31:31 PM
riddle me this: for behaviors that are the same (cheating the government for personal gain), why are welfare cheats demonized while those who find and take advantage of tax loopholes are considered to be stalwarts of the business/finiancial community?

either way, both behaviors are denying revenue from being in the pot for the greater good.

I've had a similar argument going through my head regarding laziness. I find it hard to believe that a greater percentage of poor people are lazier than any other economic group.  Some people are lazy no matter their socio-economic situation. However, some can afford to be lazy, selfish, and mooch without being condemned and demonized.  The statement above sums up a better point. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 09, 2012, 09:52:34 AM
riddle me this: for behaviors that are the same (cheating the government for personal gain), why are welfare cheats demonized while those who find and take advantage of tax loopholes are considered to be stalwarts of the business/finiancial community?

either way, both behaviors are denying revenue from being in the pot for the greater good.

to say welfare cheats are demonized more than the rich taking advantage of tax loopholes, i don't think is correct.  isn't that one of the many occupy movement's objectives?  what about romney's taxes?  i don't hear too much about welfare cheats.  cheating a system and finding a way to keep (legally) your money is different, no?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Butter on September 10, 2012, 07:30:08 AM
to say welfare cheats are demonized more than the rich taking advantage of tax loopholes, i don't think is correct.  isn't that one of the many occupy movement's objectives?  what about romney's taxes?  i don't hear too much about welfare cheats.  cheating a system and finding a way to keep (legally) your money is different, no?

Are you kidding?  There is a whole cottage industry made out of the fact that people on welfare are "leeches on society".
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: foolsgold on September 10, 2012, 08:49:26 AM
you ever read the grapes of wrath?  even in the depression people tried to better their situation. 

That's a terrible example to support your arguments. 

One of the few times the Joads/et al experienced a sense of dignity during the entire journey west was....wait for it....at a government camp.  The rest of the time, they were used and abused by the free market (and the police forces backing them up.  And, if they had access to decent healthcare, then perhaps Grandpa, Grandma and baby Rose of Sharon would have lived.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 10, 2012, 11:29:18 AM
I would say poor people are lazier in certain ways.  Because it's easy to work hard when every time you work hard you are rewarded.  It's learned behavior-- you work hard, you get shit.  So next time you want shit, you work hard.  On the other hand, if you work your ass off or you see other people working their ass off and it comes to crap, then you lose your incentive to work hard. 

It's like those lab experiments they do on animals where they give them random shocks and after awhile they just stop doing anything.  There's a evolutionary/biological explanation for depression.  It's better to conserve your energy for reproducing than waste it trying to avoid shocks that are seemingly unavoidable.

Also, when I was a kid, one of my friends had an adopted sister that came from a war zone.  She'd lost both parents and just had a really brutal life.  She was four or five and she had no impulse control whatsoever.  If you left food in the refrigerator she would eat all of it.  If you gave her a toy, she would play with it non-stop for two days and break it.  She couldn't get the concept of saving stuff for later.  Her whole mentality was like she kind of expected to die so the concept of "later" had no meaning.  She couldn't associate behaviors with consequences.  There was little you could do to punish her because she had been through so much worse than anything you could do to her.  And she EXPECTED bad things to happen to her, so she couldn't get the concept that something bad happened to her because of something she did and that she could stop it.  She thought bad things happened because that's just the way the world works.

So for me, I guess I understand the idea that poor people are "lazy" to a certain degree and that there really isn't a way to help them just by offering them money or even an opportunity at college or a job or whatever.  I can totally see the viewpoint that a lot of liberal sort of ideals are really just codependent behaviors that don't help anyone.  At the same time, the idea that they are lazy by choice and can be easily fixed by teaching them how to fish is equally an oversimplification.

I really don't know if it matters.  I mean, Tim Tebow annoys the hell out of me and I want to hate the dude.  I disagree with his religion and his politics (to the extent he states them).  But honestly, he's a better person than I will probably ever be.  If everyone did as much shit for unfortunate people and just generally cared like he seems to, would we honestly need all of these government social programs?  Or if we had government social programs staffed with people like Tim Tebow would they really be so costly and ineffective?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Markalot on September 10, 2012, 01:03:00 PM
Wow prole, really good post.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: notoriouspbake on September 10, 2012, 09:40:57 PM
riddle me this: for behaviors that are the same (cheating the government for personal gain), why are welfare cheats demonized while those who find and take advantage of tax loopholes are considered to be stalwarts of the business/finiancial community?

either way, both behaviors are denying revenue from being in the pot for the greater good.

to say welfare cheats are demonized more than the rich taking advantage of tax loopholes, i don't think is correct.  isn't that one of the many occupy movement's objectives?  what about romney's taxes?  i don't hear too much about welfare cheats.  cheating a system and finding a way to keep (legally) your money is different, no?

from my little bit of knowledge, both behaviors don't necessarily break the law, but both avoid the intent of the law (minus the obvious law breaking on both sides of the argument). they seem equivalent to me.

i never quite understood the occupy movement, and am not sure of their overall goals or what specifically they're protesting. more power to them, i guess, but that's something i'd never do: camp in the middle of a city for some vague ideology.

nice post prole. low social/economic issues are very complex.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 10, 2012, 10:35:10 PM
you ever read the grapes of wrath?  even in the depression people tried to better their situation. 

That's a terrible example to support your arguments. 

One of the few times the Joads/et al experienced a sense of dignity during the entire journey west was....wait for it....at a government camp.  The rest of the time, they were used and abused by the free market (and the police forces backing them up.  And, if they had access to decent healthcare, then perhaps Grandpa, Grandma and baby Rose of Sharon would have lived.

that was an extraordinary time in our nation's history.  it was a natural disaster and they used the government aid effectively and tried and tried to better their situation, but they woulda been just fine camping along the road, like they tried.  i don't think it was the free market that fucked em over as much as it was some good ole' fashioned bigotry.  "ya damn okie's. why'n ya go back ta where ya came frem cuz seats tak'n.  now git!" 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 11, 2012, 12:23:00 AM
Huh?  Did you read the same book as I did?

Ron Paul jizzes in his pants when he thinks about the conditions in the US immediately prior to the Great Depression.  Banks weren't regulated, the stock market was soaring due to private investment, there was no civil rights act, and we had the gold standard.

That entire point of that book is that the protagonists suffering was NOT due to natural disasters but rather because of people's selfishness.  It was a class struggle between poor people like the Joads and rich land owners.  And the rich had the wealth to stomp all over poor people, including using physical force to deter unionization.  The bigotry in that book did not stem from the government but from private actors, which is the kind of bigotry conservative libertarians are A-OK with or wouldn't consider bigotry at all.

I mean, there's plenty of bones you can pick with that book, but the intent is pretty clear.  In fact, probably the biggest bone you could pick is that it's pretty much just Socialist propaganda.  I don't know how you could read that book and somehow think it supports Ayn Rand's theory.  They couldn't be more opposite, and neither work is exactly subtle in their message.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 13, 2012, 01:24:40 PM
Huh?  Did you read the same book as I did?

Ron Paul jizzes in his pants when he thinks about the conditions in the US immediately prior to the Great Depression.  Banks werien't regulated, the stock market was soaring due to private investment, there was no civil rights act, and we had the gold standard.

i'm certainly not going to try and change your mind about ron paul.  although i do love history, i'm not currently confident enough to talk of the conditions that led up to the great depression.  but i'm sure in hindsight, dr. paul (as you said he'd love those conditions) would not have wanted any part of it.   unless you're suggesting that his principles are the perfect storm for an economic depression and the geezer's too damn stubborn to change his ways.  god damn elderly corrupting our nation's ways.  didn't we learn from reagan?   

Quote
That entire point of that book is that the protagonists suffering was NOT due to natural disasters but rather because of people's selfishness.  It was a class struggle between poor people like the Joads and rich land owners.  And the rich had the wealth to stomp all over poor people, including using physical force to deter unionization.  The bigotry in that book did not stem from the government but from private actors, which is the kind of bigotry conservative libertarians are A-OK with or wouldn't consider bigotry at all.

that seems like a simplified cliff note version.  so if there wasn't the dust bowl, tom joad walks out of prison and finds his family just a-ok?  since there was the dust bowl, which infected an entire region, should the banks just say, "fuck.  uhmm.... what the hell y'all is cool.  we got all kinds of people's money tied up in yer farms.  but... goddamn dust bowl.  nuttin can do 'bout it.  y'all don't worry 'bout a thang."  would you hire a pool boy if you didn't have a pool?  that's kind of a reverse analogy, and wouldn't work if you were a foxy single mother without a pool.  i wholeheartedly agree that the bigots were private actors.  but they (the police) were working with the businesses and the businesses were bigots too.  there seemed to be a statewide fatwa on anyone who wasn't already working in california.  even the gas station attendants hated the migration.  that is not libertarianism.  this is one of my favorite ayn rand quotes:  " force and mind are opposites; morality ends where a gun begins."  and in the joad's case, that was also literal and nobody forced them out there either.  they were fucked, even when they started getting wages.  i detest that that was capitalism.  yes, you can make somebody work for the wages you set, but in no way can you bully people.  what the joad's experienced wasn't laissez faire capitalism.  it was anything but the antithesis of libertarianism.  if you're wondering, by that i mean lack of freedom.  yes, they stayed in gov't camps.  but we're they actively seeking work?  did they want to work? were they using these camps as a means to an end?  i think it's the most incredible story ever told. 

Quote
I mean, there's plenty of bones you can pick with that book, but the intent is pretty clear.  In fact, probably the biggest bone you could pick is that it's pretty much just Socialist propaganda.  I don't know how you could read that book and somehow think it supports Ayn Rand's theory.  They couldn't be more opposite, and neither work is exactly subtle in their message.

i'm well aware that there is some tinge of socialism.  i'm not adverse to reading about reactionaries.  i'm not adverse to their feelings in the situations they found themselves in.  i understand their plight the best i can.  i even empathize.  my entire point is the joad families' opposition to struggle.  the hell or high water attitude that endured them.  i can read a book any way i choose.  i didn't read it the way steinbeck probably intended, but i drew my own conclusion.  i didn't set out trying to compare the two. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 13, 2012, 02:44:01 PM
The economic conditions are merely the backdrop to the real conflict in the book, which to me is about the Joads' struggle to maintain dignity/pride/sense of belonging/contentment NOT their quest to make a few bucks.

You can interpret the book however you like personally, but when you use your interpretation to illustrate a political principle then no one is going to know what you are talking about because they will view it in a completely different context than you.

Ayn Rand is not truly a libertarian, by the way.  She's an "objectivist," which is her own crazy mish-mash of certain capitalist, libertarian, evolutionary theories filtered through her own massive ego and messed up psychology.

The main reason I think Rand sucks is because it's so easy to reject her goals outright.  Very few people would actually view the Randian ideal of happiness as desirable.  The protagonists' relationships with each other are totally bizarre.  Men get to beat women, because the women don't really mind it if the dude is just that badass.  No one has any kids.  No one retires.  No one ever goes out to watch a sports game or a movie.  No one kicks back with a beer or takes up gardening as a hobby.  The characters in that book are already ubermensch's who devote every last second of their time working to become even MORE ubermensch-y.  Even to the extent where the protagonists are in constant conflict with each other.  Their only pleasure comes from the struggle to be top dog. 

They are comic book superheroes.  Only most comic book superheroes suffer greatly because they are trying to make things better for other people.  In Rand's books, the superheroes largely suffer because they REFUSE to make things better for other people or even for each other.  Who wants to hang out with a bunch of egomaniacal workaholics who just brag about how cool they are all the time?

The kind of thing you are talking about is really just Adam Smith's model of capitalism, which he presents with far more nuanced arguments.  Capitalism to him is about the sharing.  I can bake bread, you can hunt deer.  Let's trade so we can have the best of both worlds.  It's a cooperative, teaming up venture.  By definition, we are both happier because if we weren't both happier we wouldn't do it.  It's only when someone is FORCED to do something that the equation gets messed up.

In Adam Smith's world, everyone ends up happier and at the end of the day that rising tide raises all boats so everyone gets to kick back and relax.  In Rand's world some people are better than others, and the good ones let the bad ones starve and everyone races unceasingly to try and achieve some pinnacle of human achievement which who knows what that even is?  My idea of happiness is not to spend my entire life trying to make the best steel possible so I can get one over on that Galt dude.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 13, 2012, 04:04:15 PM
The economic conditions are merely the backdrop to the real conflict in the book, which to me is about the Joads' struggle to maintain dignity/pride/sense of belonging/contentment NOT their quest to make a few bucks.

what precipitating that?  obviously the real struggle was their journey, but why did they have to journey?  and how you gonna eat if you ain't got a few bucks?  so pride and all that takes precedent over trying to stay alive?   

Quote
You can interpret the book however you like personally, but when you use your interpretation to illustrate a political principle then no one is going to know what you are talking about because they will view it in a completely different context than you.

i really wasn't trying to illustrate a political principle.  it just became that way.  all i was initially trying to say is that them joad's were some resilient motherfuckers and them people on the government doll today wouldn't stand a chance.   maybe i was

Quote
Ayn Rand is not truly a libertarian, by the way.  She's an "objectivist," which is her own crazy mish-mash of certain capitalist, libertarian, evolutionary theories filtered through her own massive ego and messed up psychology.

i don't think you've read atlas shrugged.  if i'm wrong, correct me.   

Quote
The main reason I think Rand sucks is because it's so easy to reject her goals outright.  Very few people would actually view the Randian ideal of happiness as desirable.  The protagonists' relationships with each other are totally bizarre.  Men get to beat women, because the women don't really mind it if the dude is just that badass.  No one has any kids.  No one retires.  No one ever goes out to watch a sports game or a movie.  No one kicks back with a beer or takes up gardening as a hobby.  The characters in that book are already ubermensch's who devote every last second of their time working to become even MORE ubermensch-y.  Even to the extent where the protagonists are in constant conflict with each other.  Their only pleasure comes from the struggle to be top dog. 
 

ok.  i admit the rape scene in fountainhead was disturbing.  if that's what you're referring too.  howard roark was rather violent initially.  i can only assume it was allegorical to how "man" (and she uses the term loosely) can get want he wants.  if that's the case, she put it rather bluntly.  i cannot imagine she condones the abject beating of women.  for the rest of your post, it's a work of fiction.  it's to perpetuate her philosophy.  in all of those 1100 pages, not much time lapses.  hard to be concerned about the yankees and having kids when the world's falling apart. 

Quote
They are comic book superheroes.  Only most comic book superheroes suffer greatly because they are trying to make things better for other people.  In Rand's books, the superheroes largely suffer because they REFUSE to make things better for other people or even for each other.  Who wants to hang out with a bunch of egomaniacal workaholics who just brag about how cool they are all the time?

ha!!  they are trying to make things better for people!  go on strike, take menial jobs and see how "leadership" propels.  she was attempting to tear down a bureaucratic regime and just let people be.  she was giving them a choice. be part of the problem, or be part of the solution. the "leaders" see john galt as their savior after his speech and they don't like his conditions.  cake anyone?  you haven't read the book! 

Quote
The kind of thing you are talking about is really just Adam Smith's model of capitalism, which he presents with far more nuanced arguments.  Capitalism to him is about the sharing.  I can bake bread, you can hunt deer.  Let's trade so we can have the best of both worlds.  It's a cooperative, teaming up venture.  By definition, we are both happier because if we weren't both happier we wouldn't do it.  It's only when someone is FORCED to do something that the equation gets messed up.

more nuanced?  how dare you!   ;D  sounds like the birth of society, which is the only available term of survival, for most people.

Quote
In Adam Smith's world, everyone ends up happier and at the end of the day that rising tide raises all boats so everyone gets to kick back and relax. 

right.  a system that would guarantee no folks left behind.  what economic model can achieve that?  what economic model has better principles?

Quote
In Rand's world some people are better than others, and the good ones let the bad ones starve and everyone races unceasingly to try and achieve some pinnacle of human achievement which who knows what that even is?  My idea of happiness is not to spend my entire life trying to make the best steel possible so I can get one over on that Galt dude.

per your last statement, in atlas shrugged the rational don't out do each other.  they founded utopia, wherein each according to their needs based upon what they can provide.  but it's more about mortality.  but she's an atheist.  wouldn't hank rearden's steel be like the pursuit of hank aaron's 714? 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 13, 2012, 06:05:05 PM
i don't think you've read atlas shrugged.  if i'm wrong, correct me.  

Yes, I have read it.  I was a philosophy major in college.  Have you? :laugh:

Ayn Rand hated libertarians.  She thought they were slacker hippies who ripped off and watered down her ideas, nevermind the fact that libertarian principles had been around for hundreds of years.

Libertarianism is (or was) pretty much based on live-and-let-live.  Ayn Rand was extremely intolerant.  Selfishness=virtue, compromise=sin, lazy=evil.  This put her at odds with most of the libertarians at the time, because she more or less wanted to invade every country and kill them all for not being John Galt-ish enough.  This led to "neo-libertarianism" which is the notion that the US is made up of mostly John Galts so we should not have a government of looters telling us what to do.  But the rest of the world is filled with lazy, blank-thinkers who probably like Victorian architecture and we should exterminate them right quick as they are evil and will inevitably try and destroy us.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 14, 2012, 09:46:22 AM
i don't think you've read atlas shrugged.  if i'm wrong, correct me.  

Yes, I have read it.  I was a philosophy major in college.  Have you? :laugh:

Ayn Rand hated libertarians.  She thought they were slacker hippies who ripped off and watered down her ideas, nevermind the fact that libertarian principles had been around for hundreds of years.

Libertarianism is (or was) pretty much based on live-and-let-live.  Ayn Rand was extremely intolerant.  Selfishness=virtue, compromise=sin, lazy=evil.  This put her at odds with most of the libertarians at the time, because she more or less wanted to invade every country and kill them all for not being John Galt-ish enough.  This led to "neo-libertarianism" which is the notion that the US is made up of mostly John Galts so we should not have a government of looters telling us what to do.  But the rest of the world is filled with lazy, blank-thinkers who probably like Victorian architecture and we should exterminate them right quick as they are evil and will inevitably try and destroy us.

where do you get your crazy theories?  the woman was against a conscripted draft, deems force evil.  it would run contrary to her doctrine.  her ideals were for the individual man, not a state.  i'd be more than happy to read how she approved of imperialism.  did you extrapolate that from atlas?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 14, 2012, 10:26:03 AM
http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=education_campus_libertarians

It's not that Rand approved of imperialism.  Well... she did kinda.  But not really.

Rand was against the draft, because it had the possibility of "enslaving" objectivist, capitalist, awesome people such as herself.  And she was against the war in Vietnam because it put draftees in harms way.  The Vietnamese?  Fuck 'em.  You can kill as many of them as you want.  They weren't objectivists so they don't count. 

She was heavily influenced by the Nietschze, and all the protagonists in her novels are ubermensches.  They aren't necessarily going out of their way to hurt people, but they don't really care.  They are certainly NOT trying to help other people.  They owe no duty to each other because they are all fully-realized ubermensches who can take care of themselves.   And they owe no duty to the plain old mensches of the world because they're just crap.  You couldn't help them if you tried, they're unimportant, and so really why bother? 

So yeah, Rand was against violence, but squashing an ant that bit you doesn't really count.  Which is how she viewed pretty much any other country or person that didn't think like her.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on September 14, 2012, 12:02:29 PM
damn. she certainly had a beef with the libertarian party.  she sounds bitter.  though i imagine any philosopher would feel their ideas blasphemized.  whatever, those are her words.  but as i said before, her ideals are for the betterment of man, not a state.  enhance the state through good men.  but what i asked of you is the unilateral slaughter of state leaders replaced by john galt. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on September 14, 2012, 02:27:44 PM
though i imagine any philosopher would feel their ideas blasphemized.
 

That's what is hilarious about Ayn Rand  Because its actually Nietschze and Adam Smith who should be mad at her.  She pretty much just ripped them both off and mashed their philosophies together and called it her own.
 
Yet somehow, she's taking credit for it.  AND she's got the nerve on top of that to get mad at libertarians for ripping her off, when libertarianism has been around since the enlightenment.


Quote
but what i asked of you is the unilateral slaughter of state leaders replaced by john galt. 

That question doesn't make any sense.  Have you read Nietszche?

1)  John Galt doesn't need to slaughter people or have people slaughtered on his behalf because he's way too bad-ass for that.  Physical violence is a tool for the weak.  The looters will always lose because they can't exist without Galt but Galt can exist without them.  The looters only exist because Galt allows them to.  All he has to do is change his mind.

2) John Galt would never replace a state leader because he has no desire to lead anyone, nor should any rational person desire to be led.

It's the same thing with the sex scene we talked about earlier.  Rand does not condone violence against women or anyone else.  But, at the same time, if you are stupid/weak enough to let it happen then so be it.  The trick to all of Rand's sex scenes is that the woman actually wants sex but thinks it is wrong because of their unfortunate traditional sense of morality/culture upbringing.  The ubermensch doesn't give a crap and takes what he wants. 

It's up to Dagny and Dominique to stop Roark and Galt, and they are capable of doing so.  When they start getting cuffed around they come to that realization.  They're like "Hey, I don't have to take this... so why am I?"  They come to the realization that this is only happening because they secretly wanted this so they just let go and enjoy the sex.  The sex is consensual.

What happens to the protagonists at the end of Atlas Shrugged is not that from a utopian society.  It's that they have moved beyond society altogether.  They are fully actualized ubermensch.  They do not need anything from anyone else, nor do they have any desire to help anyone else.  They all just do what they want, and no one can ever be made to do anything they don't want.  The concept of morality is then becomes moot. 

No one in Ayn Rand books ever tries to help anyone else out.  Well, maybe Dagny but that's kind of the point.  She suffers a lot because she doesn't quite want to let go of her traditional notions of altruism and morality and keeps trying to fix society rather than just let the looters go to their doom. 

Rand goes to great pains to point out the sociopathic tendencies of Roark and Galt.  She says something about Roark like "He did not have the ability to consider others."  And whenever either guy does something that might be interpreted as even the slightest bit altruistic, they always get to give a speech like "Yeah, I gave the dude a job, and he was poor.  That was awesome for me because he made my railroad even better so I could kick even more ass and he did it for cheap because everyone else was too dumb to want to employ him at all!  Go me!"
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: jcarwash31 on September 20, 2012, 04:55:38 PM
Here's a good (in my opinion) opinion piece about poverty and personal responsibility.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-09-18/what-mitt-romney-doesn-t-get-about-responsibility.html

Quote
What Mitt Romney Doesn’t Get About Responsibility
By Ezra Klein Sep 18, 2012 3:36 PM CT


“There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what,” Mitt Romney told a room full of donors.

“All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.”

Ezra Klein is a columnist and blogger at The Washington Post and a policy analyst for MSNBC. His work focuses on domestic and economic policy-making, as well as the political system that's constantly screwing it up.

All this can be written off as just a bit of self-flattery. Imagine you’re Romney, the Republican presidential nominee: For the past year you’ve been unable to grab a clear lead in the polls against an incompetent who has been unable to get unemployment below 8 percent or reach a reasonable debt- reduction deal with Congress. Which would you prefer to believe? That you’re not good enough, not smart enough and doggone it, people just don’t like you? Or that the incumbent Democrat has effectively bought off half the country with food stamps and free health care?

What Romney said next is harder to explain.

“These are people who pay no income tax,” he continued, “47 percent of Americans pay no income tax.”

Let’s do away with the ridiculous myth that 47 percent of Americans are tax-evading moochers. Of the 46 percent of Americans who were expected to pay no federal income tax in 2011, more than 60 percent of them were working and contributing payroll taxes -- which means they paid a higher effective tax rate on their income than Romney does -- and an additional 20 percent were elderly. So more than 80 percent were either working or past retirement age.
Even Worse

Still, for my money, the worst of Romney’s comments were these: “My job is not to worry about those people. I’ll never convince them that they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives.”

When he said this, Romney didn’t just write off half the country behind closed doors. He also confirmed the worst suspicions about who he is: an entitled rich guy with no understanding of how people who aren’t rich actually live.

The thing about not having much money is you have to take much more responsibility for your life. You can’t pay people to watch your kids or clean your house or fix your meals. You can’t necessarily afford a car or a washing machine or a home in a good school district. That’s what money buys you: goods and services that make your life easier.

That’s what money has bought Romney, too. He’s a guy who sold his dad’s stock to pay for college, who built an elevator to ensure easier access to his multiple cars and who was able to support his wife’s decision to be a stay-at-home mom. That’s great! That’s the dream.

The problem is that he doesn’t seem to realize how difficult it is to focus on college when you’re also working full time, how much planning it takes to reliably commute to work without a car, or the agonizing choices faced by families in which both parents work and a child falls ill. The working poor haven’t abdicated responsibility for their lives. They’re drowning in it.

In their book “Poor Economics,” the poverty researchers Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo try to explain why the poor around the world so often make decisions that befuddle the rich.
Getting By

Their answer, in part, is this: The poor use up an enormous amount of their mental energy just getting by. They’re not dumber or lazier or more interested in being dependent on the government. They’re just cognitively exhausted:

“Our real advantage comes from the many things that we take as given. We live in houses where clean water gets piped in -- we do not need to remember to add Chlorin to the water supply every morning. The sewage goes away on its own -- we do not actually know how. We can (mostly) trust our doctors to do the best they can and can trust the public health system to figure out what we should and should not do. ... And perhaps most important, most of us do not have to worry where our next meal will come from. In other words, we rarely need to draw upon our limited endowment of self-control and decisiveness, while the poor are constantly being required to do so.”

Banerjee and Duflo’s argument has been increasingly confirmed by the nascent science of “decision fatigue.” Study after study shows that the more we need to worry about in a day, the harder we have to work to make good decisions.

As economist Jed Friedman wrote in an online post for the World Bank, “The repeated trade-offs confronting the poor in daily decision making -- i.e. ‘should I purchase a bit more food or a bit more fertilizer?’ -- occupy cognitive resources that would instead lay fallow for the wealthy when confronted with the same decision. The rich can afford both a bit more food and a bit more fertilizer, no decision is necessary.”

The point here isn’t that Romney is unfamiliar with cutting-edge work in cognitive psychology. It’s that he misses even the intuitive message of this work, the part most of us know without reading any studies: It’s really, really hard to be poor. That’s because the poorer you are, the more personal responsibility you have to take.

Romney, apparently, thinks it’s folks like him who’ve really had it hard. “I have inherited nothing,” the son of a former auto executive and governor told the room of donors. “Everything Ann and I have, we earned the old-fashioned way.” This is a man blind to his own privilege.

Which is his right. But that sentiment informs his policy platform -- which calls for sharply cutting social services for the poor to pay for huge tax cuts for the rich -- and it suggests he’s trying to make policy with a worldview that’s completely backward.

(Ezra Klein is a Bloomberg View columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

Read more opinion online from Bloomberg View. Subscribe to receive a daily e-mail highlighting new View editorials, columns and op-ed articles.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 01, 2012, 01:34:59 PM
awesome!  i mentioned this book earlier in this thread.  to be fair, poor economics wasn't about the united states.  it's very easy to get by being poor in the united states compared to the folks the book discussed.  i daresay it's damn easy getting by being poor in the usa.  it's not fair to use the studies they conducted on 17 (i think) poor nations spanning two decades and associate their findings with our poor.  they didn't set out to do that.  the book was about how foreign aid to these countries was handled.  they found (no shock) that it was a majority of the time mishandled.  i think it's a tad ironic that ezra's touting a book to bash romney, when the researchers found that aid doesn't work. sometimes it did, but most of the time, nope.  i'm not saying (and obviously they aren't saying) that aid can be bad, but it just can't be aid for the sake of aid.  to use this book to highlight how little romney cares about the poor is absurd because it shouldn't be used in the first place.  he cherry picks to fit his agenda.  the book isn't a microcosm of poverty.  it dealt with individual countries on an individual level.   in no way does anything i said make me a romney fan.  i'm voting on principles this november, so be it if gary johnson gets obama elected. 

i would like to say this, in mitten's defense.  why do people complain if he's out of touch?  he's a very wealthy man.  do very wealthy men frequent dive bars or road houses?  do very wealthy men consider bruce the truck driver or juan the bodega owner as close friends?  are these the same friends obama doesn't have?  obama isn't any more in tune with the working class than romney is.  they both look ridiculous at their pandering.   but that's a politician for ya

Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: dirk on October 01, 2012, 02:13:15 PM
I think the difference is that Mitt is so far out of touch that he can't even fake it.  Yes, Obama is not hanging out at dive bars, but when he walks to the average person, he comes across as someone who does understand.  Mitt comes across like he has never known a person who makes under $500,000.  If you mention NASCAR to Obama, he may not know much about it, but he won't try to relate to you by mentioning he knows people who own NASCAR teams. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: jcarwash31 on October 01, 2012, 02:59:40 PM
I have not read Poor Economics and you're right that it's probably easier being poor in the US than it is in many countries, but that doesn't mean it's not hard.  I also think it is fair for Klein to cite the part from Poor Economics that he did, because the researchers believe the "decision fatigue" principle is a human behavioral trait and is not unique to the countries in the study (this is what I gather anyway).  That is to say, you don't have to be poor in Cambodia (or wherever) to experience decision fatigue.

It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.  Obama probably doesn't really know how a lot of people live either, but he at least has the ability to show some empathy.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 02, 2012, 08:39:18 AM
It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.  If the 47% quote gets to mean that Romney was saying fuck you to half the country then the "You didn't build that" thing gets to stand as well.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Juliana on October 02, 2012, 09:53:05 AM
I think he totally does write off that 47%, and not just in terms of demographics and voting tendancies.

If you listen to that speech or rally or whatever you want to call it, he talks about how 47% of americans do not have any sense of personal responsibility, because they are living "off the government," either by not paying income tax or because they are recepients of government assistance, or both.

I think Romney is blinded by his own achievements.  He did all this stuff, so you can to!  Even though his parents were rich and that's why he got the brakes he did.  It's almost like he doesn't see them as breaks.  Like when he told that one group he spoke to that if you want to go to college or start a business, that you should borrow money from your parents.  Yeah, works great if your folks are rich, but guess what, most people don't have rich parents.  Most people have to take government loans to go to school or get grants to start businesses.   We can't do that if you cut funding for grants, programs and student loans. 

Then, for the Republicans to belittle Michelle's speech from the convention when she talked about Barak's crappy car when they were in grad school, and all the student loans they had, like that was them pandering or whatever, and like it wasn't true.  I don't know.  I just think Romney is SO out of touch, and the rest of the party too. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 02, 2012, 09:55:47 AM
I don't disagree with any of that, but I think saying that he blindly writes off 50% of the population is a tad much.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 02, 2012, 10:04:17 AM
I have not read Poor Economics and you're right that it's probably easier being poor in the US than it is in many countries, but that doesn't mean it's not hard.  I also think it is fair for Klein to cite the part from Poor Economics that he did, because the researchers believe the "decision fatigue" principle is a human behavioral trait and is not unique to the countries in the study (this is what I gather anyway).  That is to say, you don't have to be poor in Cambodia (or wherever) to experience decision fatigue.

It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.  Obama probably doesn't really know how a lot of people live either, but he at least has the ability to show some empathy.

it's been more than a year since i read the book, so i can't recall a whole lot.   all i'm saying is, is that poor don't typically go hungry or homeless in the u.s. when you don't have to rely on those things life should be a little less stressful.  i understand there are a lot of single mothers living without a job on welfare, is that the same as a single mother living without welfare in india?  
1
you should hear about how creative some of the folks they highlight are when it comes to money making endeavors.  these people don't take things for granted, and we're still learning how to make the outcome a better one.  pm me your address and i'll send you the book if you want.  it's a good, quick read.  though at times monotonous.  the case studies are pretty good and sometimes entertaining, surprisingly.

on romney.  he seems the stock of the intimidating business man whom i wouldn't want to work for.  he doesn't seem personable.  for me, this means nothing.  do you just want a president who's a likeable, down to earth people pleaser?  or some dickhead who's only focused on his primary objective i.e. the bottom line?  obama is a helluva likeable guy.  charisma, intelligence, good looking, beer drinker, fan of sports, friend to the world.  but if he weren't president and not in politics, he'd be a professor.  he'd be mingling with other intellectuals over riesling poached pear sorbet and hot toddies discussing arcane philosophy at some fancy gala with a world class orchestra providing the background music.  no matter who you are, you can only empathize with your own economic bracket.  i'm sure i could say that last sentence better.  presidents care about votes.  do you honestly think obama is serious in his empathy? he was a shitty president, but i could throw a round of disc golf with george double you

Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 02, 2012, 10:49:09 AM
It's not so much that Romney is out of touch.  It's that he has absolutely no clue how half (or more) of the people in this country live and that he doesn't think it would be his job as president to worry about them.

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.  If the 47% quote gets to mean that Romney was saying fuck you to half the country then the "You didn't build that" thing gets to stand as well.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

i respect that.  you rationalized.  i wish more folks would.  not an easy thing to do.  i don't know if his resource was accurate, but it was a candid conversation, so he just could have said "half."  but yeah, those folks aren't going to vote for him.  he can't convince them to, how should he sway their vote?  we have a highly racial ballot and some rich white guy simply will not be able to curry favor with minorities.  that cannot be underestimated.  the black vote is going to be over 90% at least for obama, and they'll come out en masse.   romney can't compete with that.  so yeah, he's got to find a way to appeal to someone
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 02, 2012, 10:50:35 AM
zafer, as far as atlas shrugged is concerned, i feel you miss the forest for the trees.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Buzzstein on October 02, 2012, 11:31:53 AM
I'm sure a lot of elderly people will/would vote for Romney. Wouldn't most of them fall under the 47% of people who pay no income tax?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 02, 2012, 12:17:45 PM
zafer, as far as atlas shrugged is concerned, i feel you miss the forest for the trees.

Well, we're not really arguing over libertarian/capitalist/political ideas.  We're arguing about Ayn Rand.  So it's not like I don't get or that we are arguing over the larger, political issues.

This is a pretty good encapsulation of why I think Rand sucks, from a libertarian perspective:

http://reason.com/archives/2009/11/06/whats-wrong-with-ayn-rand
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 02, 2012, 12:23:22 PM

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.

 "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

If he hadn't said the parts in bold, I think maybe he could claim he was misquoted.  But he went out of his way to insult that 47%.  The other problem is that a huge chunk of that 47% who pays no taxes actually votes Republican.   The 47% of people who are mega-liberals and believe in government entitlements etc. and will never vote for Romney are NOT the same 47% who don't pay taxes.

Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: jcarwash31 on October 02, 2012, 12:54:39 PM
Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.  If the 47% quote gets to mean that Romney was saying fuck you to half the country then the "You didn't build that" thing gets to stand as well.

If that's not what you meant, my apologies.

The 47% thing is part of it, sure, but Romney has shown us plenty of times that he really doesn't seem to have any grasp on how a large portion of this country actually lives.  I understand he was likely pandering to that room of people, after all that's what he does, but those statements seemed very candid and truthful to what Romney believes.  He doesn't even have his demographics right.  There are (or were) plenty of Romney supporters among that 47% because there are a number of reasons why you may not have to pay income taxes, including being retired.  Most of them still had taxes to pay and some actually paid a higher effective rate than Mitt did.  The fact that he either doesn't understand this or he's willing to talk about them as the scum of society to a room full of donors demonstrates that he really doesn't care about them now or during his presidency if he becomes president.

His private sector career was all about paying people off so he could acquire their companies, leveraging mountains of debt to do it, siphoning off all it's worth, putting the companies into bankruptcy, and putting people out of jobs.  How am I supposed to have any confidence that he can run this country after all the stuff he's said?  He's a Wall Street guy and he'll always be a Wall Street guy.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 02, 2012, 01:51:29 PM

Are you invoking the 47% thing?  I gotta call foul on that.  I think it's pretty clear that what he meant was that he knew he couldn't get the vote from that 47% and he couldn't focus his efforts on trying to, which may be douchey but it's practical.  Using someone's words out of context in a way that they didn't mean them is wrong, even when it's the bad guy.

 "There are 47 percent of the people who will vote for the president no matter what. All right, there are 47 percent who are with him, who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it -- that that's an entitlement. And the government should give it to them. And they will vote for this president no matter what. ... These are people who pay no income tax. ... [M]y job is not to worry about those people. I'll never convince them they should take personal responsibility and care for their lives."

If he hadn't said the parts in bold, I think maybe he could claim he was misquoted.  But he went out of his way to insult that 47%.  The other problem is that a huge chunk of that 47% who pays no taxes actually votes Republican.   The 47% of people who are mega-liberals and believe in government entitlements etc. and will never vote for Romney are NOT the same 47% who don't pay taxes.



it's pretty blunt, but it was said in private.  it's not like he told those 47% to go fuck themselves to their face.  obama has another side to him i imagine as any public figure has to.  i met mayor mallory at a bar here in northside cincinnati and he just gave me typical safe standard reply regarding the streetcars.  he wasn't candid, and flat out refused to answer my possible alternatives. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 02, 2012, 02:01:08 PM
Yeah, the fact that it was leaked means it is being taken out of context.  It's sort of dirty in that sense.

But unfortunately that doesn't help Romney. If he says that those remarks were made spontaneously and in private, then he's implicitly admitting that yes he does feel this way but he simply doesn't say so in public.

If he says that he was simply trying to mad pander to a bunch of rich GOP fuckwits, which is in fact what he was doing, then he angers all the rich GOP fuckwits and he really needs money, and it just strengthens the public perception of him as a flip-flopping, no conviction-having dude who can't be trusted.

There are some things that are so stupid you just shouldn't ever say in any situation even if you're just doing it to try to be cool.  That was one of them.  So... kind of unfair he's getting screwed because of it, but also kind of not. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 02, 2012, 02:10:01 PM
Yeah, the fact that it was leaked means it is being taken out of context.  It's sort of dirty in that sense.

But unfortunately that doesn't help Romney. If he says that those remarks were made spontaneously and in private, then he's implicitly admitting that yes he does feel this way but he simply doesn't say so in public.

If he says that he was simply trying to mad pander to a bunch of rich GOP fuckwits, which is in fact what he was doing, then he angers all the rich GOP fuckwits and he really needs money, and it just strengthens the public perception of him as a flip-flopping, no conviction-having dude who can't be trusted.

There are some things that are so stupid you just shouldn't ever say in any situation even if you're just doing it to try to be cool.  That was one of them.  So... kind of unfair he's getting screwed because of it, but also kind of not. 

oh i agree.  it seems to me that at that fundraiser, those were going to be the folks who'd be voting for him anyway, so i don't know why he just didn't talk about the bengals or something.  but i imagine he'd lose points in cleveland, a democratic stronghold in this swing state.  i live in ohio.  he could have at least talked about how awesome the movie battleship was. 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 02, 2012, 02:13:47 PM
The 47% thing is part of it, sure, but Romney has shown us plenty of times that he really doesn't seem to have any grasp on how a large portion of this country actually lives.  I understand he was likely pandering to that room of people, after all that's what he does, but those statements seemed very candid and truthful to what Romney believes.  He doesn't even have his demographics right.  There are (or were) plenty of Romney supporters among that 47% because there are a number of reasons why you may not have to pay income taxes, including being retired.  Most of them still had taxes to pay and some actually paid a higher effective rate than Mitt did.  The fact that he either doesn't understand this or he's willing to talk about them as the scum of society to a room full of donors demonstrates that he really doesn't care about them now or during his presidency if he becomes president.

His private sector career was all about paying people off so he could acquire their companies, leveraging mountains of debt to do it, siphoning off all it's worth, putting the companies into bankruptcy, and putting people out of jobs.  How am I supposed to have any confidence that he can run this country after all the stuff he's said?  He's a Wall Street guy and he'll always be a Wall Street guy.

I agree with you completely, I just hate the 47% thing because it's fruit of the forbidden tree.  He didn't really say it that way, or you can't entirely prove he meant it that way, so it's a bad piece of data to hold on to, is all I mean.  I agree he likely feels that way, and his actions speak to that.  And that he's a douche.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 02, 2012, 09:54:27 PM
I'm with daytime drinking.  He's not being quoted out of context.  He said and intended to say, that 47% of America are leeches with no personal responsibility.

What he didn't intend was for it to get out.  But it's not like someone bugged his room.  Or even like he privately confided in someone.  He said it during a speech at a fundraiser, which is a political event and so if it gets out it's fair play.  The actual video footage might not be legal, but anyone at that event could have gone to the press and said "Yeah, Romney said blahblahblah..."

Where he got sort of screwed is he had the expectation that seeing as how these were supposed to be big supporters, no one would leak it.  That's his own stupidity.  Like daytime drinking said, all he had to do was giving a standard stump speech.  He could have said that poor people get too many benefits, or that rich people pay too many taxes.  What he said was something that was way more controversial and made way less sense, even to most conservatives. 

He looks like an asshole/incompetent because he was being an asshole/incompetent.  It's just that no one was supposed to find out about it.  Which is not really all that defensible.  He can get mad at whoever leaked the video to Mother Jones I guess, but I don't think he can get mad at the public for misconstruing him. 

I actually don't think Romney is a bad guy personally.  I don't think he's a bad guy for wanting to cut social spending or reduce taxes, either.  I'm sure that Obama also feels strongly about certain things that he keeps to himself. 

BUT that's part of the job.  None of us could win the Presidency, and probably none of us want to do it because we like to speak our minds, and not have to cater to loony right-wingers,  compromise on policy issues, make speeches we don't believe in all the time, and fake friendships with lobbyists.  We wouldn't last a month.  But if you want to be the President, you have to do those things.  This is not the last semi-private speech to rich influencers Romney will make if elected. 

I hate the whole political "gotcha" game, but in this case the way he's handled the fallout has just been so awful I have to strongly question both the direction and his ability to lead the country even if I don't think he's this rich, evil bastard.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 04, 2012, 01:03:11 PM
well that's one thing we can agree on.  the sole reason why ron paul isn't electable.  but he hates black people, doesn't he?  both parties are a joke because what's best for america has been co-opted.  but even in a shitty two party system, we're still doing pretty ok. considering a majority of america would fail a citizenship test and get their political advise from campaign commercials and yard signs.  or, or a televised debate.  televised debates are genius, but i don't think they should hold water as to whom our next president is.  but they absolutely do.  so because you're a better orator, have a better debate coach, suggests you have the potential to be a better president?  i completely understand why we have them and the fact that they are necessary because at least politics can be entertaining.  imagine if gary johnson could have a pulpit?  different train of thought, "radical" ideas that appeal to the left and right, but who the fuck is gary johnson? 
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Kwyjibo on October 04, 2012, 01:24:45 PM
I guess when you get right down to it what makes me mad about all of that business with the 47% is that you didn't need to see that video to know that he feels that way.  It's patently obvious in everything he does and says that he is completely out of touch about that segment of the population and doesn't give a shit if he wins them over or not.

I listened to a speaker here at work today talk about what he felt should be the real focus of the election, and while I didn't agree with his point there, or the means he used to get there, I did agree with his assessment that the real problem with our political system is that candidates only play to their constituents to get elected, beyond that they act like a Parliament and pander to their party lines.  These guys are only going to vote the way their constituents want them to vote, and make the compromises we want them to make if we beat them over the head, and your average U.S. citizen can't be bothered.  Maybe that's pessimistic, but it seems to be the case, so while I think it matters who has the majority, because they get a slight edge, I don't see anything at all really getting done.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 04, 2012, 02:51:03 PM
well that's one thing we can agree on.  the sole reason why ron paul isn't electable. 

The reason why Ron Paul isn't electable is because no one thinks his libertarian platform is a very good idea.  And also in small part because he sent out a bunch of vile newsletters with his name on it.  Why is it unfair for me to hold him responsible for his private actions?  That's what the freemarket is about, isn't it?  I mean, if I think Ron Paul is a dick it's my right not to vote for him.

That's the problem with libertarianism as an actual political party.  You are trying to get your ideas passed by gaining control of the government, while at the same time believing that enforcing beliefs via government is immoral.  We have free elections in this country.  It doesn't violate any libertarian principles.  You can complain about the choices being made as part of the electoral process, but not the electoral process itself.  Paul isn't getting jobbed.  He just lost in the "marketplace of ideas."  Go work harder and win people over WITHOUT needing the government to do it.  What would John Galt do?  Probably not sit around whining about how he always gets the short end of the stick and everyone is out to get him.

But along those lines, I think Gary Johnson is better than Ron Paul because I think Ron Paul punts too much.  There's substantive due process which Ron Paul is all about.  But there's also procedural due process which Ron Paul refuses to deal with.  He makes that vanish with his line on substantive due process.  In essence, if the government doesn't do anything, then everyone is treated fairly.  It's that simple to him.

Ron Paul runs into huge problems whenever he is asked about civil rights.  Ask him about something like that and he'll say the government has no business delving into race relations or people's sex lives or whatever.  Okay, but what happens if straight people who currently have the majority and most of the power in the US right now decide to start killing with gays?  We just let it happen? 

I think Gary Johnson is more willing to address the idea that while government should be massively downsized and only worry about a few things, those few things are HUGELY important and the government should be active about it.  Ron Paul is just like hey, no government no problem.  He has difficulty articulating anything the government should do, and in fact he seems to view government as the sole cause of all of our problems when any idiot can see that things like racism, rape, killing, and general dickishness are problems with human nature and not a result of government.
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: daytime drinking on October 05, 2012, 11:18:17 AM
imo, ron paul knows he's never had a shot at the presidency.  he's merely using this as a platform to launch his ideas.  it's working. having a libertarian in office wouldn't be the same as gaining control of the government, it would be having the main voice of the government.  besides, no one man has the most say in the government.  the president's basically a figurehead but receives almost all of the blame. 

the gop definitely jobbed paul at the convention.   the man might or might not be a racist, i don't know him.  what i think is that he vilifies a system that doesn't treat everyone like a human being.  though on policy, i actually agree more with gary johnson than i do ron paul.  why do you always have to invoke hyperbole?  and so ron paul is an anarchist now?
Title: Re: Do Republicans Hate Everyone?
Post by: Zafer Kaya on October 05, 2012, 09:20:15 PM
No, I'm not saying Ron Paul is an anarchist.  What I'm saying is he comes across as a nutty curmudgeon who hates everything.  I respect his principled "Dr. No" stance on things, but he's a poor spokesperson for libertarian issues.

Like take his stance on pot, or sodomy, or what have you.  Ask him-- Do you have a fundamental right to do these things?  No, because it's not in the constitution.  And he's got kind of that old dude thing going where it seems like he can't quite hide his personal distate for them.  So if you don't have a right to smoke pot, then can the government stop you from smoking it.  Well again, his answer would be "No" because while the constitution doesn't give you the right to smoke pot/not get sexually harassed/get married it also doesn't empower the government to stop you.  Okay so what if the government stops you?  Can we get the law overturned?  Well no, because that is giving too much power to the courts and he doesn't like that either.  So where does that leave us?

His libertarianism comes into conflict with his Constitutionalism, and then he has to toss in this whole fiscal angle into the mix, plus his odd fascination with the gold standard.  I do not know what Ron Paul would do about legalizing drugs other than be disgusted that he even has to deal with the issue.  It doesn't make Paul a hypocrite just because he has beliefs that can end up conflicting with each other.  It just seems like he feels like he can beat a logical conundrum via application of theoretical principles and sheer conviction.  And obviously that doesn't make the problem go away.

Gary Johnson is more of a modern-type guy and naturally more socially liberal than Paul so I feel more comfortable with him from that aspect.  But I also think he does a better job of sticking to and discussing the core principles rather than finding 10,000 reasons to dislike everything.  It makes his message more positive, he comes across as more amenable, and I think he's easier to understand.  But it's not like he's watered-down, his actual policies and ideal world isn't much different than Paul's.

You ask Johnson what he thinks about pot and he's like "I have toked up myself, and I think people should be able to smoke because I think people are responsible enough to do it without hurting anyone else."  Gay marriage?  Yes, we need that.   Not fair not to have it, we have to do something about it.  That's the core message... you should be left alone to do what you want so long as it doesn't hurt anyone else.

So Gary Johnson to me comes across as a libertarian.  Ron Paul comes across as a grouch.  I have no idea how Johnson would actually govern when it gets messy or if he has huge skeletons in his closet or what.  I'm just saying to me he's got the better message.

As for Paul getting screwed at the convention, I don't know what to think.  Yeah, it was kind of dirty what they did, but then I'm a softie and I like justice and fair play and things to be done about it.  From the GOP standpoint, why would they let him speak?  He didn't endorse Romney, he's not a trustworthy GOP team player as he bags on Republicans quite frequently, and he's got a huge image problem with all of that racist stuff hanging over his head.  The convention is a time to get people excited about saying "yes," so naturally Dr. No is a bit of a downer.  They're trying to win an election, and Ron Paul isn't going to help them.

And where in the Constitution or the principles of libertarianism does it say you have the right to speak at some private group's convention?  I mean, if the recourse for people who are sexually harassed at their jobs is to quit, then certainly Ron Paul has no complaint here.  And you said it-- he's not a Republican, he knows he can't win, he's just trying to get his views out there.  He's using the party for his own purposes.  So in a private actor, rational, dog-eat-dog world it's natural that the other party is going to go "Wait a minute, I'm not getting anything out of this arrangement.  Why should I give this guy a pulpit to espouse views that don't necessarily help me out?"  And then you have to suck it up and deal, just like everyone else.

If he had refused to go, pulled his delegates and said in a non-cranky manner "Hey that's fine because they don't like me, and to be honest I don't like them that much either.  So let them have their convention, and I'll go and speak to my own people"  I would have given him some props, but as it is I guess I'm unsympathetic.

I also don't think Ron Paul's message is working, or maybe his message is working but what I think of as a libertarian message isn't.  No one cares about the Libertarian party.  I have the sneaky suspicion that at least a third of Paul supporters are more loyal to him than the actual libertarian principles, and another third are really tea baggers.  My feeling is that libertarians have gotten nowhere in twenty years, or if anything had their views twisted and co-opted by the far right which is a step back.  And Ron Paul's been the face of the movement so I think they should have dumped him years ago.  It's alright to like him because he votes your way and is a fanatic about it and all, but don't let him speak for you.

At this point I think even Reason magazine is sorta like "We gotta get rid of this guy," and I think Reason has gone from what was once an interesting read even if I didn't agree with all of it to a huge Fox News-like piece of crap.