Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I find really funny is how the folks to the left can see critical flaws in folks like Rush, folks to the right can see critical flaws in sites like democratic underground, yet others state that both parties work together in a conspiracy orchestrated by shadow organizations.
I'll go with the folks who think the other party is wacky, I think they have a more accurate picture of the political realities. The conspiracy folks still have to give me the name of the puppet master (please, no YouTube links to David Rockefeller).
You won't get the name of the puppet master(s). You have to expand beyond what you accept as reality by better understanding the nature of how reality gets created. What is its source? How does it start? Is there just one? Without that necessary step, any additional information would be discounted and rejected. One cannot just expect the truth to be handed to them (sad but true). It must be discovered and it must be personal. Here's a push: What would be the motivation of a puppet master? What is in its nature? What would need to be maintained to keep it a puppet master?
Last edited by mhouse2001; 03-16-2008 at 11:31 PM..
People THINK there's two parties. In their minds, there are two parties that oppose each other. That's what our political establishment wants you to believe. As long as that is the 'reality' they put forth, everyone will THINK they have a choice.
In reality, there is ONE party with two heads. There is no choice, just the illusion of one.
And who runs this party? Corporate America. There are only very minor differences when it comes down to it, such as choice, same sex marriage etc. and those are used to divide the voters, so they won't look at the big issues that will really have an impact on their lives. I mean, really - what impact does it make on the average "Joe" if Bob and Billy get married?
But on the big issues, such as healthcare, defense etc. there are only slight variations of the same theme. Of course there is lots of talk and posturing before elections... afterwards... another story. There is no more government by the people - for the people, it's by corporations and for corporations. The only use they have for us is consuming and paying taxes.
__________________
The price of anything is the amount of life you exchange for it. ~Henry David Thoreau
These 5 are what I call "The Liberal Conspiracy Circle". If all 5 of these groups/institutions were wiped off the face of the earth, according to leftists, the world would be a massively better place. I guarentee you if you talk to someone anywhere on the Leftist spectrum, they will probably boil down the world's problems as they see them to these 5 groups/institutions (with emphasis on a certain one, like Obama's Pastor with Whites).
On the Right, it comes down to these 5:
-Gays
-The Welfare State
-Gun Control
-"Diversity"
-"Morals"
Go to any thread on FreeRepublic and the vast majority of the posters will boil down sociey's "decline" to these 5 general topics. If something goes wrong in the world in general, it's always one of these 5 groups of topics that eventually gets blamed. Get rid of the liberalistic views on these things, and you "make the world right again".
At the end of the day, both are silly and rediculous. But what swings me towards conservativsm is the fact that conservatism is more firmly rooted in facts rather than rhetoric and flame wars. If anyone's noticed, Free Republic has a noticeable derth of flame wars and disrespectful behavior compared to DemocraticUnderground. I attribute this to a basic truism: To conservatives, Politics and government in general is something that should be avoided and is not something to encompass your life. To Liberals, government is the lifeblood, hence the higher severaty of the debate. The amount of people at DU who openly admit to being on some form of "Government Assistance" is staggering. When you listen to their private lives, they seem filled with posts of having broken homes, poor finances, poor health, failed realtionships and assorted "Issues" within themselves and how they see the world. Look at Liberal society: Germany released a book encouraging parents to touch their children in a sexual manner. The Dutch use drugs as a social outlet. Sweden has a suicide rate vastly higher than the US. Most mass shootings happen at liberal places like schools and government offices.
These 5 are what I call "The Liberal Conspiracy Circle". If all 5 of these groups/institutions were wiped off the face of the earth, according to leftists, the world would be a massively better place. I guarentee you if you talk to someone anywhere on the Leftist spectrum, they will probably boil down the world's problems as they see them to these 5 groups/institutions (with emphasis on a certain one, like Obama's Pastor with Whites).
On the Right, it comes down to these 5:
-Gays
-The Welfare State
-Gun Control
-"Diversity"
-"Morals"
Go to any thread on FreeRepublic and the vast majority of the posters will boil down sociey's "decline" to these 5 general topics. If something goes wrong in the world in general, it's always one of these 5 groups of topics that eventually gets blamed. Get rid of the liberalistic views on these things, and you "make the world right again".
At the end of the day, both are silly and rediculous. But what swings me towards conservativsm is the fact that conservatism is more firmly rooted in facts rather than rhetoric and flame wars. If anyone's noticed, Free Republic has a noticeable derth of flame wars and disrespectful behavior compared to DemocraticUnderground. I attribute this to a basic truism: To conservatives, Politics and government in general is something that should be avoided and is not something to encompass your life. To Liberals, government is the lifeblood, hence the higher severaty of the debate. The amount of people at DU who openly admit to being on some form of "Government Assistance" is staggering. When you listen to their private lives, they seem filled with posts of having broken homes, poor finances, poor health, failed realtionships and assorted "Issues" within themselves and how they see the world. Look at Liberal society: Germany released a book encouraging parents to touch their children in a sexual manner. The Dutch use drugs as a social outlet. Sweden has a suicide rate vastly higher than the US. Most mass shootings happen at liberal places like schools and government offices.
Well adjusted people =generally Conservatives
Not-so-well adjusted people = generally Liberal
Mass killings occurr at liberal places????? liberal places lile blacksburg, VA.,
Columbine, Oklahoma, Waco tX, ????????
Many studies have shown that in most cases Conservatives are happier and more satisfied then liberials. We are also more prolific so if we can stay ahead of the illegals we'll breed the libs out sooner or later
Yep, the Republicans are the only party in recent decades to have provided pitiful presidential candidates. Not like the way the Democrats put forward such sterling nominees as Jihmmih, lost-in-space George McGovern, that dufus skirt-chasing good ol' boy Clinton, Walter Mundane, and the technocratic tank captain himself, Michael Dukakis. Hmm, actually, now that I look at the fine offerings of the Democratic party, no wonder Republicans have won most of those elections.
On another note: Without going into every president mentioned, I do think the op underestimated Eisenhower, the president who kept the world from blowing up (literally) during the uncertainty of the early Cold War years, when we were still trying to feel out how to live with the new basic reality of intricate globalization mixed in with nuclear weapons.
One more: A while back, I looked through a website that tried to estimate the IQ's of famous people, including those from the past. Kind of interesting. Sorry I can't remember the name of the site, but they estimated W's IQ to be higher than Kerry's--no surprise to me, because Kerry really seems pretty dumb. I mean, how dumb do you have to be to claim you voted for the increase in defense spending under Pres. Reagan when you didn't even vote, and Senate voting records are public? Kerry, yeah, another fine candidate from the Democrats. As I said earlier, all you have to do to answer the corollary question to the op's initial thoughts--Why do the Republicans keep winning these elections?--is to look at the alternatives the Democrats keep offering.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
