Leaked documents reveal GOP plan to use scare tactics to raise money
57 replies, posted
Fear, sex, and money sells. The Republicans know this, and their campaigning reflects it. Those they can't scare, they buy off with tax cuts or promises of tax cuts. Sarah Palin was nothing more than the most current incarnation of the hot chick standing next to something ugly to make that ugly thing look better.
[QUOTE=Foda;20565080]wrong. communism is basically what the US system is today, however, the people get together and decide what they will produce over the year and what to spend money on. they don't elect people to represent them, they represent them selfs.[/QUOTE]
If you were private schooled, you should probably go demand a refund.
[QUOTE=Madman_Andre;20559697][IMG]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/356/theevilempirelulz.jpg[/IMG]
[/QUOTE]
what is the RNC, fucking Ebaumsworld? Jesus christ
[editline]10:30PM[/editline]
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20560849]Socialism isn't a particularly bad idea. [I]It's just that no human is a good enough person to remain uncorrupted by the amount of power given to a socialist leader[/I]
The leader becomes so full of himself that he forgets the original goal of Socialism; to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, instead of a key amount getting more money. Instead of preventing a certain class from getting rich and making everyone else poor, it becomes him that has all the money, and he makes everyone else poor to bring more money to himself.[/QUOTE]
socialism does not equal dictatorship you dummy. There's such as thing as democratic socialism
Norway is a nation I would call socialist, not any of this ussr and china crap.
[QUOTE=Foda;20565080]wrong. communism is basically what the US system is today,[/QUOTE]
what
[QUOTE=Lambeth;20567193]Norway is a nation I would call socialist, not any of this ussr and china crap.[/QUOTE]
it's not a full socialist country but it definitely has more socialist aspects than the U.S. and guess what it's also a nicer country to live in than the U.S. according to statistics related to health, average income, education, and basically everything else that can be used as a metric for quality of life
who'd a-thunk it?
damn you tracy morgan
Everyone said I was crazy when I said this earlier. Heh.
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20567238]it's not a full socialist country but it definitely has more socialist aspects than the U.S. and guess what it's also a nicer country to live in than the U.S. according to statistics related to health, average income, education, and basically everything else that can be used as a metric for quality of life
who'd a-thunk it?[/QUOTE]
Hence why the GOP brands everything remotely progressive as being Chinese Socialism. The fact is that countries with those policies enjoy much higher standards of living than the US and don't have to worry about going without healthcare, education, or the basic necessities of life. In the end, the GOP is in the business of maintaining the status quo and allowing the few rich to live on the backs of the many poor.
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20567337]Hence why the GOP brands everything remotely progressive as being Chinese Socialism. The fact is that countries with those policies enjoy much higher standards of living than the US and don't have to worry about going without healthcare, education, or the basic necessities of life. In the end, the GOP is in the business of maintaining the status quo and allowing the few rich to live on the backs of the many poor.[/QUOTE]
They aren't called "conservatives" for nothing. Preserve the status quo. The same people a hundred years ago fought against the radio, thinking it was too revolutionary and would spark insurrection across the country.
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;20565868]the USPS isn't socialized - it is not profit based, and they do not receive federal funding. they finance everything through the sale of stamps and shit
as for socialism, there is nothing wrong with it at all. and in this day and age where the concentration of wealth is becoming more [B]ridiculous than it has ever been in history[/B], it is almost a necessity. capitalism requires at least two things to be successful in our certain situation: an informed public, or decent CEOs of companies. we do not have either.
atleast if the government controls a program (like healthcare), we can have a say over what occurs through our election of representatives. otherwise, we have no say at all since corporations are only concerned with making profits and are ideologically tyrannical in nature. boycotts and such are effective in a capitalist society, but that requires (as said above) an informed public - which we do not.
[editline]03:47AM[/editline]
what the hell did you just say[/QUOTE]
I would try reading up on Rome.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20567573]I would try reading up on Rome.[/QUOTE]
I know plenty about Ancient Rome, it wasn't as bad as it is now. And it wasn't global.
[QUOTE=Nyaos;20567361]They aren't called "conservatives" for nothing. Preserve the status quo. The same people a hundred years ago fought against the radio, thinking it was too revolutionary and would spark insurrection across the country.[/QUOTE]
They invented video to kill the radio star. :911:
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20567584]I know plenty about Ancient Rome, it wasn't as bad as it is now. And it wasn't global.[/QUOTE]
Keep in mind that Rome was a very caste society, and the majority of the wealth only went to the Patricians.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20567704]Keep in mind that Rome was a very caste society, and the majority of the wealth only went to the Patricians.[/QUOTE]
however, the consolidation of weath in rome was exactly that, [i]in rome[/i]
The consolidation of wealth we're facing today is across the entire world
[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;20567337]Hence why the GOP brands everything remotely progressive as being Chinese Socialism. The fact is that countries with those policies enjoy much higher standards of living than the US and don't have to worry about going without healthcare, education, or the basic necessities of life. In the end, the GOP is in the business of maintaining the status quo and allowing the few rich to live on the backs of the many poor.[/QUOTE]
How victorian
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20567755]however, the consolidation of weath in rome was exactly that, [I]in rome[/I]
The consolidation of wealth we're facing today is across the entire world[/QUOTE]
Also keep in mind, in the imperial Mediterranean world, Rome was the only empire that had actual wealth for it's citizens.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20567857]Also keep in mind, in the imperial Mediterranean world, Rome was the only empire that had actual wealth for it's citizens.[/QUOTE]
Except not really, there was Carthage and Greece had not just dropped off the map
[QUOTE=Sigma-Lambda;20567238]it's not a full socialist country but it definitely has more socialist aspects than the U.S. and guess what it's also a nicer country to live in than the U.S. according to statistics related to health, average income, education, and basically everything else that can be used as a metric for quality of life
who'd a-thunk it?[/QUOTE]
They have lots and lots of oil, you know.
whoa man people support presidents more when bad stuff happens?
That means they made that stuff, clearly!
[QUOTE=PelPix123;20560849]Socialism isn't a particularly bad idea. [I]It's just that no human is a good enough person to remain uncorrupted by the amount of power given to a socialist leader[/I]
The leader becomes so full of himself that he forgets the original goal of Socialism; to make sure that wealth is evenly distributed among all citizens, instead of a key amount getting more money. Instead of preventing a certain class from getting rich and making everyone else poor, it becomes him that has all the money, and he makes everyone else poor to bring more money to himself.[/QUOTE]
"Socialist leader"
What the fuck is wrong with your education
[QUOTE=siberpredaht;20565868]as for socialism, there is nothing wrong with it at all. and in this day and age where the concentration of wealth is becoming more ridiculous than it has ever been in history,[/QUOTE]
What about the gilded age or the beginning of industrial revolution which actually gave rise to socialism?
[QUOTE=RBM11;20575543]What about the gilded age or the beginning of industrial revolution which actually gave rise to socialism?[/QUOTE]
wealth is even more concentrated then during the beginning of the industrial revolution and the gilded age. back then, markets were largely made up of smaller scale businesses, contrary to what we have today.
also, wealth today is also unevenly distributed across borders, too. there were powerful countries exploiting lesser developed ones back then, too, but workers everywhere labored in similar conditions, for similar pay, benefits, etc. again, contrary to what we have today.
[img]http://imgkk.com/i/8ob.png[/img]
What
Monies. That shows it's serious business all up in there.
[QUOTE=zombiefreak;20567573]I would try reading up on Rome.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=RBM11;20575543]What about the gilded age or the beginning of industrial revolution which actually gave rise to socialism?[/QUOTE]
[url]http://rawstory.com/08/news/2009/08/15/concentration-of-wealth-in-hands-of-rich/[/url]
this was in 2009, i would imagine it is even worse now
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.