Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics.
[quote]
It's a useful generalization.
It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that?
I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity.
I don't disagree with any of this.
On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote: In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons.
As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter.
I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females.
I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc.
However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make.
^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O
Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women, not necessarily how they actually are.
I believe we have two entirely different outlooks on what constitutes a 'nice guy.' My idea of a 'nice guy' is a guy who is friendly, generous, considerate, kind, aka not a douche. He isn't necessarily shy, weak, insecure, obsessed, hesitant, needy, desperate, or obsequious.
My point is that a friendly, generous, considerate, and kind man will come off in certain negative ways to women. I think we all know nice guys who hot girls just aren't attracted to, despite the fact that said guys are genuinely good people.
On October 18 2012 15:49 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 15:46 sunprince wrote:
On October 18 2012 15:43 Souma wrote:
On October 18 2012 15:43 sunprince wrote:
On October 18 2012 15:12 sevencck wrote:
On October 18 2012 15:05 sunprince wrote:
On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote:
On October 18 2012 14:45 sunprince wrote: [quote]
Please explain your position without resorting to a failure to understand generalizations and statistics.
[quote]
It's a useful generalization.
It would be similarly "overly simplistic" to say that men prefer women who are pretty. Would you take issue with that?
I'd say both sexes respond to physical attributes. I'd say it's a bit different to say that women respond to assholes. Men most often respond to femininity. Women most often respond to masculinity, and assholish behavior is often aggressive and masculine. Masculine behavior can also be evolved and inclusive though, so to say women respond to assholes is kinda missing the more important energy women respond to that underlies the juvenile side of masculinity.
I don't disagree with any of this.
On October 18 2012 14:58 sevencck wrote: In any case, I've noticed alot of women I know find Obama attractive, maybe for these reasons.
As implied by my previous posts on this topic, Obama is a useless metric because of the confounding factors. A lot of women find men in general with power, wealth, fame, and privilege attractive. The real question to be asked is, "Is the average man more attractive to women when he acts like a nice guy, or when he acts like a jerk?", and both the empirical evidence and the anecdotal experiences of sexually experienced men point to the latter.
I think it's much easier to express juvenile impulsive assholish masculinity than it is to express evolved inclusive masculinity. What makes it more difficult is that along the way, feminism has managed to play a cruel trick and convince many men that "evolved" behavior involves renouncing masculine tendencies. So I'd simply argue that any empiricism you present is inherently biased toward the latter since our current constructs of nice guy are flawed with respect to attracting females.
I agree that part of masculinity is displaying leadership ability, which is part of what I think you mean by "inclusive masculinity". In other words, alpha males look out for their group, are trustworthy, communicate, etc.
However, this doesn't change the fact that the vast majority of women are not attracted to men who display shyness, weakness, insecurity, obsession, hesitance, neediness, desperation, or obsequiousness. And that fact is the point I'm trying to make.
^ Is that how you view the typical 'nice guy'? o_O
Yes. Keep in mind, though, that the operative word is "display". This is how "nice guys" present themselves to women.
Wow..so what would be your adjectives for douche bag?
"Jerks" present themselves to women in the opposite way; they display confidence, strength, security, aloofness, initiative, lack of caring, indifference, and assertiveness.
Sunprince figured it out. You are either an overbearing douche who women want to fuck, or you are a spineless, obsessive, lonely hermit who they wouldn't touch with a 10 foot pole.
It's so simple!
Luckily, he mentionned that he belonged to the first category earlier in the thread:
On October 18 2012 14:24 Souma wrote: There's obviously a balance issue here. You'll be hard-pressed to find a great girlfriend if you're too nice. Likewise, it'll be pretty damn hard to find a nice, smart girl if you're just a giant douche.
I've never had any such problems since I became a misanthropic douche. Feel free to ask other giant douches for their personal experiences, I'm sure they'll mostly concur.
1- Decide that being a jerk is better for getting laid 2- Tries hard to become a jerk 3- Make it a general theory about men women relationship 4- ??? (Feel cool I guess) 5- Profit
4bis: I forgot the part about applying that to presidential debates. Theory is so sound that you can make assertion like: "Romney is being succesfull with women voters by being a mysogynist reactionary anti-abortion douche. Because you know, women like assholes". Apparently.
The only general theory I came up with during all those years is that people who brag about being douches have major insecurity issues, which is indeed not great for attractivness. So I guess pretending to be an asshole is better than showing your insecure or akward self. That could be.
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
EDIT: My bad Biff, misquoted on accident, was quoting your quote and then chose only to respond to tigerkarl and mixed the two names up when I erased one.
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
Not everyone votes on the principe of who gives them the most stuff.
Some people have strong ideological convictions that they hold to be true, principles that guide their life.
They don't vote on who promises them the most free stuff, they vote on how they feel the world ought to be.
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
The democrats have more than their share of retards.
On October 18 2012 23:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:21 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
Not everyone votes on the principe of who gives them the most stuff.
Some people have strong ideological convictions that they hold to be true, principles that guide their life.
They don't vote on who promises them the most free stuff, they vote on how they feel the world ought to be.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's not about getting free stuff. It's about not getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation.
When people who struggle vote so that people like Romney don't pay 18% taxes but rather 12, so that he can buy a fifth swimming pool, and them and his family get deprived of a free universal healthcare, I consider something is wrong. Unless some people living in the shit really are very generous towards billionaires.
On October 18 2012 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
The democrats have more than their share of retards.
Oh, believe me, I don't doubt it. It just that, amongst republicans, it seems to be a major tendency. If you are smart and progressive, I believe you should have troubles fighting with people who believe dinosaurs didn't exist or that abortion for raped women shouldn't be allowed. It's not about a minority of idiots in the party. It's about its main tendency.
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
Except a vote for Romney is a vote to lower taxes on the rich.
Here's a graph of cost of Romney's tax cuts together with the possible revenue gain from closing loopholes. Graph is from the TPC report.
On October 18 2012 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
The democrats have more than their share of retards.
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
Don't see why you can't considering to be part of the GOP you pretty much have to follow their platform or be refused funding / etc.
On October 18 2012 23:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:21 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
Not everyone votes on the principe of who gives them the most stuff.
Some people have strong ideological convictions that they hold to be true, principles that guide their life.
They don't vote on who promises them the most free stuff, they vote on how they feel the world ought to be.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's not about getting free stuff. It's about not getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation.
When people who struggle vote so that people like Romney don't pay 18% taxes but rather 12, so that he can buy a fifth swimming pool, and them and his family get deprived of a free universal healthcare, I consider something is wrong. Unless some people living in the shit really are very generous towards billionaires.
No. It is definitely not about getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation. Why are you trying to paint politics as black and white as if "you either support giving money to rich people" or "you support helping poor people"?? It isn't like that, tax cuts don't JUST benefit the rich. It isn't just about taxes anyway. I think the way the President is handling immigration is horrible. I think he is terrible at "getting muslims to like us" which seems to be the theme of his foreign policy. I disagree with abortion and I don't care what your opinion of how "backwards" that kind of thinking is, I find it morally wrong. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. I think drugs should be decriminalized at the very least. I don't care about anything to do with religion. I believe in protecting the constitution, even though alot of people here are cool with shredding it. These are my values and why I do NOT support Barack Obama, everyone has their own opinions so to argue which President is more beneficial to me based on your values is just stupid.
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
Gingrich is smart (much smarter than Romney or Ryan), he's just a colossal douche.
On October 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:33 zalz wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:21 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
Not everyone votes on the principe of who gives them the most stuff.
Some people have strong ideological convictions that they hold to be true, principles that guide their life.
They don't vote on who promises them the most free stuff, they vote on how they feel the world ought to be.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's not about getting free stuff. It's about not getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation.
When people who struggle vote so that people like Romney don't pay 18% taxes but rather 12, so that he can buy a fifth swimming pool, and them and his family get deprived of a free universal healthcare, I consider something is wrong. Unless some people living in the shit really are very generous towards billionaires.
No. It is definitely not about getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation. Why are you trying to paint politics as black and white as if "you either support giving money to rich people" or "you support helping poor people"?? It isn't like that, tax cuts don't JUST benefit the rich. It isn't just about taxes anyway. I think the way the President is handling immigration is horrible. I think he is terrible at "getting muslims to like us" which seems to be the theme of his foreign policy. I disagree with abortion and I don't care what your opinion of how "backwards" that kind of thinking is, I find it morally wrong. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. I think drugs should be decriminalized at the very least. I don't care about anything to do with religion. I believe in protecting the constitution, even though alot of people here are cool with shredding it. These are my values and why I do NOT support Barack Obama, everyone has their own opinions so to argue which President is more beneficial to me based on your values is just stupid.
At the last town hall, Romney said he and Obama are pretty much identical on immigration and gun control; at the VP debate, Ryan established they're the same on abortion. Neither will decriminalize drugs, neither will do jack all about NDAA, and Romney's idea of foreign policy is "not what Obama did." I don't see how your reasons compel you to Romney.
On October 18 2012 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
Gingrich is smart (much smarter than Romney or Ryan), he's just a colossal douche.
On October 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:33 zalz wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:21 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
Not everyone votes on the principe of who gives them the most stuff.
Some people have strong ideological convictions that they hold to be true, principles that guide their life.
They don't vote on who promises them the most free stuff, they vote on how they feel the world ought to be.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's not about getting free stuff. It's about not getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation.
When people who struggle vote so that people like Romney don't pay 18% taxes but rather 12, so that he can buy a fifth swimming pool, and them and his family get deprived of a free universal healthcare, I consider something is wrong. Unless some people living in the shit really are very generous towards billionaires.
No. It is definitely not about getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation. Why are you trying to paint politics as black and white as if "you either support giving money to rich people" or "you support helping poor people"?? It isn't like that, tax cuts don't JUST benefit the rich. It isn't just about taxes anyway. I think the way the President is handling immigration is horrible. I think he is terrible at "getting muslims to like us" which seems to be the theme of his foreign policy. I disagree with abortion and I don't care what your opinion of how "backwards" that kind of thinking is, I find it morally wrong. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. I think drugs should be decriminalized at the very least. I don't care about anything to do with religion. I believe in protecting the constitution, even though alot of people here are cool with shredding it. These are my values and why I do NOT support Barack Obama, everyone has their own opinions so to argue which President is more beneficial to me based on your values is just stupid.
At the last town hall, Romney said he and Obama are pretty much identical on immigration and gun control; at the VP debate, Ryan established they're the same on abortion. Neither will decriminalize drugs, neither will do jack all about NDAA, and Romney's idea of foreign policy is "not what Obama did." I don't see how your reasons compel you to Romney.
Honestly curious. Based on kmillz views/values why should he pick Obama?
I really appreciate being able to read the discussion in this thread so thanks everyone getting in on it. I'm definitely becoming more informed and thinking on important issues. It's fun getting familiar with certain names.
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
i keep hearing this, that 'most' republicans arent so bat shit insane. and yet i cant find one, every single person put forward as "the sane one" seems to agree with at least one of these view points. following any 1 of these views shows a lack of education or critical thinking which in my book should make them impossible to vote for.
so if anyone could show me some sane republicans, that would be just great.
On October 18 2012 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
Gingrich is smart (much smarter than Romney or Ryan), he's just a colossal douche.
Edit:
On October 19 2012 00:00 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:33 zalz wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:21 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
Not everyone votes on the principe of who gives them the most stuff.
Some people have strong ideological convictions that they hold to be true, principles that guide their life.
They don't vote on who promises them the most free stuff, they vote on how they feel the world ought to be.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's not about getting free stuff. It's about not getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation.
When people who struggle vote so that people like Romney don't pay 18% taxes but rather 12, so that he can buy a fifth swimming pool, and them and his family get deprived of a free universal healthcare, I consider something is wrong. Unless some people living in the shit really are very generous towards billionaires.
No. It is definitely not about getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation. Why are you trying to paint politics as black and white as if "you either support giving money to rich people" or "you support helping poor people"?? It isn't like that, tax cuts don't JUST benefit the rich. It isn't just about taxes anyway. I think the way the President is handling immigration is horrible. I think he is terrible at "getting muslims to like us" which seems to be the theme of his foreign policy. I disagree with abortion and I don't care what your opinion of how "backwards" that kind of thinking is, I find it morally wrong. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. I think drugs should be decriminalized at the very least. I don't care about anything to do with religion. I believe in protecting the constitution, even though alot of people here are cool with shredding it. These are my values and why I do NOT support Barack Obama, everyone has their own opinions so to argue which President is more beneficial to me based on your values is just stupid.
At the last town hall, Romney said he and Obama are pretty much identical on immigration and gun control; at the VP debate, Ryan established they're the same on abortion. Neither will decriminalize drugs, neither will do jack all about NDAA, and Romney's idea of foreign policy is "not what Obama did." I don't see how your reasons compel you to Romney.
Honestly curious. Based on kmillz views/values why should he pick Obama?
I really appreciate being able to read the discussion in this thread so thanks everyone getting in on it. I'm definitely becoming more informed and thinking on important issues. It's fun getting familiar with certain names.
I'd have to know more about kmillz's actual foreign policy views and thoughts about the U.S.'s place in the global setting beyond disliking the apology tour, since domestically Romney has pretty much conceded that he's the same as Obama (albeit with a tax plan that boils down to "trust me, I'm a business man").
Edit: Honestly, the only thing I can think of without that is that he should pick Obama because Obama has been slightly to moderately more honest with his views than Romney has over the past year. Seriously, showing the debates during primary season would have single-handedly crushed Romney's hopes-is it okay to lie or at the very least omit the truth to get your party's nomination?
On October 18 2012 23:35 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:31 mynameisgreat11 wrote: You can't judge all Republicans by the actions of some. Lots of smart, progressive people are Republican. But, there is no denying the fact that Republicans embody a staunch, religious conservatism much more than the other parties. Legitimate rape, creationism, fear of education (thanks Santorum), and a much less secular vision of government are all associations of the Republican party, regardless of where you personally stand.
I don't see a smart progressive person accepting to be in the same party than Santorum, Palin, or Bachman. Or Gingritch, or Perry, or any of those dudes really.
Gingrich is smart (much smarter than Romney or Ryan), he's just a colossal douche.
Edit:
On October 19 2012 00:00 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:42 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:33 zalz wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:30 Biff The Understudy wrote:
On October 18 2012 23:21 kmillz wrote:
On October 18 2012 21:10 Biff The Understudy wrote:
I'm amazed how the modern republicans manage to bring two completely different things (More money for the rich & cultural backwardness disguised as "conservatism") into one party and makes it seem coherent, so that broad parts of the population would actually vote for something, that only supports the smallest piece of the population.
Nonsense. I'm poor and from the city (Cleveland to be specific) and was raised by my parents who share Republican values, but we live socially liberal. As I grew older I learned about libertarianism and that appealed to me more, but my Republican roots have nothing to do with the 1%. YOUR idea of cultural backwardness is the complete opposite of mine, does that make you more right than me? No. Believe it or not even though I want Mitt Romney to win, I still disagree with a lot of his policies and would vote Ron Paul/Gary Johnson in a heartbeat if they had a chance in this election. I grew up Catholic but am now Agnostic. I hate this notion that all "modern republicans" are portrayed as neanderthals who think 2+2=5 and we want to throw money at rich people. It just isn't like that at all. We think for ourselves too.
You quoting me for ssomething I didn't write (although I completely agree with it).
Voting Republican when you are poor or middle class is voting against your most basic interest. It's like voting communist if you are a millionaire. I know people who do it, but it makes little sense to me.
About cultural backwardness, maybe they are right to be backward, the fact they are is non debatable. Abortion is something we shouldn't even talk about anymore. When you want to go back to the 50's, you are backward.
As for libertarians, if they were not complete hypocrites, they would never in a million year associate themselves with Republicans. Not that they are better, but they are not sharing anything on paper with them except for letting the rich and the corporations screw everybody.
Not everyone votes on the principe of who gives them the most stuff.
Some people have strong ideological convictions that they hold to be true, principles that guide their life.
They don't vote on who promises them the most free stuff, they vote on how they feel the world ought to be.
I'm sure you know as well as I do that it's not about getting free stuff. It's about not getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation.
When people who struggle vote so that people like Romney don't pay 18% taxes but rather 12, so that he can buy a fifth swimming pool, and them and his family get deprived of a free universal healthcare, I consider something is wrong. Unless some people living in the shit really are very generous towards billionaires.
No. It is definitely not about getting your asshole enlarged to the profits of people who already live in extraordinary ostentation. Why are you trying to paint politics as black and white as if "you either support giving money to rich people" or "you support helping poor people"?? It isn't like that, tax cuts don't JUST benefit the rich. It isn't just about taxes anyway. I think the way the President is handling immigration is horrible. I think he is terrible at "getting muslims to like us" which seems to be the theme of his foreign policy. I disagree with abortion and I don't care what your opinion of how "backwards" that kind of thinking is, I find it morally wrong. I don't care about gay marriage one way or the other. I think drugs should be decriminalized at the very least. I don't care about anything to do with religion. I believe in protecting the constitution, even though alot of people here are cool with shredding it. These are my values and why I do NOT support Barack Obama, everyone has their own opinions so to argue which President is more beneficial to me based on your values is just stupid.
At the last town hall, Romney said he and Obama are pretty much identical on immigration and gun control; at the VP debate, Ryan established they're the same on abortion. Neither will decriminalize drugs, neither will do jack all about NDAA, and Romney's idea of foreign policy is "not what Obama did." I don't see how your reasons compel you to Romney.
Honestly curious. Based on kmillz views/values why should he pick Obama?
I really appreciate being able to read the discussion in this thread so thanks everyone getting in on it. I'm definitely becoming more informed and thinking on important issues. It's fun getting familiar with certain names.
I'd have to know more about kmillz's actual foreign policy views and thoughts about the U.S.'s place in the global setting beyond disliking the apology tour, since domestically Romney has pretty much conceded that he's the same as Obama (albeit with a tax plan that boils down to "trust me, I'm a business man").
Edit: Honestly, the only thing I can think of without that is that he should pick Obama because Obama has been slightly to moderately more honest with his views than Romney has over the past year. Seriously, showing the debates during primary season would have single-handedly crushed Romney's hopes-is it okay to lie or at the very least omit the truth to get your party's nomination?
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Research/Files/Papers/2012/8/01%20tax%20reform%20brown%20gale%20looney/fig2.jpg)
