Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Republican Self LoathingFollow

#77 Jun 13 2009 at 8:50 AM Rating: Good
**
777 posts
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Your sig wrote:
In life, when an action is performed there is a 1 in 20 chance to have a critical failure.

I believe you're confusing life with Dungeons and Dragons. Easy enough mistake to make.

Huh? What are you talking about?

Dungeons and Dragons is life.

Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
You mentioned exceptions. What do you consider as a fitting example of something that is an exception to this rule?

Oh heck, I have no idea. I'm just accustomed to people finding some hole in something I say and trying to pick it apart. If I didn't add a disclaimer, I halfway expect someone to manipulate the wording in the rule to make it sound like I approve of infant molestation or something absurd.

Call it paranoia if you will.

Edited, Jun 13th 2009 12:53pm by Karelyn
#78 Jun 13 2009 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
**
777 posts
Ambrya wrote:
Okay, Karelyn, I started this thread rating you down, not out of spite, but because you were coming across as an insipid twit, but once you took the stick out of your ***, you're not bad.

You thought me boring? Well that is... um... boring..?

And I never took the stick outta my ***. I just can't get enough of those wooden tree twigs.
#79 Jun 13 2009 at 8:58 AM Rating: Default
Prodigal Son
******
20,643 posts
Omega,

I love that avatar.

That is all.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#80 Jun 13 2009 at 9:00 AM Rating: Good
Karelyn wrote:
I approve of infant molestation


You're disgusting.
#81 Jun 13 2009 at 9:01 AM Rating: Good
**
777 posts
Grandfather Barkingturtle wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
I approve of infant molestation

You're disgusting.

I love you forever.

I never thought I would say this to a man. May I have your babies?
#82 Jun 13 2009 at 9:04 AM Rating: Decent
Ambrya wrote:
Okay, Karelyn, I started this thread rating you down, not out of spite, but because you were coming across as an insipid twit, but once you took the stick out of your ***, you're not bad.


Personally, I'm still making up my mind on whether it's a patina of smarm or a deep-set rot.
#83 Jun 13 2009 at 9:08 AM Rating: Good
**
777 posts
Kavekk wrote:
Personally, I'm still making up my mind on whether it's a patina of smarm or a deep-set rot.

Can't it be both? It's much sexier that way.
#84 Jun 13 2009 at 9:11 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Karelyn wrote:
May I have your babies?
Bring 'em back when you're done molesting them.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#85 Jun 13 2009 at 9:18 AM Rating: Good
**
777 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
May I have your babies?
Bring 'em back when you're done molesting them.

I promise nothing!
#86 Jun 13 2009 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts

This is one of the worst threads I've ever tried to read.

My negative opinion of Karelyn isn't necessarily her political opinions, but more related to her taking a thread with certain subject and going off into her personal thesis on politics.

Detailed post-parsing is also painful and boring to read. This goes for both sides. I know it feels like that's the only response when someone posts a pageful of objectionable content, but it typically reads better when you either pick the most offending point and counter that, or you respond to the overall theme. Most of us have already considered the arguments and counter-arguments for each of those other bullet points hundreds of times before in our internet lives.

#87 Jun 13 2009 at 4:08 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
The new report post system sometimes is difficult to tell where the post actually is unless you are paying attention, and the report goes to all admins, some of which rarely if ever venture into the asylum and may or may not be aware of the difference in ruleset.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#88 Jun 13 2009 at 5:39 PM Rating: Decent
The republicans though are an actual coalition, so some unhappiness is to be expected. You have tension between libertarians, the religious right, economic conservatives, general values voters, and moderate republicans. This election especially the coalitions had no uniting figure. This matters because there is real difference between the coalitions in terms of governing.

Democrats really only have one dissident faction, the blue dog democrats, and they are only such on economic issues. It's possible to be a republican and pro choice, and also to be one pro-life. But democrats really don't have that kind of tension-the party is monolithic on about every issue. If you are a democrat, and for the iraq war, how well would you do?

There were strong differences between mccain, romney and huckabee, but honestly, could you even name one substantial way hillary and obama differed? The democratic party has done a better job of purging dissidents, as how they handled lieberman shows.

Republican distress only works to their benefit, because it forces the party to self-examine itself. That they didn't over the bush years set themselves up for a fall.
#89 Jun 13 2009 at 6:12 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
The Neispace of Doom wrote:
Democrats really only have one dissident faction, the blue dog democrats, and they are only such on economic issues.
You're forgetting the New Democrat Coalition. They only make up about 25-30% of the Democratic House. As for differences...
lolWiki wrote:
Members of the New Democrat Coalition, an affiliate of the Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), take moderate or liberal positions on social issues and moderate positions on economic issues and trade. The DLC aims to revitalize and strengthen the Democratic party, while the Blue Dogs emphasize bipartisanship.

Democrats who identify with the Blue Dogs tend to be conservatives, but have more divergent positions on social issues than "New Democrats." Reflecting the group's Southern roots, many Blue Dogs are strong supporters of gun rights and receive high ratings from the National Rifle Association, some have anti-abortion voting records, and some get high ratings from immigration reduction groups. As a caucus, however, the group has never agreed on or taken a position on these issues, and many members favor more socially liberal positions.

On economic issues, Blue Dogs tend to be pro-business and favor limiting public welfare spending, arguing instead for "individual responsibility". They have supported welfare reform as well as the Republican-backed Bankruptcy Reform Act of 2005. They have differing positions on trade issues, and include supporters of labor unions, protectionism, and other populist measures. New Democrats tend to favor free trade.

Some moderate or conservative Democrats, such as Congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, are members of both the Blue Dog Coalition and the New Democrat Coalition.
Neispace wrote:
It's possible to be a republican and pro choice, and also to be one pro-life.
Really? This explains why Snowe and Collins get dismissed as RINOs for their pro-choice views and why Steele has to backpedal when he's caught saying that abortion should be a choice. and why Romney had to have a revelation that abortion was wrong before running for president.
Quote:
There were strong differences between mccain, romney and huckabee
For instance, Romney dropped out of the race almost immediately and Huckabee never had a chance in hell but stayed in just for shits 'n giggles. Thompson & Giuliani (who both had pro-choice stances) never won a single state.

This would be a better argument if you had found several significantly different candidates who both remained viable well into the race.
Quote:
The democratic party has done a better job of purging dissidents, as how they handled lieberman shows.
You mean the Senator Lieberman who still caucuses with the Democrats and who remained with the Democrats through a period where his switch would have won him all manner of praise and gifts from the GOP? That Senator Lieberman?

I'm sorry... where did you say Senator Specter was hanging out these days? Which was the most recent senator to change caucuses prior to Specter? Which party had a senator writing Op-Eds about how they had to stop castigating the moderates in their party and driving them away?

Right.

Edited, Jun 13th 2009 9:24pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#90 Jun 13 2009 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
**
777 posts
Jophiel wrote:
For instance, Romney dropped out of the race almost immediately and Huckabee never had a chance in hell but stayed in just for shits 'n giggles. Thompson & Giuliani (who both had pro-choice stances) never won a single state.

This is one of those places which makes me sad that our nomination system works the way it does.

Guiliani probably should have been the nominee. Out of all the candidates, he probably had the strongest chance of winning against Obama, and he did not compromise on conservatism.

The reason he lost, is because Republicans insist on continuing to pander to Fundamentalist Christians. Republicans need to suck it up, and pander towards conservatism first. Fundamentalist Christians will have one of two choices; either follow the party anyway, or just not vote (You can be certain they won't be voting Democrat). The party would be stronger off for it.

Adults who seriously believe they are capable of talking to their imaginary friend should not be allowed to vote. There should be a very real line that should be drawn that says "No. You are incapable of separating reality from fantasy. You are deeply mentally unstable. You cannot vote." Voting is a privilege, not a right. And if there is one group of people that privilege to vote should not be extended, it is most definitely the clinically insane.
#91 Jun 13 2009 at 7:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Karelyn wrote:
The reason he lost, is because Republicans insist on continuing to pander to Fundamentalist Christians.
That and the fact that his election team was apparently huffing glue when they came up with that brilliant "Let's ignore the election until Florida" strategy.
Quote:
Fundamentalist Christians will have one of two choices; either follow the party anyway, or just not vote (You can be certain they won't be voting Democrat).
This is largely my opinion about Democrats and environmentalists. Except that the Greenpeace faction is a smaller percentage of the Left than the Bible faction is of the Right. I can't get on board with your notion of prohibiting the religiously minded from voting though since I'm a Catholic.

Edited, Jun 13th 2009 10:23pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#92 Jun 13 2009 at 7:49 PM Rating: Good
**
777 posts
Jophiel wrote:
This is largely my opinion about Democrats and environmentalists.

At least Democrats are using the Environmentalists, instead of the other way around. Unless I am mistaken, it seems like they are strongly abusing the Environmentalists, in an effort to pass other bills that they desire to pass, that they probably couldn't get away with without using the environment as an excuse.

Global Warming? Whether global warming is real or not is largely irrelevant; either way, it has proved to be a remarkably good tool for the democrats to use in order to put such harsh regulations on the automotive industry. Which effectively ran the industry bankrupt, and allowed the government gain hefty controls over them. Which they are currently attempting to use as a precedent to extend to other business, via the act of capping pay and bonuses.

Are a lot of CEOs heavily overpaid? Probably. Did that really give the Democrat party the right to address that issue in such a manipulative way? I personally don't think so.

...

In a way though, I'm a bit jealous. I sorta wish conservatives had the spinal fortitude to do something like that. Even though the idea is kinda dirty D:
#93 Jun 13 2009 at 7:53 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Karelyn wrote:
it has proved to be a remarkably good tool for the democrats to use in order to put such harsh regulations on the automotive industry. Which effectively ran the industry bankrupt
Emission standards aren't what bankrupted GM & Chrysler.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#94 Jun 13 2009 at 8:10 PM Rating: Decent
**
777 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Emission standards aren't what bankrupted GM & Chrysler.

Not in and of itself. But there was no small number of other controls that got tacked onto those emission standards bills.
#95 Jun 13 2009 at 8:14 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Karelyn wrote:
Not in and of itself. But there was no small number of other controls that got tacked onto those emission standards bills.

Government regulation wasn't what killed them either. Their marketing strategy and product position were fundamentally flawed. There was a strong dissonance between what they were producing and what most consumers wanted to purchase. Their business play was ****.
#96 Jun 13 2009 at 8:19 PM Rating: Good
Tracer Bullet
*****
12,636 posts
Allegory wrote:
Karelyn wrote:
Not in and of itself. But there was no small number of other controls that got tacked onto those emission standards bills.

Government regulation wasn't what killed them either. Their marketing strategy and product position were fundamentally flawed. There was a strong dissonance between what they were producing and what most consumers wanted to purchase. Their business play was sh*t.

Seems as though they poured all their money into Cash Cows (SUVs) while largely ignoring the Question Marks that have turned into today's Stars. Sure that's all with hindsight now, but billion dollar companies are supposed to have some decent foresight.

#97 Jun 13 2009 at 8:27 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
They should have been spinning out companies based on viable ideas from their R&D that happened to clash with their current business model. Instead they trashed them. Not taking risks on potential changes in the market is a risk itself.
#98 Jun 13 2009 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
GM & Chrysler failed from a combination of poor management (as Allegory & Tricky point out), building exceptionally shitty cars in the 70's and 80's which gave them a reputation they couldn't shake, falling behind on the technology curve and decisions made in the 60's & 70's to grab a short term gain by keeping labor prices low at the expense of a long-term cost via promised pensions & benefits. Eventually the cost of those benefits became crushing but that was largely the fault of the automotive companies who agreed to it decades earlier because it saved them a buck at the moment.

"Controls" had little to do with it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#99 Jun 13 2009 at 9:14 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
******
29,919 posts
The Unions killed them. Good management, bad, it didn't matter. The Asian car makers were able to use a much higher degree of automation on their production lines because they were able to fire unnecessary workers and replace them with many more computer numeric controlled devices and run their lines night and day for half the cost as an 8 hour shift at GM, with better quality control, less waste, and most importantly, better drive train tolerances. Let GM cut that excess union slag 10 years ago and you still ahve some horrendous management and R and D decisions, but at least the company is a viable competitor.
____________________________
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
#100 Jun 13 2009 at 9:34 PM Rating: Decent
Repressed Memories
******
21,027 posts
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
The Unions killed them.

Hurt them. Unions made their labor costs higher than foreign manufacturers, but they were still building the wrong types of cars.

American cars were seen as big, powerful. It's rare for me to see an American car commercial that doesn't advertise horsepower. Foreign made cars were generally viewed as more reliable and fuel efficient. When gas prices climb customer price sensitivity to complimentary goods all climbs. People wanted more MPG. The trend of environmentalism among consumers was also foreseeable. People prefer to at least believe they are helping the environment. And the bulk of consumers don't need the excessive horsepower often offered in American cars.

Hummers and four door pickup trucks represent the bulk of why GM failed.
#101 Jun 13 2009 at 9:34 PM Rating: Good
Looks like this turned out to be a somewhat interesting thread. Too bad I slept through most of it. Anyhoo,

BT wrote:
I think there's really a lot of overlap between the first and third groups, and they're killing the fiscal conservatives, who in my opinion happen to be the only faction with any potential viability going forward. They should run fast toward libertarians, drop the social agendas and just rebuild as the actual "small government" party. Sadly, that'd probably mean basically forfeiting the next presidential election, at the very least, but as it stands now they're too fractured to compete meaningfully, anyway.


I dunno. Remember Ross Perot? He actually polled higher than both Clinton & Bush Sr. before dropping out. And while he wasn't really a libertarian, he was the closest thing to a real 3rd party "conservative" candidate that I can recall.

If I were to speculate, I think Palin could actually have a chance of splitting with her party, going "independant", and polling decently.

But Obama is going to have to ***** up worse than W if she, in the speculative situation, or the Republicans (I'll guess Romney)are going to have any chance of unseating Obama in 2012.

Neispace wrote:
Democrats really only have one dissident faction,

You can add Homosexuals & a growing number of social liberals to that list. Still waiting on the repeals of "Don't Ask Don't Tell" & an attempt at reversing the DOMA. Still, despite the presence of the Log Cabin Republicans (they must get along great with the Religious Right!) Democrats being in charge is a closer step in those directions.

Karelyn,

As a lesbian, why would you vote Conservative?
____________________________
"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin


Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 230 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (230)