Republican Self LoathingFollow

It's written purely for entertainment purposes, so take it with a grain of salt. I sincerely doubt the author has any real experience against zombies.

That depends on the behavior of the zombies. If they're going off of the slow moving, mindless zombism, then yeah, a semi-automatic rifle would go a long way. If they're the enraged, hyperactive breed of zombie, then a shotgun would provide to be fairly potent.

Fiscal conservative =/= social conservative.

They aren't mutually exclusive.

He does in World War Z.



Well, unless she's a very rich lesbian, it'd be silly for her to vote Republican as she'd benefit more from the Liberal economic policies & social programs. I "get" why the rich vote Republican, as Conservative fiscal policy allows them to keep more of their money.

I don't get why, say, one of the poor gun nuts in northern NH votes Republican as liberal economic policy will provide him with more $ to buy more (legal & registered!) guns.

Ya, he's going to have to give the AK back, but the liberals are so nice they'll even pay him for giving it back.

(With the tax money they got from a Rich guy)


Edited, Jun 14th 2009 3:20am by Omegavegeta

In what way? You don't have to pay white people not to hate black people. I mean I hope not, because if so then I'm getting totally ripped off by the government.

Of course correlation doesn't imply causation, but Ford, GM, and Chrysler have had consistently low average MPG in most categories. MPG has become much more important recently, but it was still important 10 years ago. Compare 1990 with the gas guzzling attitude of the 50s and there is a strong contrast.

Whether it affects fuel efficiency or cost, high horsepower is not a concern fro many Americans. Why pay more for something they won't need?

Most consumers today tend to care about cost, safety, reliability/quality, and fuel efficiency. This is how many foreign manufactures are presenting their products. American manufacturers have been advertising and designing around size and power.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 4:45am by Allegory

I'm Lower Middle Class. 30k yearly.

Yes I would benefit from liberal economic policies in the short term. They are unsustainable though.

There is also the trickle down effect. The better that the rich are doing, the better their business will do (unless they are utterly crooked like ENRON, but that's an entirely different issue), which means more people get hired and get better paid. The same thing of course, happens in reverse. You raise taxes on rich business owners, they respond by raising the prices on the things we buy, because the money has to come from somewhere.

The problem is that liberal economic policies are fundamentally flawed, and ultimately hurt the lower and middle class instead of help them.

...

Likewise, I have never approved of hand-outs. Just because you can get something, doesn't mean you should. Are there people who legitimately should be on government welfare? Yes, I have met plenty of them.

I have also met people who should be on welfare, but chose to take a higher route, work anyway, and live their lives the way they want to. I know someone who is missing both her right leg and right arm, refuses welfare, works for her living, and owns and raises horses. Is she an extreme example? Hell ****ing yeah. Is she still awesome? Hell ****ing yeah.

I have also met tons of people, who's only "disability" is nothing more than abject laziness. My "In-laws" would easily fall under this category. They have never worked a day in their lives, yet they are completely capable of working, with nothing that would prevent them from doing so. Their attitude is "What can I get people to give me?" And they regularly have no qualms about lying about their status in order to get more money, or free food, or whatever it is they are trying to get free at any one day. As far as I'm concerned, such an attitude is disgusting.

If my "in-laws" ever had their means of welfare taken away from them, with zero prospect of them ever getting something for free again... I guarantee within a week, all of them would have a job, and supporting themselves.

Just because you can get something, doesn't mean you deserve it. Social Programs, welfare, etc, should only be going to people who are legitimately incapable of supporting themselves. I can tell you, it isn't even remotely close to that.

...

Besides, even among social programs, I agree more with the Conservative style of social programs, which come in the form of money that you receive only if you improve your social status, instead of maintaining the status quo.

If anything, welfare encourages people to do worse in their life. Which is utterly horrible in my opinion.

My opinion on social issues can mostly be summed up in three lines...
1. Achievement and success should be rewarded.
2. Laziness and underachieving should not be rewarded.
3. The truly incapable should be supported.

The problem with liberal social politics, is that they have 1 and 2 mixed up.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 9:49am by Karelyn

Crude term or not. It is more or less a fact of life that will always be around.

Unless you can someone enact some sorta utopian socialism, where everyone gets paid exactly the same amount of goods, and nobody ever has to purchase anything, because everything is free. And everyone is happy and willing to do the more difficult jobs, even though they could do an easier job and receive the same benefit out of it, or even not work at all and receive the same benefit.

Yeah, if we ever obtain such a utopian society, then the trickle down effect will stop happening.

...

Back in the real world, you cannot tax businesses. You can pretend to tax businesses, but when all is said and done, you've only succeeded in taxing people. When you tax businesses, one of two things happen. Employees get fired or prices go up. Businesses have a budget to balance, and the money has to come from somewhere.

It happens in reverse too. The more money a business is making, the more employees they hire, and the better the employees' pay and benefits become.

Of course, there is a logical limit to the effectiveness in either direction (Yay for Gaussian distribution and bell curves! Statistics is so sexy). But the general principle still stands and functions in the real world whether you like it or not.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 10:36am by Karelyn

Or, the number of employees stays the same as does their compensation and the business owner just gets a little wealthier.



Seriously? Amongst the miasma of assorted social issues clamoring for our attention welfare is the only one that even makes your radar?

He also recommends katanas. ZSG is perhaps the most excoriated and reviled book on the subject that I've ever seen. Some of the things that he says are just @#%^ing idiotic. His writing in WWZ was, however, spectacular, and many of the stories struck some deep chords, such as the one where the family moves to canada, or the one where the lady is airmailing food to miami or something and has to bail out. His advice and occasional self-referential ************* Not so much.


No one in society actually supports themselves.

***




Not when they have a ******* monopoly.

Hi gamestop.

Edited, Jun 14th 2009 11:05am by Pensive