| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Americans: Which of the following do you primarily associate with Republican voters? |
| Barking-mad right-wing religious fundamentalists & zealots |
|
34% |
[ 8 ] |
| War-mongerers |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
| Neocons |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Those concerned with national security |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
| Paleocons |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Fiscal conservatives |
|
4% |
[ 1 ] |
| Social conservatives |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Libertairan Republicans |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
| Friends, family and neighbours |
|
13% |
[ 3 ] |
| Other |
|
8% |
[ 2 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 23 |
|
| Author |
Message |
IncognitoHFX
Joined: 06 May 2007
Location: Yeongtong, Suwon
|
 Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:36 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| bangbayed wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
I can't fathom why anyone would want to vote for a political party that is backed by Hollywood and groups like MoveOn.org.
|
Republicans also believe that Hollywood is a main reason for people voting Democrat. It's a double-edged sword (thanks to attitudes such as this) and any benefits are negated by this backlash. If you think Hollywood is the main reason people are voting for Obama, you really should read the headlines more carefully. |
I bet you a LOT of women are going to vote for Obama because Oprah said to. |
Good. Go Oprah.
Simple people are tools whom intelligent people should use to achieve their own goals. If that means brainwashing them to vote for a candidate because smarter, better informed people like the candidate, then mission accomplished.
I hope Hollywood continues to find impressionable people to vote for Obama.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jandar
Joined: 11 Jun 2008
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 4:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Oprah Loons no less. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 5:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Oprah has shown signs of naive gullability in the past. What kind of person would follow her so obsequiously as her fans typically do...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IncognitoHFX
Joined: 06 May 2007
Location: Yeongtong, Suwon
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Oprah has shown signs of naive gullability in the past. What kind of person would follow her so obsequiously as her fans typically do...? |
Didn't Oprah invite the guy back onto her show just to make him apologize? I'm not an Oprah fan and can only remember watching her show once or twice, but I give credit where it's due... she did nothing to cover up her mistake.
Oprah told Frey that she felt "really duped" but that, "more importantly, I feel that you betrayed millions of readers." She also apologized for her previous telephoned statement to Larry King Live � when Frey appeared on that show January 11, 2006 � that what mattered was not the truth of Frey's book, but its value as a therapeutic tool for addicts. Oprah said, "I left the impression that the truth is not important."[9] All of Oprah's reactions as well as video clips of her interview with Frey are found within her book club's website.[10] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 6:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| IncognitoHFX wrote: |
| ...she did nothing to cover up her mistake. |
Before or after others had done the investigative and follow-up work she should have done before proclaiming this book "an Oprah Book?" |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nathanrutledge
Joined: 01 May 2008
Location: Marakesh
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Adventurer wrote: |
You have a point, but many democrats, in the past, were to the left of centre or more left than they were say under Bill Clinton. I am wondering considering all the insanity we've seen from the private sector if there can be a shift to the Left. I, frankly, would welcome it. There needs to be more of a Keynsian shift, because when those who run the private sector are left to their devices, they become too predatory and financial privateers at the expense of the general public as we've seen time and time again. You would think people learned that back in 1929, but somehow the right wanted to have another go at going to something too close to what existed before the New Deal. It's a bad idea. |
The recent approval by the government of commercial banks buying investment banks is actually a reversal on laws that were passed after the depression to protect checking deposits (commercial banks) from failure due to investments. Also, I must disagree with you on the Keynsian shift. We need a Ricardian shift for the whole country, not just the business sector.
As for the original topic, pkang makes a good point. I myself am conservative economically, and socially indifferent, for the most part. The European commentators need to realize that we have a 2 party system in America and until another Ross Perot comes around (with billions of dollars and a decent enough platform to pull 20% of the vote), the two parties will continue to be diametrically opposed on many issues. It is really becoming a "lesser of two evils" decision.
I do have a feeling though that we are at a point in American history where the parties are going to shift their alignments again. The Democrats made serious concessions in 2006 by supporting PRO gun and PRO life Democratic candidates to win in the South. At the same time, the Republicans, who had been the champion of small government and personal responsibility, have presided over one of the largest expansions of the federal government and have placed social issues at the center of their table for years. If John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan could see Ted Kennedy and George W, they would be spinning in their graves. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| nathanrutledge wrote: |
As for the original topic, pkang makes a good point. I myself am conservative economically, and socially indifferent, for the most part. The European commentators need to realize that we have a 2 party system in America and until another Ross Perot comes around (with billions of dollars and a decent enough platform to pull 20% of the vote), the two parties will continue to be diametrically opposed |
Exactly. Many Americans are forced to pick a side. Generally, economics is more important than social issues. So, Americans vote with their wallets?
Why not? John Q America's life will not change if gays can get married. Raising or lowering taxes, increased/decreased healthcare DOES affect John W America. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bangbayed
Joined: 01 Dec 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon Oct 13, 2008 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| That's an incredibly messy comparison, even giving you the benefit of the most generous interpretation. Mao basically manufactured the cultural revolution from the top down to retain power. Reagan exploited cultural positions already existing among the populace to unite the current GOP coalition. Mao immediately spilled the blood of hundreds of thousands as a result. Reagan merely sowed the seeds for failed policy that took years to manifest. |
I guess I hit a nerve. Dude, I didn't write a thesis, I just made a comparison in regards to how two very powerful politicans used culture to solidify a political base. Defenders will say it's done for the good of the country; critics will say it's done to retain power. All politics is manufactured. If you believe otherwise, then good luck. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
