Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 3/23/06 11:11 PM, Elfer wrote: Man, you've got to at least admit that the butterfly ballot wasn't really an intuitive design, what with the chad problems and the candidates with multiple holes beside their names.

Intuitive design? Perhaps not. But the multiple holes thing would not have been a problem if people would have followed the damn arrows pointing to their candidates name

Sure, people who take a few seconds to figure it out would be able to avoid mistakes, but democracy means that you need to accurately represent dumb people and people so old they think they're sandwiches.

Oh... so now we WANT the mentally inept to vote?

I honestly feel like whiny is synonymous with liberal. So when you take that into account, that makes a lot of sense, since the older you get, the more conservative you get. Going from whiny to conservative is just another way of saying going liberal to conservative. Self-reliance and resilience are conservative characteristics, so that baffles me. No one ever goes from conservative to liberal unless you're gay, like David Brock.

As you can see, I'm about as biased as the folks who put this study on to begin with.

Proteas, what is your point? So you think a bunch of old Jews in Florida are Fucking Morons because they voted incorrectly on a poor ballet design. So what?

At 3/24/06 12:19 PM, red_skunk wrote: So what?

So what? We could make the voting system so friggn' easy a kindergartner could figure it out, and there would still be morons out there incapable of figuring out how to cast a ballot correctly. That annoys the living HELL out of me.

At 3/24/06 12:52 PM, Proteas wrote: So what? We could make the voting system so friggn' easy a kindergartner could figure it out, and there would still be morons out there incapable of figuring out how to cast a ballot correctly. That annoys the living HELL out of me.

Get... over... it?

The butterfly ballot proved to be grossly more complicated than more traditional ballots. Just because it gives you jollies and the air of superiority over some folks doesn't change this. The democratic system shouldn't be complicated and fool people – that's totally contradictory to the point.

I dont know. That picture seems extremely easy to use to me...especially if there's arrows pointing to it. I see no reason for complain.

At 3/24/06 01:11 PM, AccessCode wrote: I dont know. That picture seems extremely easy to use to me...especially if there's arrows pointing to it. I see no reason for complain.

Congratulations to you also. You're obviously much smarter than a bunch of senior citizens in Florida. I commend you.

At 3/24/06 11:28 AM, Proteas wrote:

Oh... so now we WANT the mentally inept to vote?

They don't anyway. Very few people vote at all. But considering that many blue collar votes go to Bush, it seems like middle america is low on the totem pole of IQ.

At 3/24/06 11:44 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote: I honestly feel like whiny is synonymous with liberal. So when you take that into account, that makes a lot of sense, since the older you get, the more conservative you get. Going from whiny to conservative is just another way of saying going liberal to conservative. Self-reliance and resilience are conservative characteristics, so that baffles me.

How so? Everything I've read indicates that conservatives tend to adhere to the "strict father" family model where "discipline, authority, order, boundaries, homogenety, purity and self-interest" are primary goals. Liberals, however, follow the "nurturant parent" model, where diversity, social bonds, empathy and fairness are stressed. (Strict father quotes are from "Moral Politics," George Lakoff).

It's really about how we're raised and our morality. Here's another difference based off the same book:

Model conservative citizens have, obviously, conservative values, are self reliant and dicipllines and who believe in reward and punishment etc. Going further, this belief states that these people have been given no advantages or help by the government and that they help others by use of their own personal wealth. My question here is why conservatives tend to SUPPORT corporate welfare but OPPOSE welfare for the disadvantaged persons.

The ideal liberal, rather, says Lakoff, "helps the disadvanaged", "protects those who need protection," and is "socially responsible" while taking "care of himself [or herself] so he [or she] can do all this."

And then...we hate who we hate because of our morals:

Conservatives hate those who oppose "strict father/nuclear family" morality and this system, alopng with those who claim to "protect the public good," and those who oppose the ways that the military and criminal justice systems operate.

While liberals, like myself, tend to hate: those who "exploit the disadvantaged," those whose "activities hurt people or the environment," people who oppose public funds going to scholarships and the arts, and those who are only interested in their own self-interest and profit.

By the way, here's an interesting website: http://www.moral-politics.com/

No one ever goes from conservative to liberal unless you're gay, like David Brock.

That's a very odd statement.

Personally, most of the kids I see whining on this board and other internet forums are liberals.

At 3/24/06 03:33 PM, Wyrlum wrote: Personally, most of the kids I see whining on this board and other internet forums are liberals.

Or as they say. When a Democrat wins the presidency, Republicans complain for about a month. When a Republican wins the presidency, Democrats complain about up to the next election.

And yep, it's still going on.

At 3/24/06 03:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: By the way, here's an interesting website: http://www.moral-politics.com/

I'm familiar with the theory (are you new, or are you Mackid?), and I can say it's nonsense. Liberals either grow up in ghettos where there parents can't support them, or they are born with a large trust fund and taught to felt guilty for it.

And again, my own familial experiences disprove this. I experienced loving parents, had a strict father who I didn't care for till I was a senior in high school, and a compassionate mother. I saw my mother most often, and she's the "liberal." According to that theory, I should be a liberal. My father on the other hand, is not even a hard-ass. He's a nice guy who sees some faults in his son that he had when he was my age, and is annoyed by them. Maybe someday my child will be the same.

Here's the most valid theory: Everyone starts out as a liberal. You're born that way, because you're uneducated and follow your heart. You grow up, attain a decent education, start making money, you get an apartment or a house, and you become a conservative. The plain truth of the matter is that most educated Democratic voters are just following their gut instinct they had as a child. They want to see everyone looked after, but they are looking for easy ways to do it. They'll rationalize this by saying, "The Democratic Party is the party of the little guy."

No one ever goes from conservative to liberal unless you're gay, like David Brock.

That's a very odd statement.

Well he's an odd person. David Brock is the only man I've ever known to go from conservative to liberal, and he's an enigma in himself.

OH yeah, and Proteas is right to point out the fact that these old folks can scan 36 cards of bingo and stamp every G59 in less than 10 seconds, but they can't stamp Al Gore on a ballot. Give me a break. We should make a bingo ballot for old voters.

At 3/24/06 04:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/24/06 03:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: By the way, here's an interesting website: http://www.moral-politics.com/

I'm familiar with the theory (are you new, or are you Mackid?),

C'est moi, Mackid. Changed the name.

and I can say it's nonsense. Liberals either grow up in ghettos where there parents can't support them, or they are born with a large trust fund and taught to felt guilty for it.

That's not true. I'm neither of the above. I'm a fifth generation immigrant. My mom's a lawyer and my dad's a doctor. My mom's parents were a doctor and a scientist (I'm serious!) and my dad was born to an engineer (the first of his family to go to college) and a homemaker (who did other things before that which I can't recall, also went to college). My parents made themselves. I'm not a trust fund baby, far from it. I live among them, but I can't really be one. My upbringing is nothing like that.

He's a nice guy who sees some faults in his son that he had when he was my age, and is annoyed by them. Maybe someday my child will be the same.

You can make that analogy with political liberals too.

The plain truth of the matter is that most educated Democratic voters are just following their gut instinct they had as a child. They want to see everyone looked after, but they are looking for easy ways to do it. They'll rationalize this by saying, "The Democratic Party is the party of the little guy."

So you're saying that democrats are childish? Even the smart ones? Even the professors, the scientists, the doctors, the lawyers? And the democratic party is the only one that supports the little guy. The republicans are the party of apathy to everyone except rich whites.

Well he's an odd person. David Brock is the only man I've ever known to go from conservative to liberal, and he's an enigma in himself.

Point taken. I've heard of a few examples, can't think of them now lol.

And the Democrats are for everyone no matter how stupid it may be, cept for white people.

At 3/24/06 04:14 PM, AccessCode wrote: And the Democrats are for everyone no matter how stupid it may be, cept for white people.

Substantiate that statement, otherwise it's just ignorant.

At 3/24/06 04:18 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

Substantiate that statement, otherwise it's just ignorant.

ACLU.

You need no further explanation.

At 3/24/06 04:10 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 3/24/06 04:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/24/06 03:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

That's not true.

You'll be a republican someday.

The plain truth of the matter is that most educated Democratic voters are just following their gut instinct they had as a child. They want to see everyone looked after, but they are looking for easy ways to do it. They'll rationalize this by saying, "The Democratic Party is the party of the little guy."

So you're saying that democrats are childish? Even the smart ones? Even the professors, the scientists, the doctors, the lawyers? And the democratic party is the only one that supports the little guy. The republicans are the party of apathy to everyone except rich whites.

I'm saying that they are all about sentiments and not about results. They choose to ignore how the welfare state is a detriment to success and how additional funding for public school does nothing for them at all. They ignore how zealous labor unions and government interference with healthcare have skyrocketed the price of healthcare.

They ignore this but they vote Democratic so they don't feel guilty for success. To be honest, being liberal is a sin of omission. It's saying, "I don't really care, but I'll vote like I do." It's a bandaid for real life problems that can only be solved by individuals.

At 3/24/06 04:23 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/24/06 04:10 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 3/24/06 04:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/24/06 03:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

That's not true.

You'll be a republican someday.

Oh? Since when?

I'm saying that they are all about sentiments and not about results. They choose to ignore how the welfare state is a detriment to success and how additional funding for public school does nothing for them at all. They ignore how zealous labor unions and government interference with healthcare have skyrocketed the price of healthcare.

The "welfare state" doesn't exist. I would think that the way to summarize how republicans feel about helping others and privitization (sp sucks, I know) is this: "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."-George W. Bush. Government interference hasn't raised the price of health care, it's malpractice insurance and incidental costs caused by a lack of limits on damages.

They ignore this but they vote Democratic so they don't feel guilty for success.

I don't really see where you're going with this.

To be honest, being liberal is a sin of omission. It's saying, "I don't really care, but I'll vote like I do." It's a bandaid for real life problems that can only be solved by individuals.

You cannot prove that, therefore it's not valid.

At 3/25/06 12:14 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 3/24/06 04:23 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/24/06 04:10 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

At 3/24/06 04:01 PM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

At 3/24/06 03:16 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote:

That's not true.

You'll be a republican someday.

Oh? Since when?

Well, if you don't become a republican someday, it's because you'll think back to your days talking to strangers on forums. And you'll think of me and say, "No, I can't be a Republican because then I'll be as obnoxious (and as right) as that guy ML." You've spent a lot of time reinforcing your beliefs in forums, but things change. You start making money, the government takes it away, you wonder why, you look into the reasons and realize they are stupid reasons, and you come to the undeniable conclusion that our government is no better than it was 100 years ago.

I'm saying that they are all about sentiments and not about results. They choose to ignore how the welfare state is a detriment to success and how additional funding for public school does nothing for them at all. They ignore how zealous labor unions and government interference with healthcare have skyrocketed the price of healthcare.

The "welfare state" doesn't exist.

A scholarship is welfare. A welfare check, whether it is social security or TANF is still welfare. Medicare is welfare. Medicaid is welfare. How you can sit there and say that the welfare state doesn't exist is erroneous.

I would think that the way to summarize how republicans feel about helping others and privitization (sp sucks, I know) is this: "They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."-George W. Bush. Government interference hasn't raised the price of health care, it's malpractice insurance and incidental costs caused by a lack of limits on damages.

I don't care about social security so much. These people have worked all their lives and should have something. I think they could do better on their own is all. Welfare checks from TANF worry me: they breed laziness and kill potential.

Right, because going to the doctor for an artificial price of 10 bucks and having the insurance company pick up the rest isn't driving up the price of healthcare. If you don't understand this, I'll wait for another 4 years until you take your first microeconomics course.

They ignore this but they vote Democratic so they don't feel guilty for success.

I don't really see where you're going with this.

To be honest, being liberal is a sin of omission. It's saying, "I don't really care, but I'll vote like I do." It's a bandaid for real life problems that can only be solved by individuals.

You cannot prove that, therefore it's not valid.

You're right, it's an opinion. But I find your ideas on helping people misguided.

At 3/25/06 01:07 AM, mofomojo wrote:

At 3/22/06 10:44 PM, JMHX wrote: Remember the whiny, insecure kid in nursery school, the one who always thought everyone was out to get him, and was always running to the teacher with complaints? Chances are he grew up to be a conservative.

At least, he did if he was one of 95 kids from the Berkeley area that social scientists have been tracking for the last 20 years. The confident, resilient, self-reliant kids mostly grew up to be liberals.

Truth : Liberals hae common sense

They can speel too, eh?

The conservatives were the ones who were yelling at everyone calling them a fag and stealing their lunch money.

Generally criminals are a-political. But they are generally liberals since liberals feel sorry for criminals more than victims.

The conservatives are the ones suppressing the fags and stealing the government's money for a greater political and private interests. They also use ad hominem attacks on their opponents, another bully attack.

As if everything you've said in this thread isn't ad hominem partisan nonsense? Give me a break. I don't even understand the first sentence: it's that braindead. But just an aside, maybe a wake up call to some half-assed mods doing a half assed job: is the word fag offensive or not? I got banned for a week for using the word fag, but when this twerp refers to gays as fags it's all good? When liberals on this board put fag in their signature it's cool? Doesn't matter what point they are trying to make. All I'm asking for is some consistency.

Liberals are usually patient people. USUALLY. Especially the politicians. Liberal politicians are incredibly patient, Conservative politicians tell them to QUOTE :"Fuck off!".

No one in this country is patient. We love instant gratification. Liberal politicians are worse than conservative politicians. They can't even wait 2 and a half more years to get the presidency back. And they whine. That whole "Fuck you" incident was caused by Leaky Leahy being a twat. He deserved it. I wish Cheney would have shot him.

At 3/25/06 01:25 AM, MoralLibertarian wrote:

Generally criminals are a-political. But they are generally liberals since liberals feel sorry for criminals more than victims.

"As if everything you've said in this thread isn't ad hominem partisan nonsense?". That's a gross generalisation, Liberals care about the causes of crime rather than arresting people and throwing away the key in some misguided sense of 'justice'

I agree - people turn to crime because they feel they have to. Anyone can seethe best solution is to give education and opportunity so people don't feel they have to.

This side debate is a bit irrelevant to the topic, I think we should nip it in the bud.

8? You guys are lucky. We start at 7:30. Which means I get up at 6 and get to school at or slightly before 7.

But honestly, it's important to stop the motivation for crime.

At 3/25/06 09:19 AM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: But honestly, it's important to stop the motivation for crime.

Motivation is partly the potential for rationalization. So part of the motivation is a bunch of limey sapsuckers who go out and say, "This wasn't his fault, this is OUR fault! Society made him do this!" It's a total recall of personal responsibility.

feel the need to kill people, accidentally drop bombs on houses; essentially go to war as often as possible.

More like go to war when needed. Blame 9/11 and Bin Laden for starting this mess.

These people feel that our nation, and their patriotism is under attack by countless scapegoats.

http://www.team-swap.com/Images/9-11.jpg

These people, generally, are afraid constantly of attack, but guise it with words like caution and the word "do not panic, we are making neccesarily taking precautions", which is the equivalent of boarding up your house while on barbituates. Whether the threat be terrorists, communists

or minorities, conservatives have been dead afraid of it.

Considering that terrorists have been bomb shit left and right, I don't see why you need to be afraid of people who believe suicide bombing will get to heaven. Communism? They have a large nice history of violence and broken countries.

Conservatives are insecure bullies, from Adolf Hitler, to Dick Cheney, at some extent they are insecure.

Godwin's law again. BTW, Hitler was a socialist. You know, big government, taking away guns. Sounds like the left to me.

Liberals believe in common sense, they believe that appearances do not seperate us, they believe that our sexual activities do not differentiate us, they believe in equal pay for equal work and individual liberty.

Liberals have common sense since when? They want to take away people's guns, think government was behind 9/11, blindeye on terrorist attacks, and use their family member's corpses for political gain. Real nice.

And I have yet to see a liberal who believes in working hard. If you join a union, you don't believe in working hard for your money.

http://news.bbc.co.u..i/europe/4822986.stm

France, where young kids are protesting a labour law that allows kids under 21 to be fired for a reason. Unions and kids protest (and like all left protest marches, end in violence) because they believe that people should only be fired under extreme circumstances.

Left doesn't want to work, they want a welfare state where big government takes care of them.

Much of this is drained out when one of these forte's gains in strength in a Liberal, for example, if they are incredibly for the anti-racism movement, they begin to lack in individual liberty and start arresteing racists, a practice already approved of in Canada.

Not a lot people agree with this. It is a hit to freedom of speech.

At 3/24/06 01:05 PM, red_skunk wrote: The democratic system shouldn't be complicated and fool people – that's totally contradictory to the point.

You know how we can solve this problem? Quit changing the damn polling machines with every election. People get used to one style of polling machine, then it get's changed on them.

At 3/24/06 03:00 PM, GSgt_Liberal wrote: They don't anyway. Very few people vote at all. But considering that many blue collar votes go to Bush, it seems like middle america is low on the totem pole of IQ.

At 3/25/06 01:07 AM, mofomojo wrote: Truth : Liberals hae common sense, Conservatives (today) are bullies.

At 3/25/06 01:21 AM, mofomojo wrote: Conservatives are insecure bullies, from Adolf Hitler, to Dick Cheney, at some extent they are insecure.

Liberals, OTOH, are persistant and proud

And you wonder why you keep elections.... :-D

At 3/25/06 01:15 PM, Proteas wrote: You know how we can solve this problem? Quit changing the damn polling machines with every election. People get used to one style of polling machine, then it get's changed on them.

That's interesting, the polling machines where I live haven't changed ever since I can remember, which is a decade at least. They are the paper punch ballet doohickeys which feature massive error rates. But I'm sure you're well-informed about the polling machines changing every election. Yes. Where did you get this information proteas? I'm curious.

And you wonder why you keep elections.... :-D

Everyone is making a fool of themselves in this thread. It's not limited to any politics.

At 3/25/06 01:19 PM, red_skunk wrote: Where did you get this information proteas? I'm curious.

Personal experience.

Everyone is making a fool of themselves in this thread. It's not limited to any politics.

.... screw you.

But that is something else to consider about the whole 2000 election though... if it was a system that had been in place for quite some time, why were there so many errors? Why were there so many complaints about people not knowing how it worked?